Yes, she really is this obtuse.
Kristen Waggoner is the attorney for 303 Creative in Colorado, a web design company run by a woman named Lorie Smith. Lorie wanted to branch into making wedding announcement sites, but because she is one of the two billion Christians on the planet who believe in a God who expressly defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman (and specifically condemns same-sex behavior), she did not want to make websites for LGBTQETC "marriages."
She sued the state of Colorado in 2016 because she was informed that she couldn't do this under the state's civil rights laws. Now, the case is pending in front of the Supreme Court.
But the Court's newest justice thought it worthy to compare the belief on marriage and sexuality that has forged civilizations over thousands of years to the arbitrary color of one's skin.
And in the process, this supposed legal superstar was destroyed by a random lawyer who understands common sense and the law.
Seriously, who in their right mind would compare these things? Are there any people out there who are denying black people Christmas shoots? Can you find me a single person out there who would exclude black people from such a thing?
What about the other way around?
Waggoner points out that the law elevates "message" over "status." In essence, ESPECIALLY in artistic endeavors, an artist has the right to be selective in ways that other entities, like businesses, can't be in routine hiring or service provided to people.
In other words, you can't refuse to serve a man food or sell him groceries because he is black or white, but you can hire an all-white cast for a movie about 13th-century England or choose to use white actors for a "It's A Wonderful Life" photoshoot. It's also legal to create entirely racist art that explicitly condemns people based on immutable genetic categories like skin color or sex, just as it's legal for an artist to create grotesque, sacrilegious, and pornographic content that offends.
Waggoner points out that this idea of "messaging" has also been established within the law to apply to the compulsion to force someone to make something for you. Forcing someone to promote the sexual union of two men is not the same as forcing them to serve coffee to a black person.
The problem is that the Left is not only racist, but possesses a childlike comprehension of basic biology. Jackson Brown couldn't define what a woman is in her confirmation hearings, after all.
In the same way it can't define XX chromosomes, the Left assumes that being gay is an immutable biological characteristic like the color of your eyes or hair. They believe being gay is written into your DNA, despite no actual scientific evidence to support what is essentially their religious viewpoint – a dogmatic belief based in faith that they wish to make the standard for society.
They love to tell you that the conservative Christians are the religious zealots, but boy do they put everyone else to shame with their own cultish fervor.
The Left then takes their belief that gayness is genetic and imposes another fantastical belief on others: If being LGBTQABCDEFG is genetic, it must be normal and good as opposed to equally valid theory that it is an aberration or disease (I'm using the argument that a secular biologist would make regarding genetic traits and the survival of species).
They then go further and say that if it is good, it must be celebrated. They then go even further and say that it must not only be celebrated by the faithful, but all parades, weddings, and other events to publicize these religious festivities must be celebrated by those who oppose them.
And if people will not celebrate – if they do not bow down before this religious idol – they will be thrown into a fiery furnace for their disobedience.
Flip the script for a moment. Imagine that an atheist web designer didn't want to make a website for a Christian apologetics event that trains pastors to convert atheists. Would any court bat an eye? The web designer would simply state that designing such a site goes against his personal beliefs and that would be the end of it.
Or, as another example, can you imagine Jackson-Brown arguing that a vegan designer should be forced to make a website for a meat expo? Of course not!
The only reason she argues such illogical things in this case is because she does not have a good comprehension of the law and her jurisprudence is rooted in her personal ideological and religious beliefs.
