SCOTUS Should Uphold the Right of Religious People to Refuse to Serve the LGBT Agenda

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

53% :The ruling is utterly divorced from the real meaning of the First Amendment.
52% : The First Amendment reads as follows:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
52% : The amendment bans six kinds of government action: (1) establishing -- i.e., giving preferential treatment to (pdf) -- any particular religion, (2) prohibiting free exercise of religion, (3) abridging "the freedom of speech," (4) abridging "the freedom ... of the press," (5) abridging the right of peaceful assembly, and (6) abridging the right to petition.
50% : However, Colorado authorities claim the law empowers them to mandate specifically that she design websites for same-sex marriages.
49% : As originally understood, the First Amendment does not distinguish between political, artistic, or commercial messages.
46% : There she draws the line: Promoting same-sex marriage, she says, "would compromise my Christian witness and tell a story about marriage that contradicts God's true story of marriage -- the very story He is calling me to promote."
44% : This essay explains why, under the original meaning of the First Amendment, Smith should win.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.