Colorado tried forcing a Christian designer to make websites for gay 'marriages.' Now, it has to pay up.



Lorie Smith is the owner of 303 Creative, a graphic design firm based in Colorado.

While generally happy to produce work for any paying customer, Smith wanted to offer wedding-related services exclusively to straight couples because complicity in the celebration of homosexual unions would otherwise "compromise [her] Christian witness." Since Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act would have forced her to do just that, she took the Democrat-run state to court — and won.

Months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Smith's favor and a federal circuit court barred the state from enforcing the CADA's communication and accommodation clauses against the designer, Colorado officials have come to a settlement, agreeing Tuesday to pay a hefty sum to the guarantors of their defeat.

"As the Supreme Court said, I'm free to create art consistent with my beliefs without fear of Colorado punishing me anymore," Smith said in a statement. "This is a win not just for me but for all Americans — for those who share my beliefs and for those who hold different views."

Smith's original complaint filed in 2016 claimed that Colorado law stripped her and her organization "of the freedom to choose what messages to create and to convey in the marriage context."

'The First Amendment’s protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy.'

The complaint cited a section of the CADA that prohibits a person to refuse, withhold from, or deny the "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of a place of public accommodation" to an individual on the basis of sexual preference, "gender identity," and "gender expression." Another clause in the CADA prohibits individuals from advertising that refusal.

The lawsuit asked the U.S. District Court to restore the constitutional freedoms of Smith and 303 Creative "to speak their beliefs and not be compelled to speak messages contrary to those beliefs, and to ensure that other creative professionals in Colorado have the same freedoms."

The case ultimately got kicked up the Supreme Court, which decided in June 2023 that the First Amendment bars Colorado from coercing a website designer to create content with which she disagrees.

Justice Neil Gorsuch noted in the high court's majority opinion, "The First Amendment’s protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy. In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance."

"All manner of speech — from 'pictures, films, paintings, drawings, and engravings,' to 'oral utterance and the printed word' — qualify for the First Amendment’s protections; no less can hold true when it comes to speech like Ms. Smith’s conveyed over the Internet," wrote the conservative justice.

"Consistent with the First Amendment, the Nation's answer is tolerance, not coercion," added Gorsuch.

'No government has the right to silence individuals for expressing these ideas.'

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion for the leftist minority that the ruling was "profoundly wrong" and will "mark gays and lesbians for second-class status."

Other social liberals similarly bemoaned the court's affirmation of free speech, including CNN talking head Van Jones, who said, "If you care about inclusion and equal opportunity and care about folks who don’t have much and are trying to make it today, this is a tragedy."

Colorado Attorney General Philip Weiser, who unsuccessfully represented the state, said at the time that the ruling was "far out of step with the will of the American people and American values."

According to Alliance Defending Freedom, the legal group that represented Smith, the Supreme Court's decision has already been cited nearly 1,000 times in court opinions, briefs, and various legal publications.

Colorado's Civil Rights Division agreed this week to pick up the bill for the CADA's defanging, covering over $1.5 million in attorneys' fees.

Weiser's office confirmed to the Denver Gazette the settlement over the fees but declined to comment.

Kristen Waggoner, the CEO and president of Alliance Defending Freedom, stated, "The government can't force Americans to say things they don't believe, and Colorado officials have paid and will continue to pay a high price when they violate this foundational freedom."

"For the past 12 years, Colorado has targeted people of faith and forced them to express messages that violate their conscience and that advance the government’s preferred ideology. First Amendment protections are non-negotiable," continued Waggoner. "Billions of people around the world believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and that men and women are biologically distinct. No government has the right to silence individuals for expressing these ideas or to punish those who decline to express different views."

Smith expressed hope that "that everyone will celebrate the court's decision upholding this right for each of us to speak freely."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Jack Smith To Resign as Special Counsel Before Trump Takes Office: Report

Special Counsel Jack Smith, who has led two federal prosecutions against Donald Trump, will resign along with other members of his team before the president-elect assumes office in January, sources told the New York Times. 

The post Jack Smith To Resign as Special Counsel Before Trump Takes Office: Report appeared first on .

Judge Postpones Ruling on Trump's Presidential Immunity in NY Hush Money Case

The judge presiding over Donald Trump’s New York hush money case on Tuesday postponed a decision on whether charges against the president-elect should be dropped in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity.

The post Judge Postpones Ruling on Trump's Presidential Immunity in NY Hush Money Case appeared first on .

Judge Reinstates Plea Deal for 9/11 Masterminds

A military judge reinstated the Defense Department’s plea deal with the accused masterminds of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, saying it is “valid,” “enforceable,” and must remain in effect.

The post Judge Reinstates Plea Deal for 9/11 Masterminds appeared first on .

Parents have constitutional right to opt kids out of non-curricular trans propaganda, court rules



A federal trial court recently delivered a victory for parental rights, recognizing their continued existence in the face of radical LGBT activists' efforts to usurp parental authority and indoctrinate other people's children.

First-grade Pennsylvania teacher Megan Williams compelled her young students to "observe" so-called Transgender Awareness Day — subjecting 6- and 7-year-old kids to non-curricular propaganda about "gender identity" and sex changes.

Williams, a Black Lives Matter activist who transitioned her own son who had been in first grade at the time, went so far as to tell the impressionable children in her care that their "parents ma[d]e a guess whether they're a boy or a girl" and may have been wrong.

Upon learning of this clandestine effort to confuse and indoctrinate their children, parents — who were provided with neither notice nor opt-outs — complained. However, the principal of Jefferson Elementary as well as the superintendent and now-retired assistant superintendent of Mt. Lebanon School District backed Williams.

'Parents have a Constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of their children, including their education.'

Ostensibly left with no other option, three mothers — a Catholic, a Mormon, and a nonreligious woman, all three of whom believe in the inseparability of biological sex and gender — filed a lawsuit against Williams, the school, the district, and district officials in June 2022 with the help of the legal group Alliance Defending Freedom.

The parents sought a moratorium on the instruction in the district "on gender dysphoria and transgender transitioning"; parental notice and opt-out rights on the topic absent such a prohibition; compensatory damages; and punitive damages.

The parents' complaint noted at the outset that "parents have a Constitutionally protected liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of their children, including their education," highlighting the U.S. Supreme Court's recognition both that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to "control the education of their [children] and that parents have the right "to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control."

'I'm in the right here.'

Last week, Judge Joy Conti of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania largely agreed and ruled in their favor, underscoring that:

parents have a constitutional right to reasonable and realistic advance notice and the ability to opt their elementary-age children of noncurricular instruction on transgender topics and to not have requirements for notice and opting out of those topics that are more stringent than those for other sensitive topics.

The parents, whose complaint accused Williams of "grooming" at least one vulnerable child in her classroom, were confounded by how the school and the Mt. Lebanon School District, which had previously provided parental notice and opt-out rights when it came to classroom engagements with sensitive topics — such as the Holocaust, slavery, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, sex education, Black Lives Matter, and Planned Parenthood — effectively made Williams' LGBT propaganda session mandatory.

Williams, who subsequently stressed, "I'm in the right here," took full advantage of the leeway afforded her by principal Brett Bielewicz and the district, reading two works of LGBT propaganda to her students: "Why Aidan Became a Brother" by female transvestite Kyle Lukoff and "Introducing Teddy: A Gentle Story About Gender and Friendship" by radical LGBT activist Jessica Walton.

'Williams' conduct struck at the heart of Plaintiffs' own families and their relationship with their own young children.'

The first book is about a girl whose parents let her masquerade as a boy, going so far as to let her change her name. The parents in the book tell their cross-dressing child: "When you were born, we didn't know you were going to be our son. We made some mistakes, but you helped us fix them."

The second book is about a male teddy bear that tries to become a female teddy bear.

Judge Conti noted in her ruling, "A teacher instructing first-graders and reading books to show that their parents' beliefs about their children's gender identity may be wrong directly repudiates parental authority. Williams' conduct struck at the heart of Plaintiffs' own families and their relationship with their own young children."

The judge noted that Williams usurped parental duties in an effort to inculcate her beliefs about gender ideology in the plaintiffs' children, causing confusion.

"The students' confusion in this case illustrates how difficult it is for a first-grader when a teacher's instruction conflicts with their Parents' religious and moral beliefs," wrote Conti. "The heart of parental authority on matters of the greatest importance within their own family is undermined when a teacher tells first-graders their parents may be wrong about whether the student is a boy or a girl."

Judge Conti went further, suggesting Williams' conduct "showed intolerance and disrespect for the religious or moral beliefs and authority of the Parents."

Vincent Wagner, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, said in a statement, "Parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children. School districts violate that right by leaving parents out of key decisions about their own children."

"Parents' fundamental, constitutional right to make decisions about how to raise their children includes the right to the information they need to make those decisions," added Wagner. "Without notice and a real chance to opt their children out of instruction like this, parents can't exercise their constitutional rights."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

New York Mayor Eric Adams Pleads Not Guilty to Corruption Charges

NEW YORK (Reuters)—New York City mayor Eric Adams pleaded not guilty on Friday to federal charges of accepting bribes and illegal campaign contributions from Turkish nationals, as the Democrat resists mounting calls from within his own party to resign.

The post New York Mayor Eric Adams Pleads Not Guilty to Corruption Charges appeared first on .

Report: Austin’s Reversal of Plea Deal for KSM and Others May Not Hold Up

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s reversal last month of a plea deal for the accused masterminds of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks may not hold up in court, as defense lawyers argue that he acted too late.

The post Report: Austin’s Reversal of Plea Deal for KSM and Others May Not Hold Up appeared first on .

Judge Delays Trump Hush Money Sentencing Until After Election

NEW YORK (Reuters)—A New York judge on Friday delayed former president Donald Trump's sentencing on charges stemming from hush money paid to a porn star until Nov. 26. 

The post Judge Delays Trump Hush Money Sentencing Until After Election appeared first on .

SCOTUS lets Biden-Harris admin continue denying federal funds to Oklahoma because it won't refer mothers for abortion



The Biden-Harris administration has withheld millions of dollars in federal funds from Oklahoma over its refusal to provide abortion referrals to pregnant women.

The pro-life state sued the Biden-Harris Department of Health and Human Services and its secretary, Xavier Becerra, earlier this year, seeking a reinstatement of over $4.5 million in family-planning grants. The case was kicked up through the courts until ultimately the state's application for writ of injunction went before the U.S. Supreme Court.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court court denied Oklahoma's request, indicating that Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch would have granted the application.

Background

The grant program at the heart of the case was established in 1970 under Title X of the Public Health Service Act. Congress tasked the HHS with determining the eligibility requirements for the funds.

In 2021, the Biden-Harris HHS renewed two conditions: first, that family-planning projects must provide pregnant women with the opportunity to receive "neutral, factual information and nondirective counseling" regarding possible options, including abortion. Second, projects had to provide a referral regarding all options when requested.

The following year, the Oklahoma State Department of Health was approved for one such grant — from April 2022 to March 2023. However, just months into the term, Oklahoma's abortion ban took effect, and the Supreme Court issued its Dobbs ruling, indicating there is no nationwide right to an abortion.

After Dobbs, the Biden-Harris HHS rushed to inform Oklahoma and other grant recipients that the high court's decision would not free them from their supposed obligation to continue referring pregnant women for abortion in order to receive the federal grant money.

Oklahoma effectively told the federal government to pound sand, changing its policies on the basis of state law.

The HHS rejected Oklahoma's changes and suggested the state could comply by other means; namely, by providing pregnant women with the phone number for a glorified abortion referral hotline.

Oklahoma rejected that half-measure and stopped sharing information about the hotline, prompting the Biden-Harris administration to terminate the grant — a strategy it has pursued also with Tennessee.

'Diminishing healthcare services in this way harms the public interest.'

Oklahoma challenged the decision. When a federal judge declined to compel the Biden-Harris administration to cough up the money, Oklahoma appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, which ruled 2-1 to allow the HHS to continue withholding the money.

Arguments

Oklahoma noted that despite the Weldon Amendment — which bars federal agencies and programs from subjecting "any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions" — the HHS stripped it of all Title X funds because its OSDH "declined to refer for abortions after Oklahoma's historic abortion prohibition was revitalized in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization."

The state asked the high court to consider whether the HHS had indeed violated the Weldon Amendment as well as whether it was violating the Constitution's spending clause by requiring abortion referrals.

Oklahoma also argued that Congress' spending power precluded it from delegating the grant eligibility requirements to the HHS, reported the New York Times.

According to SCOTUSblog, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who represented the Biden-Harris administration, told Supreme Court justices that the Weldon Amendment has not been violated because the OSDH is "not protected" under the amendment.

Prelogar also suggested that the requirement for abortion referrals did not violate the Constitution's spending clause because Congress "routinely conditions federal grants on compliance with requirements contained in agency regulations, and this Court has repeatedly upheld such requirements."

The Biden-Harris administration's representative further suggested to the justices that contrary to Oklahoma's characterization of the funds as a critical "part of the frontline of health care" in the state, this was ultimately a dispute with "modest practical stakes."

Several pro-life and religious medical associations who previously filed an amicus curiae with the 10th Circuit, stressed that the HHS' rule "threatens to reduce the resources available to members of the public who seek fertility services, family-planning information, and other medical services from healthcare professionals who share their beliefs about abortion and the sanctity of human life. Diminishing healthcare services in this way harms the public interest."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Legal professionals slam Jack Smith for latest indictment against Trump: ‘Stretched the law’



Special counsel Jack Smith, appointed by the Biden-Harris administration’s Department of Justice, filed a superseding indictment against Republican presidential nominee and former President Donald Trump on Tuesday evening.

Legal professionals, including George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, former assistant U.S. attorney Andy McCarthy, and former federal prosecutor and former Trump attorney Jim Trusty, slammed Smith for the new indictment submitted in response to the Supreme Court’s July presidential immunity ruling.

'Going nowhere before the election.'

Smith’s latest legal action includes the same four charges he filed against Trump in the original indictment in August 2023 accusing the former president of federal election subversion in the 2020 presidential race. However, this revised indictment, handed down just 70 days before the upcoming election, attempts to address the Supreme Court’s ruling that declared presidents are entitled to immunity for official acts.

Trump is also facing three other separate indictments, including the New York criminal trial where he is awaiting sentencing slated for September, an alleged election interference case in Georgia that is stalled in the courts, and the classified documents case that United States District Judge Aileen Cannon threw out. Smith recently filed an appeal against Cannon’s decision.

Trusty told “CNN News Central” that Smith’s latest indictment could hit a “huge land mine” because it is attempting to “anticipate how the judge would rule on this official acts quandary.”

While the Supreme Court determined that Trump is immune from official acts, it did not outline what constitutes an unofficial versus official act, which will be left up to the lower courts to determine.

“So he’s anticipating that, but it’s really interesting because the opinion says, not just that immunized information is not properly before the court at trial, but that it contaminates the grand jury process. If you include that information in pursuing an indictment, that’s a huge land mine,” Trusty explained. “The problem is if he guesses wrong in one instance, like in other words, if he says, ‘oh, the president was consulting Mike Pence as president of the Senate, not as vice president,’ which is part of this new indictment, then if he gets it wrong once, he’s got the same problem.”

“He’s got to go back to the grand jury, re-indict for the third time based on this ruling coming from the Supreme Court. So it’s interesting, it’s taking the initiative, but it doesn’t necessarily make it a bulletproof indictment,” Trusty added.

Turley claimed that Smith has “always played right up the margin,” noting that “at times he has crossed over.”

“He was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court on probably his previous most famous case because he stretched the law, and that has been a signature of his, and I think he’s still doing it,” Turley stated, referring to a case against former Virginia Republican Governor Robert McDonnell and his wife where the Supreme Court ultimately overruled the conviction.

McCarthy called the indictment against Trump “lawfare,” speculating that the case “is going nowhere before the election and I don’t think it’s going anywhere before we have a new president.”

He noted that regardless of the revised indictment, there is “still going to be a live immunity issue, which means Trump will be able to appeal to the D.C. circuit and the Supreme Court.”

Senator Rick Scott (R-Florida) told Newsmax on Wednesday that Smith’s new indictment is “just disgusting,” pointing to the fact that the charges were filed roughly two months before the election. He accused the Biden-Harris administration of using any means necessary to win the presidential race.

“This is complete election interference, and the American people need to wake up,” Scott said.

Trump responded Tuesday to Smith’s revised indictment on social media, arguing that “the whole case should be thrown out and dismissed on Presidential immunity grounds.”

He accused Smith of rewriting “the exact same case in an effort to circumvent the Supreme Court decision.”

Trump called Smith’s actions “shocking” and an “unprecedented abuse of the criminal justice system.”

“This is merely an attempt to INTERFERE WITH THE ELECTION, and distract the American People from the catastrophes Kamala Harris has inflicted on our Nation, like the Border Invasion, Migrant Crime, Rampant Inflation, the threat of World War III, and more,” Trump wrote.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!