https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/arizona-supreme-court-upholds-free-speech-religious-freedom/

A recent court decision in Arizona is being celebrated as a lofty victory for freedom. You would think a national holiday is in order. Of course I agree completely with the opinion that a business should NOT be forced to provide services that conflict with their religious beliefs but what I find more compelling about this story in particular is how it exhibits the absurdity of the right-wing culture war. In this case, the fact that the victory is against an enemy that doesn't even exist.

I read about this in the National Review, probably the most famous source of right-wing propaganda. The article emphasizes the righteous victory of the ruling that the two artists and owners of a business "Brush & Nib Studios" should not be forced to provide services that conflict with their believes, such as designing wedding invitations for same-sex weddings. You can almost hear the celebratory fireworks as you read the article. But I also noticed a complete omission of any detail about the case itself other than the odd reference to the business owners as plaintiffs, not defendants.

As far as we know, the business owners were not forced the provide any such service to anyone and from a constitutional standpoint, no such offense is legally permissible anyway. It appears that this is a case where a business and/or it's legal representation was attacking a city ordinance that prohibits public accommodations from discriminating against people of protected status -- which includes sexual orientation.

Well, designing wedding invitations is NOT a public accommodation. This is what so many people fail to realize. Constitutional law only applies to government, hence the term "public accommodation". So even if a same-sex couple WAS to demand service from "Brush & Nib Studios", which apparently never happened, preexisting laws against discrimination wouldn't apply and and it would be a simple open and shut case. The fact is private business has every right to refuse service and they always have.

But that isn't what this is really about. This is about the process of gathering legal precedence to help support the future defenders of discriminatory behavior. In this case, the Alliance for Freedom, representing the plaintiff, created such a precedence literally out of thin air. They saw an anti-discriminatory law that no one was accused of breaking and a couple of up-tight Christian business owners that were not being forced to do anything they didn't want to do, implied a non-existent conflict and made a case out of it.

Fascinating what these little weasels do.