303 Creative: If You Want To Know Who the Haters Are, Just Listen to What They Say

 If you want to know who hates whom, just listen to what they say. Here are some tweets on 303 Creative from some "tolerant and inclusive" law profs:

1. U Michigan Law Prof Barb McQuade: “I have a religious objection to bigots. Can I now deny them services, too?”

2.  Prof. Josh Chafetz, Georgetown Law: “6-3 religious bigotry trumps anti-discrimination law.”

3. Also Chafetz: “The law at issue prohibited any business from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. It didn't target religious belief in any way. The Court just said that religiously-motivated bigots get a get-out-of-antidiscrimination-law-free card.”

4.  Prof. Eric Segall, Georgia State Law School:“Whatever the constitutional merits of today’s 303 Creative decision, make no mistake, discrimination and hate based on faith is still discrimination and hate. The plaintiff should be ashamed. And there’s nothing “Christian” about this.”

5.  Prof. Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law: “This anti-LGBTQ decision will one day be relegated to the dustbin of history, denounced as wrong from the day it was decided (as Lawrence v. Texas said of Bowers v. Hardwick), and recognized as a demeaning slur on the equal dignity of our fellow citizens.

On Twitter, these law profs say the quiet part out loud. I have personally heard law profs I know well say much the same thing.

This is not what they say when they are teaching 303 Creative in the classroom.

But it is what they are thinking when they teach 303 Creative in the classroom!

Imagine being a Christian law student taking their classes!

Notice that Lori Smith did not say--or wish to say--anything hateful about same-sex customers. She wished merely to remain silent--to not speak. She wished to celebrate marriage as defined by God, and to remain silent about same-sex marriage.

Finally, some law profs even say the quiet part explicitly in law review articles. Consider this:

Professor Ruth Colker, a prominent con law prof at Ohio State Law, has recently written a law review article entitled The White Supremacist Constitution (2022 Utah L Rev 651). 

Her opening salvo against the Constitution says this: 

“The United States Constitution is a document that, during every era, has helped further white supremacy.” 

In particular, Colker believes that the electoral vote system for President and equal state representation in the Senate are racist and guilty of advancing white supremacy.

She also believes that the First Amendment is “homophobic” because it protects religious liberty and freedom of speech in cases involving “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals.”

Finally, she talks about her role as a law professor teaching the Constitution to her students at Ohio State. Here is what she says:

“As a privileged white person [permission to roll your eyes], I have grown increasingly uncomfortable teaching the required law school class on the U.S. Constitution. I suspect that many students enter my classroom expecting me to expound on the beauty and wisdom of this fundamental document. I have to worry that I contribute to white supremacy by furthering that premise.” 

So sad.

I hope you all grow to love our Constitution, not because it is perfect, but because it is a timeless written charter of liberty, divided government, and, as amended, equal opportunity. The parts Colker hates--electoral federalism and the First Amendment--are among its greatest protections. Teaching the Constitution has been the work of my life; the longer I teach it, the more I love it.