Podcasts about colorado civil rights commission

Why not just make the cake? That’s a question countless people across the country started asking in 2012, Jack Phillips told two men who walked into his Masterpiece Cakeshop that he couldn’t create a custom cake for their same-sex wedding. And the question only grew more urgent as he had to defend himself first before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and then numerous courts—losing at every step of the way until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in his favor in June 2018. But for Jack, there are deeper principles at stake—principles too precious to abandon for the sake of convenience and safety. These principles should be of concern to every American, including our guest’s adversaries. If the freedoms he has sought to protect are lost, they may never be regained.Become a Parshall Partner: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/inthemarket/partnersSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Liz and Rebecca continue the SCOTUS religion cases coverage with Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case that threatens to force public school districts to bend to the will of their most conservative religious parents. They discuss how the case came to be, what the oral arguments told us, and why this case actually is about book banning and censorship.   Background SCOTUSblog Amicus briefs AU FFRF  SCOTUSblog: “Supreme Court considers parents' efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes”  Vox: “The Supreme Court threatens to bring ‘Don't Say Gay' to every classroom in America” Cases Discussed FFRF v. The County of Lehigh (2016) Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) Upcoming Case Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond   Check us out on YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, and X. Our website, we-dissent.org, has more information as well as episode transcripts.

SCOTUS is considering whether Tennessee's total ban on transgender medical care for minors violates the Equal Protection Clause, and Liz and Rebecca have some thoughts. They explain what the oral arguments last month revealed and what the stakes are for the real people who will be affected by the Court's decision.    Background Case page on SCOTUSblog Oral Arguments Transcript Senate Bill 1 NYT: "Opinion - The Supreme Court Just Showed Us What Contempt for Expertise Looks Like” SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court appears ready to uphold Tennessee ban on youth transgender care Cases Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) Loving v. Virginia (1967)   Bostock v. Clayton County (2020)   Submit your questions for the mailbag episode here!   Check us out on YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, and X. Our website, we-dissent.org, has more information as well as episode transcripts.

Send us a textAs Mama Dragons, we often find ourselves in places where we have the opportunity to stand up and advocate for our queer children. Today In the Den, Jen sits down with fierce Mama Dragon Debbie Thomas to talk about her experiences of mothering two LGBTQ+ children, and how she learned to advocate for her child in a big way–all the way to the Supreme Court.Special Guest: Debbie ThomasDebbie Thomas is retired after a career working with the public providing assistance through the State of Wyoming and under the Centers of Medicare Services. She is a Mama Dragon living in Central Wyoming and, like many of us, is just struggling to survive in a conservative state.  She was raised in a high demand religion and has 3 grown sons.  Her oldest two sons are part of the LGBTQ+ community. Her oldest son faced discrimination and was refused services from a bakery in Colorado based on who he loved, which ultimately led to the famous Supreme Court case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Links from the Show: Information on the Masterpiece Cake case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf More on the Supreme Court case: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111 Join Mama Dragons today: www.mamadragons.orgIn the Den is made possible by generous donors like you. Help us continue to deliver quality content by becoming a donor today at www.mamadragons.org.  Connect with Mama Dragons:WebsiteInstagramFacebookDonate to this podcast

“From media reports, Brazil no longer has Elon Musk's X due to attacks on free speech by Alexandre De Moreas, a justice of Brazil's Supreme Federal Court,” writes Chris Pavlovski, CEO of Rumble. “They want to control information, but our companies won't let them.” Even journalist Michael Shellenberger says he is “being criminally investigated by Brazilian authorities for exposing their attempts to censor.” Is this style of authoritarian censorship creeping into America's future? Tom Renz is an attorney from Ohio conducting ‘Lawfare for Freedom' by fighting corruption surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic at state and federal levels. Find out more at https://renz-law.com and follow him at https://x.com/RenzTom Jeremy Tedesco is senior counsel and senior vice president of corporate engagement for Alliance Defending Freedom. He leads efforts to address corporate cancel culture and promote business ethics respecting free speech and religious freedom. His legal career includes arguing before federal appellate courts and contributing to U.S. Supreme Court cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Tedesco earned his J.D. from Regent University School of Law in 2004. Learn more at https://adflegal.org and follow at https://x.com/ADFLegal 「 SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS 」 Find out more about the brands that make this show possible and get special discounts on Dr. Drew's favorite products at https://drdrew.com/sponsors  • FATTY15 – The future of essential fatty acids is here! Strengthen your cells against age-related breakdown with Fatty15. Get 15% off a 90-day Starter Kit Subscription at https://drdrew.com/fatty15 • CAPSADYN - Get pain relief with the power of capsaicin from chili peppers – without the burning! Capsadyn's proprietary formulation for joint & muscle pain contains no NSAIDs, opioids, anesthetics, or steroids. Try it for 15% off at https://drdrew.com/capsadyn • PALEOVALLEY - "Paleovalley has a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both healthful and delicious,” says Dr. Drew. "I am a huge fan of this brand and know you'll love it too!” Get 15% off your first order at https://drdrew.com/paleovalley • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at https://twc.health/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 Portions of this program may examine countervailing views on important medical issues. Always consult your physician before making any decisions about your health. 「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Over the past decade, the tension between First Amendment rights and public accommodations laws has grown, as wedding vendors have refused to serve same-sex weddings pursuant to their consciences. On June 30, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, which held that the free speech clause prohibits a state from forcing a website designer to create messages with which the designer disagrees. That said, the Court has yet to issue a clear decision that resolves these issues under the free exercise clause, even though wedding vendors almost invariably object to providing services on religious grounds. Indeed, when the free exercise question was addressed in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Court largely punted on the issue and resolved the case on very narrow procedural grounds.Wedding-vendor litigation continues to percolate throughout the country and raises important questions for First Amendment jurisprudence, including whether the Supreme Court should reconsider Employment Division v. Smith, whether the free exercise clause extends protection to wedding vendors in a similar way to the free speech clause, and whether the so-called “hybrid rights doctrine” is a viable theory for analyzing religious claims to exemptions. Please join us as we discuss these issues and others with some of the leading scholars and practitioners in this space.Featuring: Prof. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of LawProf. Douglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Virginia School of LawJonathan Scruggs, Senior Counsel and the Director for the Center for Conscience Initiatives, Alliance Defending Freedom(Moderator) Austin Rogers, Chief Counsel at Senate Judiciary Committee

President, CEO, and general counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom, Kristen Waggoner, joins us for a discussion on freedom of speech and religious liberty. ADF has played various roles in 74 U.S. Supreme Court victories and since 2011, has won cases before the Court 15 times.  According to its website, “ADF is the world's largest legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, marriage and family, parental rights, and the sanctity of life.” ADF has litigated many high profile and controversial free speech cases, including the recent Supreme Court case involving a web designer who didn't want to be compelled to design websites for same-sex weddings. Before that, ADF litigated the 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop case, which involved a cake designer who similarly didn't want to provide his services for same-sex weddings on religious grounds. After the initial conversation was recorded, The Washington Post and The New Yorker released articles critical of ADF. Nico and Kristen recorded an additional, brief conversation to address these articles. That is included at the end of the podcast.    Timestamps: 0:43 - Introduction 6:16 - Kristen's path to ADF 12:54 - ADF's international team 14:20 - Pavi Rasanen controversy 19:24 - What does it mean to be a ministry?/blasphemy laws 22:56 - ADF's Supreme Court cases  26:58 - 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis  28:56 - Public accommodation laws/Masterpiece Cakeshop 40:40 - Pre-enforcement challenges 42:50 - Facial challenges 47:32 - Test cases or fake cases? 49:44 - Yale incident 57:50 - Other campus shoutdowns 1:00:08 - L.M. v. Town of Middleborough  1:14:27 - Kristen addresses WaPo article 1:15:38 - Kristen addresses New Yorker article    Related Articles/Podcasts: “Inside the tactics that won Christian vendors the right to reject gay weddings,” Jon Swaine and Beth Reinhard (The Washington Post) “Are ADF's Cases ‘Made Up'?” Lathan Watts (ADF, response to The Washington Post) “The next targets for the group that overturned Roe,” David D. Kirkpatrick (The New Yorker) FIRE's response to Kristen Waggoner Yale incident  FIRE's response to Anne Coulter Cornell incident FIRE's response to Ilya Shapiro Georgetown incident FIRE's response to Ian Haworth UAlbany incident “The Imperfect Plaintiffs” (“More Perfect” podcast with Julia Longoria)   Cases Discussed: Dubash v. City of Houston (Animal rights activists lawsuit, 2023) Paivi Rasanen (Finnish lawmaker charged with incitement against gay people) 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2022)  Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2017)  Uzuebgunam v. Preczewski (2021)  West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)  Wooley v. Maynard (1997)  Plessy v. Ferguson (1986)  L.M. v. Town of Middleborough (2023)   www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org  

The US Supreme Court ends affirmative action while over in France migrant communities have brought diversity to the country's culture of riots. See what else is changing (for better or worse) at the beginning of the New Financial Year on Tim's News Explosion. France's latest round of riots was triggered by a police officer killing 17-year-old French-Alegerian teenager Nahel Merzouk who tried to flee a traffic stop on 27 June. The officer who fired the shot has been charged with voluntary homicide by a person in authority. Nahel's judicial file included 15 recorded incidents but according to his mother Mounia, he was a good boy who dindu nuffin. Innocent victims of the rioters included an 80-year-old priest who was robbed and beaten unconscious. The home of Paris Mayor Vincent Jeanbrun was ram-raided with his wife and child injured. A holocaust memorial was desecrated. These are the biggest race riots in France since 2005 triggered by the electrocution of two youths fleeing police which lasted 3 weeks. Over the past decade, hundreds of French citizens have lost their lives in Islamic terrorist attacks. French President Emmanuel Macron blamed social media and video games for the rioting. Paris is hosting the Olympics next year. The BBC published a list of fake images circulating on social media purporting to be from the riots. Paris Saint-Germain Football Manager Christophe Galtier will stand trial for racism accused of saying at his previous club Nice that there were too many Black and Muslim players. If found guilty he could be jailed for 5 years. Police in Sweden facilitated a Koran burning which has triggered protests and condemnation in Islamic nations. The US Supreme Court issued three big landmark decisions before its summer recess. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard ruled affirmative action in university admissions processes was unconstitutional. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis ruled that anti-discrimination laws could not force a Christian website designer to create a website advertising a same-sex wedding. This followed Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission in 2018 which similarly ruled a baker could not be forced to bake a same-sex wedding. Biden v. Nebraska struck down Biden's Executive Order forgiving student loan debt. All decisions were 6-3 with the 3 Justices Donald Trump appointed all part of the majority court opinion. The Ron DeSantis War Room Twitter account released an attack ad on Trump accusing him of being too pro-LGBT. The Log Cabin Republicans labelled the ad homophobic. Trump has pledged to outlaw child genital mutilation in all 50 states. Nigel Farage and Laurence Fox have had their bank accounts closed for wrongthink. King Charles and London Mayor Sadiq Khan pressed a new 2030 climate doomsday button to stop the planet from warming by 1.5C Greta Thunberg met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to discuss the ecological damage of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The Federal Opposition is lobbying the Albanese Government to spend the now $19 billion AUD surplus on aid to Ukraine. The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) begins today. The NSW ICAC accused former Premier Gladys Berejiklian of serious corrupt conduct for overseeing grants in the electorate of her former boyfriend Daryl McGuire but ICAC isn't recommending she face criminal charges. Down in Victoria corruption is legal with Dan Andrews appointing his former Deputy James Merlino to the Suburban Rail Loop Authority. The Victoria Day Awards which is not related to the Australia Day Awards but is a private organisation, gave its Victorian of the Year Award to outgoing Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton. The Yes 23 campaign for the Constitutional Aboriginal Voice held rallies with their activists in major cities around Australia. Indigenous Labor Senator Pat Dodson claimed that if Australia votes no to the voice then we won't be able to criticize China's human rights violations. It is NAIDOC week another Indigenous cultural promotion week. Email: me@timwilms.comMessage: https://t.me/timwilmsWebsite: http://timwilms.com/Twitter: https://twitter.com/wilmsfrontMinds: https://www.minds.com/timwilmsGab: https://gab.com/timwilmsTelegram: https://t.me/wilmsfront Support the Show:Membership: http://www.theunshackled.net/membershipDonate: https://www.theunshackled.net/donate/ Other Unshackled Links:Website: https://www.theunshackled.netFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/TUnshackledTwitter: https://twitter.com/Un_shackledGab: https://gab.ai/theunshackledTelegram: https://t.me/theunshackledMinds: https://www.minds.com/The_Unshackled Music and Graphics by James Fox HigginsVoice Over by Morgan MunroSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jack Phillips is the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. In 2012, Jack Phillips declined to create a custom wedding cake celebrating a so-called same-sex marriage. The men who requested the cake filed a charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, beginning a legal battle that reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Jack Phillips joins the show to discuss his new book, The Cost of My Faith: How a Decision in My Cake Shop Took Me to the Supreme Court. Joining Jack is Jake Warner, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom's Appellate Team. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

Jack Phillips is the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. In 2012, Jack Phillips declined to create a custom wedding cake celebrating a so-called same-sex marriage. The men who requested the cake filed a charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, beginning a legal battle that reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Jack Phillips joins the show to discuss his new book, The Cost of My Faith: How a Decision in My Cake Shop Took Me to the Supreme Court. Joining Jack is Jake Warner, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom's Appellate Team. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Jack Phillips is the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. In 2012, Jack Phillips declined to create a custom wedding cake celebrating a so-called same-sex marriage. The men who requested the cake filed a charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, beginning a legal battle that reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Jack Phillips joins the show to discuss his new book, The Cost of My Faith: How a Decision in My Cake Shop Took Me to the Supreme Court. Joining Jack is Jake Warner, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom's Appellate Team. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/christian-studies

As we continue our mini-series on our recently released volume The Digital Public Square with B&H Academic, I am joined by Jeremy Tedesco and to talk about his contribution with Christiana Kiefer entitled, Content Moderation and Suppressing Speech: Are There Limits to Talking about Sexuality and Gender Online?. Today, Jeremy and I talk about the relationship between private companies and free speech as well as how Christians can think about the nature of the digital public square.Meet Jeremy:Jeremy serves as senior counsel and senior vice president of corporate engagement for the Alliance Defending Freedom. In this role, Tedesco leads ADF's efforts to combat corporate cancel culture and to build a business ethic that respects free speech, religious freedom, and human dignity. Tedesco was also a part of the legal teams that successfully litigated Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Reed v. Town of Gilbert, and Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, before the United States Supreme Court. He is a graduate of Regent University School of Law.—The Digital Public Square is a production of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and is produced and hosted by Jason Thacker. Production assistance is provided by Kadin Christian. Technical production provided by Owens Productions. It is edited and mixed by Mark Owens. 

Back in 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case involving a cake shop owner who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. In a 7-2 decision, the court found that the state had violated the cake maker's religious objections. Now the court is considering another case out of Colorado that could expand the right to discriminate under the guise of free speech. In the fourth episode of Dissent, Jordan Smith and law professor Hila Keren discuss 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, a challenge to the state's Anti-Discrimination Act brought by Lorie Smith, a website designer seeking to refuse wedding design services to same-sex couples. Unlike Masterpiece Cakeshop, the 303 Creative case has no injured parties; it is a preemptive attempt to allow businesses to practice unfettered discrimination. join.theintercept.com/donate/now Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 4: While appearing on Fox News with Neil Cavuto, Texas Governor Greg Abbott accused the Biden Administration of acting “contrary to federal law” when it comes to the U.S. southern border. MSNBC's Chris Hayes objected to Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy's decision to remove Representatives Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Adam Schiff (D-CA), and Eric Swalwell (D-CA) from the House Intelligence Committee—claiming they did “nothing wrong.” Montage: President Joe Biden forgets names! While appearing on The Kelly Clarkson Show, actress Jane Fonda claimed that there would be “no climate crisis if it wasn't for racism.” According to National Review's Brittany Bernstein, Christian baker Jack Phillips “lost his appeal in a case that stemmed from his refusal to make a cake for an individual's gender transition.” In 2018, the Supreme Court decided in Jack Phillips' favor in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission when he claimed religious freedom exempted him from creating a same-sex wedding cake. Dr. Deana Murphy—a certified Consulting Positive Psychologist & Executive Wellbeing Advisor—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss her new book, “Lead 2 Flourish: An Executive's Guide to Handle Pressure, Prevent Anxiety, and Lead From Your Highest Self.” Get the book at: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/lead2flourish-deana-murphy/1142830162

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (01/27/2023):  3:05pm- On Friday, a San Francisco court released police body camera footage of the home invasion which led to Paul Pelosi being assaulted with a hammer. The footage shows police arriving at Pelosi's home moments before he was attacked. According to the New York Times, “[t]he suspect, David DePape, faces numerous felony charges in state court, including attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon.” 3:15pm- On Thursday, Project Veritas released video footage of James O'Keefe confronting Pfizer's Director of Research and Development Jordan Trishton Walker about comments he made on a hidden camera. Walker claimed Pfizer was “mutating” the COVID-19 virus and suggested they could potentially create “something that just goes everywhere.”  3:40pm- Philadelphia Inquirer restaurant review columnist Craig LaBan wrote an opinion editorial highly critical of the Union League's decision to honor Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. LaBan vows that he will no longer dine at the Union League—but he wasn't a member in the first place! We give his editorial: 1 Bell. 4:05pm- In a statement made to The New York Post, Hunter Biden's art dealer George Berges said of his client's work: “Hunter Biden will become one of the most consequential artists in this century because the world needs his art now more than ever. In a world that beats us down, we need art in our lives that reminds of the unrelenting divinity within each of us.” According to the Post, Berges refused to say whether or not he was willing to provide the House Oversight Committee with documents regarding Biden art sales.  4:35pm- Grover Norquist—Founder and Presidents of Americans for Tax Reform—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his latest editorial in The Atlantic, “A National Sales Tax is a Terrible Idea.” A handful of House Republicans are forcing a vote on the “Fair Tax Act” which would create a national sales tax and eliminate the federal income tax. Norquist explains why this proposal is a “free gift to Democrats.” You can read the full article at: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/national-sales-tax-house-republicans-grover-norquist/672810/ 4:50pm- White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre compared House Republicans—who are asking for spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling—to “hostage” takers.  4:55pm- Can the U.S. Treasury mint a $1 trillion platinum coin and deposit it with the Federal Reserve to circumvent Congressional approval to raise the debt ceiling? In a recent New York Times opinion editorial, Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman endorsed the strategy while simultaneously referring to House Republicans as “economic terrorists.”  5:05pm- While appearing on Fox5 in New York City, Madison Square Garden Entertainment CEO James Dolan defended his arena's utilization of controversial facial recognition software to prevent lawyers who have sued MSG or Dolan from entering. Is it legal?  5:20pm- Pastor Bill Devlin—CEO of Extreme Faith—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to offer us an update in the trial of Mark Houck, a pro-life father charged with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act for protesting outside of an abortion clinic. Houck was notably arrested at his home during an FBI-conducted raid.  5:45pm- The Philadelphia Inquirer has accused Pennsylvania State Representative Amen Brown of leaving a “trail of debt, lawsuits” in business and real estate dealings. Brown is a moderate Democrat running for Philadelphia Mayor. Meanwhile, the Philadelphia media continues to gush over super-progressive John Fetterman and his wife Gisele… 5:55pm- After being removed from the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) posted his first TikTok complaining about it.  6:05pm- While appearing on Fox News with Neil Cavuto, Texas Governor Greg Abbott accused the Biden Administration of acting “contrary to federal law” when it comes to the U.S. southern border.  6:10pm- MSNBC's Chris Hayes objected to Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy's decision to remove Representatives Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Adam Schiff (D-CA), and Eric Swalwell (D-CA) from the House Intelligence Committee—claiming they did “nothing wrong.” 6:15pm- Montage: President Joe Biden forgets names! 6:20pm- While appearing on The Kelly Clarkson Show, actress Jane Fonda claimed that there would be “no climate crisis if it wasn't for racism.” 6:35pm- According to National Review's Brittany Bernstein, Christian baker Jack Phillips “lost his appeal in a case that stemmed from his refusal to make a cake for an individual's gender transition.” In 2018, the Supreme Court decided in Jack Phillips' favor in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission when he claimed religious freedom exempted him from creating a same-sex wedding cake. 6:45pm- Dr. Deana Murphy—a certified Consulting Positive Psychologist & Executive Wellbeing Advisor—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss her new book, “Lead 2 Flourish: An Executive's Guide to Handle Pressure, Prevent Anxiety, and Lead From Your Highest Self.” Get the book at: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/lead2flourish-deana-murphy/1142830162

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (12/09/2022): 3:05pm- Twitter Files Part 2: On Thursday night, former Wall Street Journal and New York Times journalist Bari Weiss revealed, prior to Elon Musk taking ownership, Twitter maintained a blacklist which limited the visibility of conservative commentators like, Charlie Kirk, Libs of TikTok, and Dan Bongino. Perhaps most disturbingly, Stanford University Professor of Medicine Jay Bhattacharya was also “shadow banned” for suggesting that prolonged COVID-19 lockdowns could irreparably harm children—particularly educationally. According to Weiss' reporting, the group banning the most high-profile Twitter accounts included former CEOs Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal. 3:30pm- After establishing that former Twitter executives authorized shadow banning conservative accounts, the next question that must be answered: were these bans being compelled by governmental officials and/or political organizations? 3:45pm- While speaking with John Roberts on Fox News, former Vice President Mike Pence was asked if he believed shadow bans on social media—Twitter specifically—cost Trump-Pence the 2020 presidential election.  3:50pm- On September 5th, 2018, while speaking before Congress, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey stated, “[w]e don't consider political viewpoints, perspectives, or party affiliation in any of our policies or enforcement decisions, period. Impartiality is our guiding principle.” This statement now appears to be false. Will Dorsey be held accountable?  4:05pm- Matt Sharp—Senior Legal Counsel Representing Lorie Smith of 303 Creative | Alliance Defending Freedom—joins The Rich Zeoli Show. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis. The question being asked before the court is whether Lorie Smith, a wedding website designer, is legally permitted to decline creating custom webpages for same-sex weddings—is her religious objection protected by the First Amendment? During oral argument, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that Colorado law forced Jack Phillips—the cake baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission—was forced, by the state, to go through a reeducation program after refusing to make custom cakes for same-sex weddings citing a religious objection. 4:20pm- Rich figures out how to play sound effects from his studio—it's only been one segment, but Matt is already disgusted. Plus, the Zeoli show relives one of our all-time favorite clips: former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio eating Shake Shack on television.  4:35pm- According to a report from The Daily Signal, Assistant Secretary of Health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Dr. Rachel Levine encouraged doctors to “proactively” campaign on behalf of transgender care for minors, during a September Zoom conference at University of Pittsburgh's Department of Pediatrics.  4:45pm- Qatar's beautiful camel contest! Are these camels ACTUALLY beautiful?!?! Matt and Rich disagree.  4:50pm- In an opinion editorial featured in The Arizona Republic, Senator Krysten Sinema announced that she changed her party affiliation from Democrat to Independent. Will this decision have any impact on Senate voting? Probably not. 5:05pm- According to a report from The Daily Wire, “[v]ideo emerged Thursday afternoon of Brittney Griner being swapped on a runway for convicted Russian terrorist Viktor Bout after Democrat President Joe Biden agreed to the trade.” The video shows a clear edit that appears to occur right before Brittney Griner may have shaken hands with Bout. Did the White House delete the handshake because of bad optics?  5:10pm- According to a report from Politico's Lara Seligman, “[s]ome Pentagon officials are concerned that convicted Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, who was released on Thursday in a prisoner swap for American basketball star Brittney Griner, could return to illegally trafficking weapons, potentially fueling conflicts across the world.” 5:20pm- In 2010, 60 Minutes aired a report on Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout. They referred to him as one of the most dangerous people on earth.  5:35pm- According to a report from The Philadelphia Inquirer, Mayor Jim Kenney has been vocal in his complaints about a 6ABC story that criticized his performance in public office—even swearing at Brian Tierney for his role in the piece.  5:45pm- Mystery Movie Clip: Is Jingle All the Way one of the most underrated Christmas films? 6:05pm- Twitter Files Part 3: On Friday night, investigative journalist Matt Taibbi released information regarding the decision to remove former President Donald Trump from Twitter. Taibbi wrote, “Whatever your opinion on the decision to remove Trump that day, the internal communications at Twitter between January 6th-January 8th have clear historical import. Even Twitter's employees understood in the moment it was a landmark moment in the annals of speech.” According to Taibbi, Twitter executives were “prepared to ban future presidents and White Houses–perhaps even Joe Biden.” 6:55pm- Who Won Social Media? 

Did you miss any of The Rich Zeoli Show this week? It's ok. We forgive you. But now is your chance to catch-up on all of the action: John Paul Mac Isaac—Author of “American Injustice: My Battle to Expose the Truth”—joins The Rich Zeoli to discuss his new book which documents his experience being caught-up in the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. In 2019, Hunter Biden commissioned John Paul's Wilmington, Delaware electronic repair shop to fix his liquid-damaged laptops. John Paul explains, “[c]oncerned that I was sitting on evidence in a criminal investigation, I set out to hand everything over to the FBI" after Biden never returned to collect his property. He continues, “[w]hen the story broke, Big Tech and social and mainstream media blocked the reporting” and “[m]y actions were labeled Russian disinformation.” Despite doing the right thing every step of the way, John Paul unfairly had his character attacked—ultimately, resulting in the forced closure of his business, The Mac Shop. During the interview, John Paul also reacts to Elon Musk's recent releasing of emails confirming that Twitter suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story at the behest of the Biden campaign team—vindicating John Paul once and for all. His incredible book is available at: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/American-Injustice/John-Paul-Mac-Isaac/9781637586846 Momma Zeoli watches the kids—and warns them not to eat too much sugar, not to jump on the couch, and not to develop carpal tunnel syndrome... Matt Sharp—Senior Legal Counsel Representing Lorie Smith of 303 Creative | Alliance Defending Freedom—joins The Rich Zeoli Show. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis. The question being asked before the court is whether Lorie Smith, a wedding website designer, is legally permitted to decline creating custom webpages for same-sex weddings—is her religious objection protected by the First Amendment? During oral argument, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that Colorado law forced Jack Phillips—the cake baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission—was forced, by the state, to go through a reeducation program after refusing to make custom cakes for same-sex weddings citing a religious objection. The Rich Zeoli Show goes international! To our surprise, people are enjoying the show's podcast in the UK, Canada, Israel, Mexico, Japan, Germany, and South Africa. Everyone loves The Rich Zeoli Show—is it the one thing that unites us all?

Matt Sharp—Senior Legal Counsel Representing Lorie Smith of 303 Creative | Alliance Defending Freedom—joins The Rich Zeoli Show. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis. The question being asked before the court is whether Lorie Smith, a wedding website designer, is legally permitted to decline creating custom webpages for same-sex weddings—is her religious objection protected by the First Amendment? During oral argument, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that Colorado law forced Jack Phillips—the cake baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission—was forced, by the state, to go through a reeducation program after refusing to make custom cakes for same-sex weddings citing a religious objection.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: Matt Sharp—Senior Legal Counsel Representing Lorie Smith of 303 Creative | Alliance Defending Freedom—joins The Rich Zeoli Show. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis. The question being asked before the court is whether Lorie Smith, a wedding website designer, is legally permitted to decline creating custom webpages for same-sex weddings—is her religious objection protected by the First Amendment? During oral argument, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that Colorado law forced Jack Phillips—the cake baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission—was forced, by the state, to go through a reeducation program after refusing to make custom cakes for same-sex weddings citing a religious objection. Rich figures out how to play sound effects from his studio—it's only been one segment, but Matt is already disgusted. Plus, the Zeoli show relives one of our all-time favorite clips: former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio eating Shake Shack on television. According to a report from The Daily Signal, Assistant Secretary of Health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Dr. Rachel Levine encouraged doctors to “proactively” campaign on behalf of transgender care for minors, during a September Zoom conference at University of Pittsburgh's Department of Pediatrics. Qatar's beautiful camel contest! Are these camels ACTUALLY beautiful?!?! Matt and Rich disagree. In an opinion editorial featured in The Arizona Republic, Senator Krysten Sinema announced that she changed her party affiliation from Democrat to Independent. Will this decision have any impact on Senate voting? Probably not.

Song playsIntro by hostWelcome to High Country - politics in the American West. My name is Sean Diller; regular listeners might know me from Heartland Pod's Talking Politics, every Monday.Go to heartlandpod.com for information on all our political podcasts, and a link to support our work on Patreon. Sign up as an Official PODhead for just $5 per month to access all our premium podcast segments and political writing. To join the conversation on Twitter, find us at THE Heartland POD. Alright! Let's get into it: NEVADA CURRENT:Tribes in six states awarded $73MM in new high-speed internet grants.Three Nevada tribes will receive $11.6 million for high-speed internet, in the latest round of “internet for all” grants, federal officials announced Wednesday.The funding will directly connect more than 800 homes on tribal lands in Nevada to high-speed internet, improving access to education, jobs, and healthcare on tribal lands.Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo said“The Biden administration is committed to fostering meaningful partnerships with Tribal Nations, which have been vital to our goal of connecting everyone in America, with affordable, reliable, high-speed Internet service,” So far, about $1.6 billion has been awarded to 121 tribal nations with funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that passed last year. Those funds have connected more than 3,100 unserved Native American households that previously had no connectivity to high-speed Internet, as well as businesses and community institutions.These awards are part of a series of commitments the Biden administration announced Wednesday to strengthen nation-to-nation engagement between the federal government and Tribal Nations.The Walker River Paiute Tribe in Mineral County will receive more than $6 million to install fiber internet directly to more than 400 households, 22 community institutions, and 10 tribal businesses. The Duckwater Shoshone Tribe in Nye County is set to receive more than $3 million to install fiber internet to nearly 80 homes and 11 tribal institutions. The Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe in Churchill County will be awarded nearly $2 million to directly connect more than 300 households.Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, who has pushed for more broadband funding on tribal lands, praised the announcement Wednesday.“Throughout my time in the Senate, I've worked to make sure Tribes in Nevada have access to critical broadband,” she said. “I made sure these funds would get to Tribes in Nevada in a timely and efficient fashion, and I'm committed to helping Nevadans in every community access the critical educational, business, health care, and cultural resources that the internet provides.”Additionally, the national Affordable Connectivity Program - ACP - provides a discount of $30 per month toward Internet service for eligible households, and up to $75 per month for households on qualifying tribal lands. You're eligible for the benefit If you currently receive SNAP benefits, are on Medicaid, or earn less than 200% of the federal poverty line. That's about $27K for a single person household, or $55K for a family of four.To Apply, visit AffordableConnectivity.govCOLORADO SUN: Colorado Democrats ready to move on gun safety laws.A host of changes to Colorado's gun laws, from a ban on assault weapons to tweaks to the existing red flag law, are already being considered by Democrats at the state Capitol in response to the shooting last month at an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs. “Pretty much everything is on the table,” according to Senate President Steve Fenberg, a Boulder Democrat. “The question now is: What is the highest priority?”Democrats will return to the Colorado Capitol in early January with expanded majorities in both the House and Senate, and facing pressure to act after the state's latest mass shooting. Five people were killed and more than a dozen others wounded in a Nov. 19 attack on Club Q, allegedly carried out by a 22-year-old shooter armed with a semi-automatic, AR-15-style rifle.“Tay” Anderson, a Denver School board member, posted on Twitter that Democrats should immediately use their majority at the Capitol to pass an assault weapons ban.Saying “If folks refuse to act, vote them out,”Senate President Fenberg, who said gun control conversations were underway even before the Club Q shootings, said a ban on assault weapons is certainly a possibility. The challenge is figuring out how to write the law - how to define what an assault weapon is, what should happen to weapons already in the possession of Colorado residents, and how to address people traveling through Colorado to neighboring states where the weapons are permitted. It's more likely that Democrats pursue other changes to Colorado's gun laws first, such as raising the minimum age to purchase a rifle or shotgun to 21 from 18. The minimum age to purchase handguns in Colorado is already 21. Sen. Tom Sullivan, a Centennial Democrat, is working on changing the minimum age to purchase a gun. He initially wanted to raise the age only for so-called assault weapons, but thinks a broader change would be easier. “That will save us having to come up with a definition of what assault weapons are,” said Sullivan, whose son, Alex, was murdered in the 2012 Aurora theater shooting. “And that seems to be the consensus that we're hearing from the rest of the Democratic caucus.”There are also discussions about enacting a waiting period that looks like those passed in California and Hawaii, which have 10- and 14-day waiting periods, respectively. Illinois has a 72-hour waiting period after purchases a firearm, before they can access it.Colorado already requires universal background checks on all gun purchases, and has laws limiting gun magazines to 15 rounds, and requiring the safe storage of firearms. People whose guns are lost or stolen must make a report with law enforcement, as well, and there is a statute temporarily barring people convicted of certain violent misdemeanors from purchasing firearms.Colorado counties and municipalities are also now allowed to enact gun regulations that are more stringent than the state's policies after the legislature in 2021 repealed a preemption law.When it comes to Colorado's red flag law, a 2019 policy that lets judges order the temporary seizure of firearms from people deemed a significant risk to themselves or others - legislators might expand the list of who can petition a judge to initiate a red flag proceeding. Right now, law enforcement and family members are effectively the only groups allowed to petition a judge to order a seizure. Gov. Jared Polis has expressed support for adding district attorneys to the list, and others have suggested the attorney general's office, and teachers should be allowed to request seizures as well. The Colorado legislature reconvenes on Jan. 9.COLORADO NEWSLINE:  $35 insulin price cap coming to Medicare in January.A recent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report showed drug companies increased prices for several drugs by more than 500% since 2016. But starting next month, a $35 cap on insulin prices will go into effect for millions of Medicare recipients. The lower pricing is one of the first of several policy measures Americans will see under the Inflation Reduction Act, passed without a single Republican vote and signed into law in August.The insulin cap benefits Medicare Part D recipients, who also no longer have to meet a deductible on their insulin. A $35 cap on insulin pumps for Medicare Part B recipients goes into effect July 1, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare patients spent $1 billion on insulin in 2020, and an estimated 16.5% of people with diabetes rationed their insulin in the past year, which can be extremely harmful to their health or even fatal.According to an analysis of the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act from the Center for American Progress, an elderly middle class couple could save as much as $2,400 per year on insulin.ARIZONA MIRROR: AZ SOS Katie Hobbs recommends criminal prosecutions for Cochise County supervisors who refused to certify their election results. Hobbs wrote to Attorney General Mark Brnovich and Cochise County Attorney Brian McIntyre, that without repercussions, the decision of supervisors Tom Crosby and Peggy Judd not to certify their results could encourage future violations, further eroding election integrity in the state, and stomping on the will of Arizona voters. “Supervisors Crosby and Judd's actions not only demonstrate a complete disregard for the law but also jeopardize Arizona's democracy,” she wrote. “Had a court not intervened, the failure of these two Supervisors to uphold their duty would have disenfranchised thousands of Cochise County voters. This blatant act of defying Arizona's election laws risks establishing a dangerous precedent that we must discourage.” Crosby and Judd threw the Arizona state certification process into disarray last month, when they delayed their official canvassing of the midterm election results in Cochise County, citing bogus claims that electronic tabulators didn't meet required standards. It was only after a court ordered them to complete their statutorily mandated duties that they did so on Dec. 1, days after the Nov. 28 deadline. Their actions put the official statewide canvass in jeopardy, as Hobbs must meet a Dec. 5 deadline to certify the results. She can only push that deadline as far as Dec. 8. If she decided to go ahead with the process without the results from Cochise County, a heavily Republican region, more than 47,000 voters could have seen their ballots ignored and a number of races would have flipped in favor of Democratic candidates. The responsibilities of county supervisors are clearly laid out in state law and the state's Election Procedures Manual, Hobbs said, and they are non-negotiable. And, Crosby and Judd were given ample notification of the consequences.“Supervisors Crosby and Judd knew they had a statutory requirement to canvass the election by November 28, but instead chose to act in violation of the law, putting false election narratives ahead of Cochise County's voters,” Hobbs wrote. Hobbs, who was elected governor in the election, wrote that the two Republicans violated several state laws, with penalties ranging from a class 3 misdemeanor to a class 6 felony. If Crosby and Judd were convicted of a felony, their right to vote would be revoked. They also stand to lose their elected office: State law deems an elected office vacant if the officeholder is convicted of a felony or any “offense involving a violation of the person's official duties”. This is the second call for an investigation into the Supervisors possibly criminal acts - Earlier this week, former Attorney General Terry Goddard and Maricopa County Attorney Richard Romley wrote to outgoing AG Brnovich requesting he hold Crosby and Judd accountable.It's likely that Attorney General-elect Kris Mayes will make the final decision on whether to prosecute, once she takes office in January. In a statement, she said she agrees with the request from Hobbs' office to begin an investigation, and said that it is through that process that a decision on what further response, if any, is appropriate.COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE: Didn't we do this aJustices signal support for web designer who won't help gay couples with weddingsThe conservative majority appeared ready to answer a question the high court dodged four years ago: Must creative businesses put aside their religious beliefs to accommodate the beliefs of protected groups? WASHINGTON (CN) — A six-year crusade came to a head at the Supreme Court on Monday, pitting Colorado's nondiscrimination law against a Christian website designer who refuses to create wedding websites for same-sex couples. It was unsurprising that the narrow question at the center of the case perplexed many of the justices, since the high court passed up on answering it only four years ago. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court ruled in favor of a cakemaker refusing his services to a same-sex couple, but declined to expand the ruling much beyond the case in front of them. Lorie Smith's case brings that topic to a head. Stating that her Christian beliefs confine marriage only to heterosexual couples, Smith argues that Colorado's anti-discrimination laws - protecting LGBTQ+ Coloradans as well as others -  violate her free speech rights. Smith's attorney argued that “Colorado is declaring her speech a public accommodation, and insists that she create and speak messages that violate her conscience.” After two and a half hours of arguments, the conservative majority appeared inclined to agree.The liberal wing of the court expressed concern that a ruling for Smith could snowball into a free speech loophole allowing discrimination. Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned where the court would draw the line, on what kind of discrimination would be permitted - noting that the same arguments could be made for interracial marriage or even for excluding people with disabilities. The hypothetical-heavy arguments included almost every culture-wars issue on the books including discrimination on race, religion, sexual orientation and political preference. These scenarios conveyed a worry by some justices about how far even a narrow ruling in the case could extend. Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson said Smith's request for a free-speech exemption clause to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act would equate to a “license to discriminate.” “The free speech protection the company seeks here is sweeping, because it would apply not just to sincerely held religious beliefs as in this case, but also to all sorts of racist, sexist and bigoted views,” Olson said. “This rule would allow another web design company to say no to interracial couples, an ad agency could refuse to run ads for women-led businesses, and a tech consulting company could refuse to serve the web designer here, because it disagreed with her views on marriage. Where exactly to draw the line between free speech and anti-discrimination laws eluded many of the justices. This was partly because Smith brought the justices a preenforcement suit - she filed her suit against the state of Colorado before any same-sex couple actually requested her services. This creates difficulties for the justices in deciding a ruling. Justice Elena Kagan said the reason for the multitude of hypotheticals during oral argument was due to the lack of facts in the case - which make the justices' ruling all the more difficult. Kagan said “It really depends on the facts, and on what exactly Ms. Smith is being asked or compelled to do.”I could definitely be wrong, but as far as I can tell, the actual free speech claim isn't really justiciable without a real action from the state against the business owner. Seems like it's not ripe, as they say.But the court, in its infinite power, could rule on whether the 1st Amendment Free Speech clause of the Constitution provides an out for companies looking to discriminate against certain customers. You might be thinking, doesn't the U.S. Constitution protect all Americans from discrimination based on sex? It does - but that protection only applies to discriminatory actions by the state. So the state can't deny you a marriage license because of your sex or your partner's sex. The state can't deny you employment or throw you in jail, either - anymore.Here, it's a business that wants the right to turn away same-sex couples, and the state is looking to enforce a state anti-discrimination law - which may or may not conflict with the business owner's protected free speech.It's not a slam dunk that the conservative Supreme Court will rule for the anti-gay web designer, though. No small number of right-wing attorneys have made their entire careers using anti-discrimination laws on behalf of white people, to unravel protections for marginalized groups. If college admissions boards, for example, decide that admitting too many white students is not the ‘statement' they want to make - the ruling against the gay couple might undermine its own rulings on affirmative action practices.The Supreme Court has a highly interesting - and highly secretive - process of passing opinions back and forth to each other. Picking apart each other's arguments, and putting their heads together before the actual ruling comes out. We won't get much of a picture into that, but you can bet this year's Supreme Court clerks are going to be busy. CONCERT PICK OF THE WEEK: Allman Family Revival - featuring Duane Betts, Cody and Luther Dickinson, Samantha Fish, Jimmy Hall, Maggie Rose, Larry McCray, Orbi Orbison, Donovan Frankenreiter, and the River Kittens. And whether you go to the concert or not - Check out the River Kittens. St. Louis' homegrown duo of Soulful, Harmonious, Folk music. They're awesome.Upcoming shows in Nashville, St. Louis, Denver, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and the tour closes out at the Fillmore in San Francisco next Saturday Dec 17th.Welp, that's it for me! From Denver I'm Sean Diller. Original reporting for the stories in today's show comes from Courthouse News Service, Colorado Sun, Nevada Current, Arizona Mirror, Colorado Newsline, and Denver's Westword.Thank you for listening! See you next time.

Song playsIntro by hostWelcome to High Country - politics in the American West. My name is Sean Diller; regular listeners might know me from Heartland Pod's Talking Politics, every Monday.Go to heartlandpod.com for information on all our political podcasts, and a link to support our work on Patreon. Sign up as an Official PODhead for just $5 per month to access all our premium podcast segments and political writing. To join the conversation on Twitter, find us at THE Heartland POD. Alright! Let's get into it: NEVADA CURRENT:Tribes in six states awarded $73MM in new high-speed internet grants.Three Nevada tribes will receive $11.6 million for high-speed internet, in the latest round of “internet for all” grants, federal officials announced Wednesday.The funding will directly connect more than 800 homes on tribal lands in Nevada to high-speed internet, improving access to education, jobs, and healthcare on tribal lands.Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo said“The Biden administration is committed to fostering meaningful partnerships with Tribal Nations, which have been vital to our goal of connecting everyone in America, with affordable, reliable, high-speed Internet service,” So far, about $1.6 billion has been awarded to 121 tribal nations with funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that passed last year. Those funds have connected more than 3,100 unserved Native American households that previously had no connectivity to high-speed Internet, as well as businesses and community institutions.These awards are part of a series of commitments the Biden administration announced Wednesday to strengthen nation-to-nation engagement between the federal government and Tribal Nations.The Walker River Paiute Tribe in Mineral County will receive more than $6 million to install fiber internet directly to more than 400 households, 22 community institutions, and 10 tribal businesses. The Duckwater Shoshone Tribe in Nye County is set to receive more than $3 million to install fiber internet to nearly 80 homes and 11 tribal institutions. The Fallon Paiute Shoshone Tribe in Churchill County will be awarded nearly $2 million to directly connect more than 300 households.Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, who has pushed for more broadband funding on tribal lands, praised the announcement Wednesday.“Throughout my time in the Senate, I've worked to make sure Tribes in Nevada have access to critical broadband,” she said. “I made sure these funds would get to Tribes in Nevada in a timely and efficient fashion, and I'm committed to helping Nevadans in every community access the critical educational, business, health care, and cultural resources that the internet provides.”Additionally, the national Affordable Connectivity Program - ACP - provides a discount of $30 per month toward Internet service for eligible households, and up to $75 per month for households on qualifying tribal lands. You're eligible for the benefit If you currently receive SNAP benefits, are on Medicaid, or earn less than 200% of the federal poverty line. That's about $27K for a single person household, or $55K for a family of four.To Apply, visit AffordableConnectivity.govCOLORADO SUN: Colorado Democrats ready to move on gun safety laws.A host of changes to Colorado's gun laws, from a ban on assault weapons to tweaks to the existing red flag law, are already being considered by Democrats at the state Capitol in response to the shooting last month at an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs. “Pretty much everything is on the table,” according to Senate President Steve Fenberg, a Boulder Democrat. “The question now is: What is the highest priority?”Democrats will return to the Colorado Capitol in early January with expanded majorities in both the House and Senate, and facing pressure to act after the state's latest mass shooting. Five people were killed and more than a dozen others wounded in a Nov. 19 attack on Club Q, allegedly carried out by a 22-year-old shooter armed with a semi-automatic, AR-15-style rifle.“Tay” Anderson, a Denver School board member, posted on Twitter that Democrats should immediately use their majority at the Capitol to pass an assault weapons ban.Saying “If folks refuse to act, vote them out,”Senate President Fenberg, who said gun control conversations were underway even before the Club Q shootings, said a ban on assault weapons is certainly a possibility. The challenge is figuring out how to write the law - how to define what an assault weapon is, what should happen to weapons already in the possession of Colorado residents, and how to address people traveling through Colorado to neighboring states where the weapons are permitted. It's more likely that Democrats pursue other changes to Colorado's gun laws first, such as raising the minimum age to purchase a rifle or shotgun to 21 from 18. The minimum age to purchase handguns in Colorado is already 21. Sen. Tom Sullivan, a Centennial Democrat, is working on changing the minimum age to purchase a gun. He initially wanted to raise the age only for so-called assault weapons, but thinks a broader change would be easier. “That will save us having to come up with a definition of what assault weapons are,” said Sullivan, whose son, Alex, was murdered in the 2012 Aurora theater shooting. “And that seems to be the consensus that we're hearing from the rest of the Democratic caucus.”There are also discussions about enacting a waiting period that looks like those passed in California and Hawaii, which have 10- and 14-day waiting periods, respectively. Illinois has a 72-hour waiting period after purchases a firearm, before they can access it.Colorado already requires universal background checks on all gun purchases, and has laws limiting gun magazines to 15 rounds, and requiring the safe storage of firearms. People whose guns are lost or stolen must make a report with law enforcement, as well, and there is a statute temporarily barring people convicted of certain violent misdemeanors from purchasing firearms.Colorado counties and municipalities are also now allowed to enact gun regulations that are more stringent than the state's policies after the legislature in 2021 repealed a preemption law.When it comes to Colorado's red flag law, a 2019 policy that lets judges order the temporary seizure of firearms from people deemed a significant risk to themselves or others - legislators might expand the list of who can petition a judge to initiate a red flag proceeding. Right now, law enforcement and family members are effectively the only groups allowed to petition a judge to order a seizure. Gov. Jared Polis has expressed support for adding district attorneys to the list, and others have suggested the attorney general's office, and teachers should be allowed to request seizures as well. The Colorado legislature reconvenes on Jan. 9.COLORADO NEWSLINE:  $35 insulin price cap coming to Medicare in January.A recent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report showed drug companies increased prices for several drugs by more than 500% since 2016. But starting next month, a $35 cap on insulin prices will go into effect for millions of Medicare recipients. The lower pricing is one of the first of several policy measures Americans will see under the Inflation Reduction Act, passed without a single Republican vote and signed into law in August.The insulin cap benefits Medicare Part D recipients, who also no longer have to meet a deductible on their insulin. A $35 cap on insulin pumps for Medicare Part B recipients goes into effect July 1, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare patients spent $1 billion on insulin in 2020, and an estimated 16.5% of people with diabetes rationed their insulin in the past year, which can be extremely harmful to their health or even fatal.According to an analysis of the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act from the Center for American Progress, an elderly middle class couple could save as much as $2,400 per year on insulin.ARIZONA MIRROR: AZ SOS Katie Hobbs recommends criminal prosecutions for Cochise County supervisors who refused to certify their election results. Hobbs wrote to Attorney General Mark Brnovich and Cochise County Attorney Brian McIntyre, that without repercussions, the decision of supervisors Tom Crosby and Peggy Judd not to certify their results could encourage future violations, further eroding election integrity in the state, and stomping on the will of Arizona voters. “Supervisors Crosby and Judd's actions not only demonstrate a complete disregard for the law but also jeopardize Arizona's democracy,” she wrote. “Had a court not intervened, the failure of these two Supervisors to uphold their duty would have disenfranchised thousands of Cochise County voters. This blatant act of defying Arizona's election laws risks establishing a dangerous precedent that we must discourage.” Crosby and Judd threw the Arizona state certification process into disarray last month, when they delayed their official canvassing of the midterm election results in Cochise County, citing bogus claims that electronic tabulators didn't meet required standards. It was only after a court ordered them to complete their statutorily mandated duties that they did so on Dec. 1, days after the Nov. 28 deadline. Their actions put the official statewide canvass in jeopardy, as Hobbs must meet a Dec. 5 deadline to certify the results. She can only push that deadline as far as Dec. 8. If she decided to go ahead with the process without the results from Cochise County, a heavily Republican region, more than 47,000 voters could have seen their ballots ignored and a number of races would have flipped in favor of Democratic candidates. The responsibilities of county supervisors are clearly laid out in state law and the state's Election Procedures Manual, Hobbs said, and they are non-negotiable. And, Crosby and Judd were given ample notification of the consequences.“Supervisors Crosby and Judd knew they had a statutory requirement to canvass the election by November 28, but instead chose to act in violation of the law, putting false election narratives ahead of Cochise County's voters,” Hobbs wrote. Hobbs, who was elected governor in the election, wrote that the two Republicans violated several state laws, with penalties ranging from a class 3 misdemeanor to a class 6 felony. If Crosby and Judd were convicted of a felony, their right to vote would be revoked. They also stand to lose their elected office: State law deems an elected office vacant if the officeholder is convicted of a felony or any “offense involving a violation of the person's official duties”. This is the second call for an investigation into the Supervisors possibly criminal acts - Earlier this week, former Attorney General Terry Goddard and Maricopa County Attorney Richard Romley wrote to outgoing AG Brnovich requesting he hold Crosby and Judd accountable.It's likely that Attorney General-elect Kris Mayes will make the final decision on whether to prosecute, once she takes office in January. In a statement, she said she agrees with the request from Hobbs' office to begin an investigation, and said that it is through that process that a decision on what further response, if any, is appropriate.COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE: Didn't we do this aJustices signal support for web designer who won't help gay couples with weddingsThe conservative majority appeared ready to answer a question the high court dodged four years ago: Must creative businesses put aside their religious beliefs to accommodate the beliefs of protected groups? WASHINGTON (CN) — A six-year crusade came to a head at the Supreme Court on Monday, pitting Colorado's nondiscrimination law against a Christian website designer who refuses to create wedding websites for same-sex couples. It was unsurprising that the narrow question at the center of the case perplexed many of the justices, since the high court passed up on answering it only four years ago. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court ruled in favor of a cakemaker refusing his services to a same-sex couple, but declined to expand the ruling much beyond the case in front of them. Lorie Smith's case brings that topic to a head. Stating that her Christian beliefs confine marriage only to heterosexual couples, Smith argues that Colorado's anti-discrimination laws - protecting LGBTQ+ Coloradans as well as others -  violate her free speech rights. Smith's attorney argued that “Colorado is declaring her speech a public accommodation, and insists that she create and speak messages that violate her conscience.” After two and a half hours of arguments, the conservative majority appeared inclined to agree.The liberal wing of the court expressed concern that a ruling for Smith could snowball into a free speech loophole allowing discrimination. Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned where the court would draw the line, on what kind of discrimination would be permitted - noting that the same arguments could be made for interracial marriage or even for excluding people with disabilities. The hypothetical-heavy arguments included almost every culture-wars issue on the books including discrimination on race, religion, sexual orientation and political preference. These scenarios conveyed a worry by some justices about how far even a narrow ruling in the case could extend. Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson said Smith's request for a free-speech exemption clause to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act would equate to a “license to discriminate.” “The free speech protection the company seeks here is sweeping, because it would apply not just to sincerely held religious beliefs as in this case, but also to all sorts of racist, sexist and bigoted views,” Olson said. “This rule would allow another web design company to say no to interracial couples, an ad agency could refuse to run ads for women-led businesses, and a tech consulting company could refuse to serve the web designer here, because it disagreed with her views on marriage. Where exactly to draw the line between free speech and anti-discrimination laws eluded many of the justices. This was partly because Smith brought the justices a preenforcement suit - she filed her suit against the state of Colorado before any same-sex couple actually requested her services. This creates difficulties for the justices in deciding a ruling. Justice Elena Kagan said the reason for the multitude of hypotheticals during oral argument was due to the lack of facts in the case - which make the justices' ruling all the more difficult. Kagan said “It really depends on the facts, and on what exactly Ms. Smith is being asked or compelled to do.”I could definitely be wrong, but as far as I can tell, the actual free speech claim isn't really justiciable without a real action from the state against the business owner. Seems like it's not ripe, as they say.But the court, in its infinite power, could rule on whether the 1st Amendment Free Speech clause of the Constitution provides an out for companies looking to discriminate against certain customers. You might be thinking, doesn't the U.S. Constitution protect all Americans from discrimination based on sex? It does - but that protection only applies to discriminatory actions by the state. So the state can't deny you a marriage license because of your sex or your partner's sex. The state can't deny you employment or throw you in jail, either - anymore.Here, it's a business that wants the right to turn away same-sex couples, and the state is looking to enforce a state anti-discrimination law - which may or may not conflict with the business owner's protected free speech.It's not a slam dunk that the conservative Supreme Court will rule for the anti-gay web designer, though. No small number of right-wing attorneys have made their entire careers using anti-discrimination laws on behalf of white people, to unravel protections for marginalized groups. If college admissions boards, for example, decide that admitting too many white students is not the ‘statement' they want to make - the ruling against the gay couple might undermine its own rulings on affirmative action practices.The Supreme Court has a highly interesting - and highly secretive - process of passing opinions back and forth to each other. Picking apart each other's arguments, and putting their heads together before the actual ruling comes out. We won't get much of a picture into that, but you can bet this year's Supreme Court clerks are going to be busy. CONCERT PICK OF THE WEEK: Allman Family Revival - featuring Duane Betts, Cody and Luther Dickinson, Samantha Fish, Jimmy Hall, Maggie Rose, Larry McCray, Orbi Orbison, Donovan Frankenreiter, and the River Kittens. And whether you go to the concert or not - Check out the River Kittens. St. Louis' homegrown duo of Soulful, Harmonious, Folk music. They're awesome.Upcoming shows in Nashville, St. Louis, Denver, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and the tour closes out at the Fillmore in San Francisco next Saturday Dec 17th.Welp, that's it for me! From Denver I'm Sean Diller. Original reporting for the stories in today's show comes from Courthouse News Service, Colorado Sun, Nevada Current, Arizona Mirror, Colorado Newsline, and Denver's Westword.Thank you for listening! See you next time.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis. The question being asked before the court is whether Lorie Smith, a wedding website designer, is legally permitted to decline creating custom webpages for same-sex weddings—is her religious objection protected by the First Amendment? During oral argument, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that Colorado law forced Jack Phillips—the cake baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission—was forced, by the state, to go through a reeducation program after refusing to make custom cakes for same-sex weddings citing a religious objection.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: On ABC's “This Week,” George Stephanopoulos asked House Democrat Leader Hakeem Jeffries about allegations he is an election denier. Following the 2016 Presidential election, Jeffries frequently referred to Donald Trump as an illegitimate president. While appearing on Fox News with Sean Hannity, Jim Jordan accused the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of engaging in political bias when deciding to investigate Donald Trump and vowed to hold them accountable. According to The Gateway Pundit, Elon Musk has alleged that FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried donated more than $1 billion to Democrat candidates. SBF has been accused of taking customer investments and illegally funneling them to another entity he controlled, Alameda Research. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis. The question being asked before the court is whether Lorie Smith, a wedding website designer, is legally permitted to decline creating custom webpages for same-sex weddings—is her religious objection protected by the First Amendment? During oral argument, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that Colorado law forced Jack Phillips—the cake baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission—was forced, by the state, to go through a reeducation program after refusing to make custom cakes for same-sex weddings citing a religious objection.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (12/05/22): 3:05pm- On behalf of Elon Musk and Twitter, investigative journalist Matt Taibbi released a series of tweets documenting Twitter's efforts to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2022 Presidential election at the behest of the Biden campaign team. Taibbi wrote, “[b]y 2020, requests from connected actors to delete tweets were routine. One executive would write to another: ‘More to review from the Biden team.' The reply would come back: ‘Handled.'” The Wall Street Journal's editorial board noted the release as “confirmation of the central role that former spies played in October 2020 in framing the Hunter Biden story in a way that made it easier for Twitter and Facebook to justify their censorship.” 3:35pm- While speaking about his decision to acquire Twitter and publicizing the platform's decision to censor information at the behest of elected officials and political candidates in the past, Elon Musk said, “sunshine is a great disinfectant” for “content take downs” requests and fulfillments. 3:50pm- While appearing on Fox News with Tucker Carlson, actor James Woods revealed that he plans to sue the Democratic National Committee for allegedly ordering Twitter to remove Woods' messages from the social media platform. 4:05pm- On ABC's “This Week,” George Stephanopoulos asked House Democrat Leader Hakeem Jeffries about allegations he is an election denier. Following the 2016 Presidential election, Jeffries frequently referred to Donald Trump as an illegitimate president.  4:15pm- While appearing on Fox News with Sean Hannity, Jim Jordan accused the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of engaging in political bias when deciding to investigate Donald Trump and vowed to hold them accountable.  4:20pm- According to The Gateway Pundit, Elon Musk has alleged that FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried donated more than $1 billion to Democrat candidates. SBF has been accused of taking customer investments and illegally funneling them to another entity he controlled, Alameda Research. 4:35pm- On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in 303 Creative v. Elenis. The question being asked before the court is whether Lorie Smith, a wedding website designer, is legally permitted to decline creating custom webpages for same-sex weddings—is her religious objection protected by the First Amendment? During oral argument, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that Colorado law forced Jack Phillips—the cake baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission—was forced, by the state, to go through a reeducation program after refusing to make custom cakes for same-sex weddings citing a religious objection. 5:05pm- Susan Crabtree—RealClearPolitcs' White House & National Political Correspondent—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss her recent article, “Enes Kanter Freedom's World Cup Call to Action.” Crabtree writes, “[t]he 6-foot-10 big man says it's a pivotal time for human rights worldwide and called on all athletes to use their outsized influence to voice support for dissidents bravely standing up to repressive regimes. U.S. and other athletes, he said, also shouldn't remain silent about widespread reports that thousands of migrant workers died in recent years working in Qatar on World Cup projects and stadiums.” Crabtree and Rich also discuss the latest regarding Elon Musk's claims of politically influenced censorship on Twitter.  5:25pm- On TikTok, a high school English teacher bizarrely suggested that grammar and writing rules are racist and oppressive.  5:30pm- While speaking with tech-journalist Kara Swisher, former Head of Trust & Safety at Twitter Yoel Roth defended the social media company's decision to ban the satirical account Babylon Bee for misgendering Dr. Rachel Levin in a joke.  5:40pm- Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said that if the FBI is asking social media companies to suppress certain, inherently political stories, “we have a real problem.”  6:05pm- In the aftermath of Elon Musk exposing Twitter's decision to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story, The Wall Street Journal published a public statement issued by intelligence officials from October 19th, 2020. The statement claims that the Hunter Biden story had “all the classic earmarks” of a Russian disinformation campaign. The statement was signed by 51 former officials, including Jim Clapper, Mike Hayden, and John Brennan. We now definitively know their assessment was incorrect. Is this further proof that federal government intelligence agencies have become politicized?  6:55pm- Who Won Social Media? + Zeoli's Final Thought

Audio of the 2018 Opinion of the Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins were engaged to be married  and busy making wedding plans. For their cake, they decided to ask Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, CO to create a custom-designed cake for their wedding reception. But the owner, Jack Phillips, wasn't on-board. Phillips refused because his religious beliefs forbade same-sex marriage. The question before the Court in this case was whether Colorado's public accommodations law compelling a cake maker to create a cake that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage violated the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment. The Court held the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's conduct in evaluating a cake shop owner's reasons for refusing to create a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding, violated the Free Exercise Clause. I'm reading today's case in anticipation a very similar case this term - 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, with oral arguments scheduled for December 5th. This case involves a website developer who wants to publicly communicate her refusal to provide services in connection with same-sex marriages, claiming that a public accommodations law compelling her to do so violates her first amendment right to free speech.   Access this Supreme Court opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.   Music by Epidemic Sound

American Crusade: How the Supreme Court Is Weaponizing Religious Freedom by Andrew L Seidel Is a fight against equality and for privilege a fight for religious supremacy? Andrew L. Seidel, a constitutional attorney and author of the critically acclaimed book The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American, dives into the debate on religious liberty, the modern attempt to weaponize religious freedom, and the Supreme Court's role in that “crusade.” Seidel examines some of the key Supreme Court cases of the last thirty years—including Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (a bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple), Trump v. Hawaii (the anti-Muslim travel ban case), American Legion v. American Humanist Association (related to a group maintaining a 40-foot Christian cross on government-owned land), and Tandon v. Newsom (a Santa Clara Bible group exempted from Covid health restrictions), as well as the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade—and how a hallowed legal protection, freedom of religion, has been turned into a tool to advance privilege and impose religion on others. This is a meticulously researched and deeply insightful account of our political landscape with a foreword provided by noted constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, author of The Case Against the Supreme Court. The issue of church versus state is more relevant than ever in today's political climate and with the conservative majority status of the current Supreme Court. This book is a standout on the shelf for fans of Michelle Alexander, Bob Woodward, and Christopher Hitchens. Readers looking for critiques of the rise of Christian nationalism, like Jesus and John Wayne, and examinations like How Democracies Die will devour Seidel's analysis.

Transcript: https://t.co/ucf7MzLLnoNick Isenberg has had an impressive 54-year career as a radio, television, and print reporter in cities across America. He served as bureau chief for television stations in Cedar Rapids and Fort Myers, but the bulk of his reporting career has been spent in Colorado, lending his producing and reporting skills to dozens of news outlets in the state. Nick has also worked as a public information officer for the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and public relations for Colorado Mountain College, and he currently produces independent documentaries.In case his resume wasn't already impressive enough, Nick currently hosts and produces a podcast called The Tactile Traveler that seeks to empower blind and low-vision people to explore the world, and helps sighted friends see the world in a new way. Nick is totally blind and considered Deaf-Blind. He has called being a Deaf-Blind reporter a whole new sport.Connect with Nick:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-tactile-traveler/id1474833991Connect with the Rocky Mountain ADA Center at https://rockymountainada.org/ or find us on social media. Don't forget to subscribe, rate and review us on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify or anywhere else you get your podcasts!

In this episode originally recorded in July 2021, Vox's Zack Beauchamp talks with Columbia law professor Jamal Greene about his book How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession With Rights Is Tearing America Apart. They discuss how the US obsession with rights and their protections gives too much power to judges and the courts, makes it difficult for ordinary citizens to find reasonable solutions to legitimate problems, and has made this country's legal system not only nonsensical but dangerous. Vox Conversations will return on Thursday, Oct. 13th — but under a new name, and with a new look. Stay tuned for The Gray Area with Sean Illing: a philosophical take on culture, politics, and everything in between. Host: Zack Beauchamp (@zackbeauchamp), Senior Correspondent, Vox Guest: Jamal Greene (@jamalgreene), Dwight Professor of Law, Columbia Law School References:  How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession With Rights Is Tearing America Apart by Jamal Greene (HMH Books; 2021) "From Guns to Gay Marriage, How Did Rights Take Over Politics?" by Kelefa Sanneh (New Yorker; May 24, 2021) Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905) Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 US __ (2018) District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 (2008) "Texas's radical anti-abortion law, explained" by Ian Millhiser (Vox; Sept. 2, 2021) We want to hear from you! Take Vox's audience survey today: vox.com/feedback Enjoyed this episode? Rate Vox Conversations ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ and leave a review on Apple Podcasts. Subscribe for free. Be the first to hear the next episode of Vox Conversations by subscribing in your favorite podcast app. Support Vox Conversations by making a financial contribution to Vox! bit.ly/givepodcasts This episode was made by:  Producer: Erikk Geannikis Editor: Amy Drozdowska Engineer: Patrick Boyd Deputy Editorial Director, Vox Talk: A.M. Hall Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Does the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protect a private social media company's right to moderate content on its platform?A new ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit says it does not, and that a Texas law preventing viewpoint discrimination on social media platforms is constitutional.The issue is likely bound for the Supreme Court, setting up what is arguably the most consequential First Amendment legal case in a half-century. Institute for Free Speech Chairman and Founder Brad Smith and George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin join us to debate the ruling and the future of free speech on the internet. Show notes: Texas social media law, HB 20 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in NetChoice v. Paxton 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in NetChoice v. Attorney General, State of Florida Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 Pruneyard Shopping Center et al v. Robins et al. (1980) Masterpiece Cakeshop, LTD. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) “Governor Newsom Signs Nation-Leading Social Media Transparency Measure” Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/SotoSpeakTheFreeSpeechPodcast Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

Jack Phillips was taken before Colorado Civil Rights Commission for refusing to design a custom cake for a same-sex wedding. The case went to the Supreme Court and his side won. In this interview, Sean asks Jack to share his reasons for not designing the cake, but also his journey to faith and why he started the bakery in the first place. Jack shares how his faith informs everything he does. This interview was first recorded on Sean's YouTube channel, which is in partnership with the Talbot Apologetics program.Jack Phillips opened Masterpiece Cakeshop in 1993, where he, his wife, Debi, and their adult daughter, Lisa, continue to serve the community of Loveland, Colorado.==========Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture is a podcast from Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, which offers degrees both online and on campus in Southern California.Read a transcript of this episode at: https://www.biola.edu/blogs/think-biblically/2022/bonus-the-cost-of-my-faithFind all episodes of Think Biblically at: https://www.biola.edu/think-biblicallyWatch video episodes at: https://bit.ly/think-biblically-video

Join us for another episode of The Narrative Podcast! Center for Christian Virtue President Aaron Baer and Policy Director David Mahan unpack two heartbreaking stories from the past week where children have fallen victim, as well as the bigger conversations surrounding them. Also joining is special guest Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel and senior vice president of corporate engagement for Alliance Defending Freedom. Together, they break down how freedom of speech is being hijacked in America, the problem with corporate policies, and how these issues can be combatted by presenting a case for a free workplace! Content advisory: This episode discusses sensitive topics and is not be suitable for the entire family.   More About Jeremy Tedesco Tedesco leads ADF's efforts to combat corporate cancel culture and build a business ethic that respects free speech, religious freedom, and human dignity. Immediately preceding his current role, Tedesco served as senior vice president for communications, during which time he was a lead convener of the Philadelphia Statement, a movement dedicated to restoring free speech and civil discourse. Tedesco also launched a regular video series called Freedom Matters, profiling ADF clients, cases, and issues.  Previously, Tedesco litigated First Amendment cases at the highest levels. He was part of the legal team that represented cake artist Jack Phillips in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission before the U.S. Supreme Court and argued Phillips' case at the Colorado Court of Appeals. He was also the lead brief writer in two other U.S. Supreme Court wins, Reed v. Town of Gilbert and Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn.  To learn more about Center for Christian Virtue and to get involved, visit CCV.org.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

“Religious liberty” is a phrase that we often hear, particularly in news stories revolving around Supreme Court decisions. But what is religious liberty and why is it often referred to as “the first liberty?” These are among the questions addressed in Kenneth Starr's 2021 book, Religious Liberty in Crisis: Exercising Your Faith in an Age of Uncertainty (Encounter, 2021) Although Judge Starr possesses impeccable scholarly credentials, the book is intended for general readers. It is an informative blend of American legal and constitutional history and a primer for all of us about a crucial component of our set of rights as citizens. Even if you are not religious, the book will endow you with a greater understanding of an issue that frequently roils the body politic and that is both timeless and of ongoing concern. Think Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission—decided by the Supreme Court in 2018. Luckily, we have with us today one of America's leading lawyers to walk us through the fascinating history of religious liberty and give us the lowdown on what we need to know should we find ourselves facing a choice between honoring our sabbath day and keeping our jobs. Kenneth Starr has been a figure of great note on the American legal landscape for decades. He is perhaps best known for his role in the Whitewater investigation during the Clinton administration and as a key member of Donald Trump's defense team in the latter's first impeachment trial. He has been among other things, a federal judge at the highest levels, a law school dean and a university president. Most significantly in terms of the subject matter of his new book and thus the main focus of our interview, he is a long-time champion of religious liberty and, as solicitor general under George HW Bush, argued before the Supreme Court such notable religious liberty and freedom of speech cases as Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, in which the Supreme Court found that a Bible club has the same right of equal access on school grounds as any other student-led organization. Judge Starr employs that famous case to illustrate one of the concepts discussed in book, equality. It is a cause dear to his heart and probably even more so given own quite humble origins in his home state of Texas. The common man aspects of Starr's background have enabled him to make this book approachable to its intended broad-ranging audience. Most of us at one time or another have found ourselves in school, work or business environments or simply driving along a highway and it is surprising how often questions involving religious liberty pop up for average people in such settings. Starr guides the reader engagingly and expertly through such questions as: What is the Lemon Test? What do you need to know about religious liberty as a parent, public school or college student, teacher, small business owner or employee? How have wedding cakes, monuments in the shape of Christian crosses, public displays of the Ten Commandments on government property, and government-subsidized school bus rides played into all of this? What is “accommodation” in this context and when might you need to seek one and what should you do if you are denied it? What is the relationship between free speech and religious liberty? We welcome Judge Starr, a Christian gentleman of the first order. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“Religious liberty” is a phrase that we often hear, particularly in news stories revolving around Supreme Court decisions. But what is religious liberty and why is it often referred to as “the first liberty?” These are among the questions addressed in Kenneth Starr's 2021 book, Religious Liberty in Crisis: Exercising Your Faith in an Age of Uncertainty (Encounter, 2021) Although Judge Starr possesses impeccable scholarly credentials, the book is intended for general readers. It is an informative blend of American legal and constitutional history and a primer for all of us about a crucial component of our set of rights as citizens. Even if you are not religious, the book will endow you with a greater understanding of an issue that frequently roils the body politic and that is both timeless and of ongoing concern. Think Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission—decided by the Supreme Court in 2018. Luckily, we have with us today one of America's leading lawyers to walk us through the fascinating history of religious liberty and give us the lowdown on what we need to know should we find ourselves facing a choice between honoring our sabbath day and keeping our jobs. Kenneth Starr has been a figure of great note on the American legal landscape for decades. He is perhaps best known for his role in the Whitewater investigation during the Clinton administration and as a key member of Donald Trump's defense team in the latter's first impeachment trial. He has been among other things, a federal judge at the highest levels, a law school dean and a university president. Most significantly in terms of the subject matter of his new book and thus the main focus of our interview, he is a long-time champion of religious liberty and, as solicitor general under George HW Bush, argued before the Supreme Court such notable religious liberty and freedom of speech cases as Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, in which the Supreme Court found that a Bible club has the same right of equal access on school grounds as any other student-led organization. Judge Starr employs that famous case to illustrate one of the concepts discussed in book, equality. It is a cause dear to his heart and probably even more so given own quite humble origins in his home state of Texas. The common man aspects of Starr's background have enabled him to make this book approachable to its intended broad-ranging audience. Most of us at one time or another have found ourselves in school, work or business environments or simply driving along a highway and it is surprising how often questions involving religious liberty pop up for average people in such settings. Starr guides the reader engagingly and expertly through such questions as: What is the Lemon Test? What do you need to know about religious liberty as a parent, public school or college student, teacher, small business owner or employee? How have wedding cakes, monuments in the shape of Christian crosses, public displays of the Ten Commandments on government property, and government-subsidized school bus rides played into all of this? What is “accommodation” in this context and when might you need to seek one and what should you do if you are denied it? What is the relationship between free speech and religious liberty? We welcome Judge Starr, a Christian gentleman of the first order. Give a listen. Hope J. Leman is a grants researcher. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Blaine Adamson is the owner of Hands On Originals, a “Christian Outfitters” shop in Lexington, Kentucky. Hands On creates customized apparel such as t-shirts, hoodies, and baseball caps. In 2012, when Adamson got a phone call from the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (or, GLSO) asking him to print t-shirts for a local gay pride festival, he explained that he could not accept the order because it would mean expressing a message that violated his Christian faith. He offered to refer GLSO to another shop that would gladly help them.   You can probably guess what happened next. The GLSO filed a complaint with the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission. GLSO also widely publicized what happened, which led to protests, a boycott, vile phone calls, and threats of violence. The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission ruled against Adamson and ordered him to print whatever GLSO wanted. But even that wasn't enough. Taking a page out from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's “How to Persecute Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop” Playbook, they ordered Adamson to undergo diversity training. Thankfully, in a positive similarity to the Jack Phillips case, Blaine Adamson received help from the Alliance Defending Freedom. Even though two different lower courts ruled in favor of Adamson, GLSO took its case to the Kentucky Supreme Court. On Thursday, seven years after the incident, the Court ruled unanimously that GLSO had no standing, and therefore no right, to sue Adamson. The Court ruled that because it was an organization and not an individual, GLSO had no standing under Kentucky law to file a suit. Which means, as the Alliance Defending Freedom explained, the decision “didn't directly address the broader First Amendment questions concerning Blaine's right to live and work consistently with his faith.” However—and this is important—in his concurring opinion, Justice David Buckingham made clear that the Human Rights Commission “went beyond its charge of preventing discrimination in public accommodation and instead attempted to compel Hands On to engage in expression with which it disagreed.” He then cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop, adding, “the government may not regulate expression, either by prohibiting disfavored expression or compelling favored expression.” Justice Buckingham went even further, putting on record that Hands On Originals doesn't discriminate based on, well, anything. “The record discloses three essential facts,” Buckingham wrote. “First, Hands On has an established practice of declining orders because of what Hands On perceives to be their morally-objectionable messages,” including sexually explicit or violent messages. “Second, Hands On accepted and completed an order from a lesbian singer who performed at the 2012 Pride Festival. Third, at no time did Hands On inquire or know the sexual orientation or gender identity of the persons with whom it dealt with on behalf of GLSO. These facts indicate that Hands On was in good faith objecting to the message it was being asked to disseminate.” Hopefully, with another decision like this in the books, Christian business owners will soon no longer be forces to accept and promote the new sexual orthodoxy. If that day comes, it's a win for everyone. After all, if Christians can be forced to promote messages with which they fundamentally disagree, then, as ADF points out, “it can force anyone to do the same… an LGBT printer who declines to create t-shirts criticizing same-sex marriage, a Democratic speechwriter who declines to write speeches for the Republican National Convention, or a Muslim singer who declines to sing Christian songs at a concert.” That's a world none of us want to live in. Come to BreakPoint.org and click on this commentary for more resources on the Hands On Case, as well as to ADF and other organizations that defend free speech and religious liberty.  

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of Arizona issued an important decision in the Brush & Nib v. City of Phoenix court case, another case located squarely at the intersection of religious freedom and the new sexual orthodoxy. The case dates back to 2013, when the city of Phoenix, in the name of public accommodations, enacted an ordinance prohibiting any discrimination against persons based on “sexual orientation,” among other things. The ordinance also clearly prohibited “directly or indirectly [displaying, circulating, publicizing or mailing] any … communication which states or implies that any facility or service shall be refused … because of a ‘person's status.'” In 2016 the Alliance Defending Freedom filed a pre-enforcement challenge on behalf of Brush & Nib Studio, a Christian-owned business that creates custom wedding invitations. What that means is though the studio had not yet been asked to prepare invitations for a same-sex wedding, it was only a matter of time before they would be forced to make the same kind of choice that people like Jack Philips have had to. That choice, ADF argued, would violate Arizona's Free Exercise of Religion Act (FERA). ADF also claimed the advertising restrictions violated the proprietors' free speech rights. On Monday, the Arizona Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, sided with Brush & Nib and ADF. That's good news. Even better news is that, just like the decision issued by the 8th circuit court two weeks ago, the majority opinion by Justice Andrew Gould was loaded with incredibly clear and helpful language about the nature of our religious freedoms. “The enduring strength of the First Amendment,” Gould wrote, “is that it allows people to speak their minds and express their beliefs without government interference. But here, the City effectively cuts off [Brush & Nibs'] right to express their beliefs about same-sex marriage by telling them what they can and cannot say.” Rejecting the city's argument that Brush & Nib's “custom wedding invitations are fungible products, like a hamburger or a pair of shoes,” Justice Gould acknowledged the “many hours” Brush & Nib owners Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski spend “designing and painting custom paintings, writing words and phrases, and drawing images and calligraphy.” Because “Duka and Koski are involved in every aspect of designing and creating the invitations,” he continued, “and they retain substantial . . . artistic control over the messages that are expressed in the invitations,” they are more than mere “scribes.” Thus, to compel them to create custom invitations is to compel them to endorse the message in those invitations, which the Arizona constitution forbids.   This strong language, in addition to the strong language issued by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of Christian videographers Angel and Carl Larsen in their case against a Minnesota's SOGI law, means that the courts have clarified the sort of protections that speech should have in our society. You might remember that the Supreme Court was hesitant to issue the same sort of sweeping language in Jack Phillip's case a few years ago, focusing instead on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's outright hostility. I'm glad the court smacked the commission down for their hostility, but the question of speech protection remains, and that makes this Arizona ruling so important. As ADF's Kristen Waggoner put it, Justice Gould's opinion included ADF's arguments “perfectly.” Though Gould's opinion was specifically grounded in Arizona's constitution, it is still applicable to the federal one. Brush & Nib v. Phoenix can serve as a kind of guide map for how other courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, can and should think about the protections religious speech deserve. Like Waggoner, I am “thanking God for his favor and praying we are gaining momentum” for the Supreme Court's upcoming October term.

Usually, infringements on religious freedom come from the government: legislatures, regulatory agencies, or local agents of inquisition like the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. But emerging and serious threats to religious freedom are also coming from the private sector. An obvious example is the workplace. I've talked for months now that Christians need a “theology of getting fired.” You might be great at your job (and you should be as a Christian), but you might also face pressure to affirm and support your employer's political agenda, one that has little to do with the company's business model or strategic goals. Many companies today face an incredible amount of pressure by outside advocacy groups, especially pro-LGBT organizations. The influence of these groups, especially the Human Rights Coalition, is incredible, and they reach well beyond the workplace. Recently, I hosted a Colson Center webinar with Jeremy Tedesco of Alliance Defending Freedom to discuss the influence of these LGBT advocacy groups, including new attempts to restrict the ability of religious groups to raise money. The main strategy comes by weaponizing so-called “hate group lists.” Once groups like ADF are designated as “hate groups” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, corporations are pressured to cut ties with any and all organizations that bear the scarlet “H.” Consider the “Amazon Smile” program. When participants in the program make a purchase on Amazon, half-a-percent of the price of their purchase can be designated as a donation to the charity of their choice. Zero-point-five percent might not sound like much, but as of last fall, Amazon had donated more than $100 million to eligible charities through the Smile program. In response to outside pressure, Amazon now excludes any organization designated as a “hate group” from the program. So, ADF, the Family Research Council, and others are barred from “Amazon Smile.” That's a relatively minor example. As Tedesco told us on the webinar, activists and their corporate allies have even more effective strategies to accomplish their goals. For example, companies that process credit card payments are also pressured from doing business with anyone deemed a “hate group,” whether they are or not. Some of our close ministry friends have been refused services. If a ministry you love and support cannot find someone to process their credit card donations, that's a huge blow. A new strategy is to target “Donor Advised Funds.” These funds manage charitable donations on behalf of families, individuals, and organizations, carry along specific tax benefits, and are offered by most of the major wealth management organizations. Essentially, they allow a donation to be made now, with the tax deduction, but distributed later according to the wishes of the donor. What many people who use donor advised funds fail to realize is that they actually surrender ownership of the assets they donate, and essentially become advisors as to how the funds will be used. Now there is now a move afoot to persuade those who offer these funds to exclude “hate groups” from receiving donations. All it would take is a stroke of a pen, and the donor couldn't designate his funds to the groups that he wants to give to anymore.  Thankfully, there are Christian based donor advised funds through groups whose Christian worldview lines up with people of orthodox faith. If you carry a donor advised fund with someone else, it may be time to consider transferring to these providers. Two of these providers, National Christian Foundation and Waterstone, joined Tedesco and me on the webinar. And you can listen to a recording of that webinar by coming to our website: BreakPoint.org Look, these challenges are a moving target and they are becoming more serious and more challenging by the day. I don't know if you noticed, but there were a lot more rainbow flags flown by corporations during Pride Month this year. This new “woke capitalism” means that corporate America could be an even bigger threat to religious freedom than anything coming out of the halls of government.  

I'm no lawyer. Typically, I have to rely on those in our Colson Center orbit trained in law to help me interpret the legalese in a judge's decision, but even I can understand the straightforward and sweeping language of Circuit Court Judge David Stras.          “Carl and Angel Larsen wish to make wedding videos,” Judge Stras wrote. “Can Minnesota require them to produce videos of same-sex weddings, even if the message would conflict with their own beliefs? The district court concluded that it could and dismissed the Larsens' constitutional challenge to Minnesota's antidiscrimination law. [But] Because the First Amendment allows the Larsens to choose when to speak and what to say,” we reverse their decision. How's that for judicial clarity? Because this is such an important case, I want to give you the background. And again, because of its clarity, I'll use language from the ruling itself. The Larsens create “commercials, short films, and live-event productions.”  While they do business with anyone regardless of race, sex, gender, etc., they will not create videos that “contradict biblical truth; promote sexual immorality; support the destruction of unborn children; promote racism or racial division; incite violence; degrade women; or promote any conception of marriage other than as a lifelong institution between one man and one woman.” You can guess which of those areas created problems for them. As Judge Stras' decision put it, “The Larsens now wish to make films that promote their view of marriage as a ‘sacrificial covenant between one man and one woman.'” According to the state of Minnesota, they can only do that if they will also, if asked, produce videos that paint same-sex marriage in a positive light. Otherwise, they would run afoul of the state's anti-discrimination act and be subject to fines and even jail time. The Larsens, with the help of the Alliance Defending Freedom, issued what's called “a pre-enforcement challenge.” When a district court ruled against the Larsens, they appealed to the Eighth Circuit and prevailed. The heart of the challenge had to do with the extent our free speech is truly free. Initially, this was the center of the defense of Masterpiece Cakeshop owner and cake artist Jack Phillips, but the Supreme Court ruled in his favor due to the gross mistreatment and disrespect he suffered at the hands of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In his decision, Judge Stras left no question that creating video content is speech and must be protected. “The Larsens' videos are a form of speech that is entitled to First Amendment protection,” he wrote. “The Supreme Court long ago recognized that ‘expression by means of motion pictures is included within the free speech and free press guaranty of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.'”          The next question is whether the state can compel someone to promote messages they disagree with. The obvious answer that wasn't obvious to the state of Minnesota or the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was obvious to Judge Stras: “The Supreme Court has recognized,” he wrote, “that the government still compels speech when it passes a law that has the effect of foisting a third party's message on a speaker.”          So now what happens? The case could make its way to the Supreme Court, which would be just fine according to David French. I agree with him that “it will be difficult to see [the Supreme Court] reversing the court of appeals” because the appeals court made such a strong case for “the constitutional order.”          Let's hope Minnesota won't be as willfully defiant as the state of Colorado, who continued to harass Jack Phillips. Still, there remain plenty of local jurisdictions and state civil rights commissions who will attempt to curtail the religious freedoms of its citizens.          That's why we'll need more courageous people like the Larsens, who live out their convictions with courage and kindness. And we'll need to continue to support organizations like ADF. After all, one day, we may very well need their support.

We recently began the season of Lent. One of the practices most associated with this season is giving up something as an act of sacrificial discipline. Some people give up chocolate.  Others decide to watch less television and instead use that time for prayer and Scripture reading. The goal of Lenten discipline is to be more fully conformed to the likeness of the Son of God, who loved us and gave Himself for us. After reading a recent op-ed by Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute, I wonder if one thing we all might strive to give up this Lent is contempt. The Oxford English Dictionary defines “contempt” as “the feeling that a person or a thing is worthless or beneath consideration.” It is ultimately derived from the Latin word contemptus which means “to scorn or despise.” Now, as Brooks wrote in the New York Times, contempt is not the same thing as strongly disagreeing with someone. Not only are strong disagreements inevitable, “disagreement helps us innovate, improve, and find the truth.” The problem isn't that we disagree, it's how we disagree. Increasingly, disagreements today are characterized by a “noxious brew of anger and disgust,” which is directed not only at bad ideas but also at the people who espouse them. This goes beyond incivility and rudeness. It even goes beyond intolerance. It's the conviction that while your side “is driven by benevolence,” the other side “is evil and motivated by hatred.” It is, to quote to the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, “the unsullied conviction of the worthlessness of another.” You can probably think of several examples of contempt directed at Christians. So can I. In fact, we often talk about them. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission's contempt for Jack Phillips comes to mind, and thank God, they've now backed down. But, to paraphrase the First Letter of John, if we say that we are free of contempt, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. Can we honestly say that we never think of our opponents as “irredeemable, stupid and deviant?” Do we always strive to be gentle with people while we criticize their ideas? As Frederica Mathewes-Green wrote a few years ago, while it may be “deliciously gratifying to see idiots roundly put down . . . that sense of gratification is not really one of our better points.” She added that whenever she hears a Christian say, “that he or she does not ‘suffer fools gladly,' she thinks “Well, Jesus suffers you.” Mathewes-Green isn't against humor, parody or satire. What she opposes is “raw ridicule” disguised as wit and cleverness whose principal purpose is to demean the person we disagree with. The fact that we are often unjustly maligned isn't a reason to reciprocate in kind. Brooks wisely urges readers who find themselves on the receiving end of contempt to “respond with warmheartedness and good humor,” for their own sakes as well as that of those maligning them. As Mathewes-Green would remind us, Jesus responds with love and grace to our hurtful words, mockery, and dismissiveness, too. As part of our observance of Lent, let's be mindful of those “occasions of sin,” those settings and circumstances that expose us to temptation. In the case of contempt for our opponents, things like social media, cable news, and political websites can be such occasions. These are the haunts for what Brooks calls “rhetorical dope peddlers,” people who “profit from the culture of contempt.” They pump up the outrage and you can almost hear the “ca-ching!” with every page view and “like.” Of course, this isn't easy when so much is at stake in our culture. But being conformed to Jesus' likeness isn't supposed to be easy. It involves dying. We should be grateful that, in this instance, the “death” being demanded of us is to not treat our enemies as if they are beneath our consideration. After all, Jesus not only suffered his enemies, he suffered for them – and that includes us, who in our sin were also His enemies, as well.   http://www.breakpoint.org/2019/03/give-up-contempt-for-lent/  

Warren Cole Smith and Shane Morris (sitting in this week for John Stonestreet) discuss yet another victory for Jack Phillips and religious freedom. After additional members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had yet again (despite the Supreme Court's admonition) expressed contempt for Phillips' religious beliefs, the Commission wisely dropped its case. Warren and Shane go on to cover a wide range of news from the week: China's stepped up persecution of Christians, the new Trump Administration rules that will strip funds from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, several airlines adopting a new "gender choice" for passengers, a male high school wrestler who forfeited a match instead of wrestling a girl, and the soon-to-be released movie "Unplanned" receiving an R-rating for depicting the violence of abortion. http://www.breakpoint.org/2019/03/bp-this-week-jack-and-religious-freedom-prevail-yet-again/   Resources Attend the 2019 Wilberforce Weekend! Apply to the Colson Fellows Program Despite winning at the Supreme Court, Colorado cake artist faced new threats – and he won again! Alliance Defending Freedom Wrestling with Purpose John Stonestreet and G. Shane Morris, BreakPoint, March 7, 2019   An Un-Planned R-Rating John Stonestreet and David Carlson, BreakPoint, March 5, 2019

The Christian Outlook – March 9, 2019 Georgene Rice and ADF’s Jim Campbell look at the about-face of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in their harassment of Masterpiece Cake Shop owner Jack Phillips. Kevin McCullough turns to Laila Mickelwait of the Exodus Cry ministry for a look at New York State’s move to legalize prostitution. The Common Good hosts Ian Simkin and Brian From talk to Naomi’s House executive director Simone Halpin about New York’s proposed legalization of prostitution and how that could make sex trafficking worse. Halpin also shares how Naomi's House is meeting the needs of those coming out of sex trafficking. The Common Good’s Ian and Brian talk with Fernando Ortega about his Christian music career. Dennis Rainey joins Don Kroah to talk about his plans after announcing that he is stepping down from Family Life Today.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission announced Tuesday that it will dismiss its most recent charges against cake artist Jack Phillips in the wake of newly discovered evidence of the state’s ongoing hostility toward religious freedom. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and join us to discussSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Georgene Rice and Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jim Campbell share how the Colorado Civil Rights Commission decided to abandon harassing Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Christian Outlook – January 12, 2019 Kevin McCullough asks Dr. Albert Mohler about the harsh reaction of Dutch officials to The Nashville Statement, a statement of conviction, summarizing and affirming the Bible’s teaching on marriage and human sexuality. Frank Sontag and Larry Elder discuss the more controversial elements of the immigration debate. John Zmirak, senior editor of The Stream sits with Eric Metaxas to as if the border wall, in and of itself, is somehow immoral. Frank Sontag asks how we’d like to live our lives in front of God. Bob Burney discusses at an article from the Economist "Why are so many teenage girls appearing in gender clinics?" Georgene Rice talks with Tim Muellhoff about his book, Defending Your Marriage – The Reality of Spiritual Warfare. Bob Burney looks at how the Colorado Civil Rights Commission continues its harassment of Masterpiece Cake Shop owner Jack Phillips.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Frank Sontag turns to Jonathan Keller, of the California Family Council, to share about the latest on California AB2943 and the open hostility it and the LGBT Caucus has towards Christian morality. Georgene Rice invites Alliance Defending Freedom's Kristen Waggoner, who successfully argued Jack Phillips' Supreme Court case (Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission), to share about Colorado's renewed effort to destroy Jack's business. Dr. Albert Mohler takes a look at the implosion of the Catholic church in Pennsylvania involving over 300 predatory priests and over 1,000 abused children. Catholic John Zmirak of "The Stream," shares his deep-seated concerns about what this means for the Catholic church as a whole. Craig Roberts turns to Annabelle Rutledge, of Concerned Women for America, share her efforts to put pressure on Congress to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Eric Metaxas has accomplished Christian author and apologist Douglas Groothuis share the story of he and his wife "suffering well" in his book, Walking Through Twilight: A Wife’s Illness—A Philosopher’s Lament.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Townhall Review – August 18, 2018 Hugh Hewitt speaks with Alliance Defending Freedom’s Vice President and Sr. Counsel, Jeremy Tedesco about the Colorado Civil Rights Commission continuing harassment of cake baker Jack Phillips. Michael Medved consults with retired airline pilot Dale Leidy for some answers about the ill-fated flight of a stolen Alaska Airlines turbojet. Michael Medved turns to former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer for his take on a former White House staffer popularly known as “Omarosa.” Dennis Prager and geopolitical forecaster Dr. George Friedman look at the turmoil in Turkey. Salem’s morning man on Denver’s KNUS, Peter Boyles, visited baker Jack Phillips and ADF attorney Jim Campbell about the latest skirmish with the Colorado Civic Right Commission. Hugh Hewitt and author Lawrence Wright reflect on the movie “Three Identical Strangers.” Dennis Prager looks at the controversy surrounding Minnesota State Attorney General candidate Keith Ellison.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission is once again coming after Masterpiece Cakeshop and Jack Phillips. This time he is being accused of discrimination for refusing to bake a cake celebrating a "gender transition." This is not about defending the rights of LGBT people. It never was. This is about punishing Christians for being Christians. That's all. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Michael Medved talks with Barronelle Stutzman of Arlene's Flower's and Jim Campbell, of ADF who worked on behalf of Stutzman on the Arlene's Flowers lawsuit, which is a group of civil suits that was brought against Arlene's Flowers of Richland, Washington by a gay couple who requested Stutzman to design and create flowers for their same-sex ceremony. Stutzman politely declined, due to her religious convictions. Stutzman was then taken to court, and her case was petitioned by ADF to the U.S Supreme Court, which in June was sent back to the Washington Supreme Court, in light of the recent SCOTUS decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Townhall Review — June 09, 2018 Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved speak with Jack Phillips, owner of The Masterpiece Cake Shop, and ADF lead council, Kristin Waggoner, to recount their six-year battle against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the Supreme Court’s groundbreaking ruling in favor of religious liberty. Michael Medved discusses the “Me Too” Movement’s next target, Bill Clinton. 98.9 FM The Answer’s Chuck Douglas speaks with Vice President Mike Pence for an insider view into what it’s like to be President Trump’s #2. Dennis Prager discusses the modern evangelicals’ unsettling exodus from the primary shaping force of Christianity, the Bible. Hugh Hewitt presses US Attorney General Jeff Sessions to explain the policy for separating immigrant children from their parents after they cross the border illegally. Mike Gallagher discusses the Democrats’ opposition to the President’s “right to try” law which grants terminally ill patients access to experimental treatments that have not yet been cleared by the FDA.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jeremy Tedesco, senior council at the Alliance Defending Freedom, joins Matt Hawkins and Travis Wussow to discuss the nuances of the Supreme Court's 7-2 decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. ERLC Explainer: Supreme Court supports baker in an important religious liberty case Top quotes from the Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court win | ERLC Policy Staff A good trajectory for the future of Christians in the public square | Andrew Walker Press Release: Russell Moore: Ruling ‘A win for all Americans' VIDEO: Russell Moore comments at SCOTUS VIDEO: Travis Wussow interviews ADF's Michael Farris at SCOTUS Case page at Alliance Defending Freedom Case page at SCOTUSBlog Guest bio Jeremy Tedesco serves as senior counsel and vice president of U.S. Advocacy and Administration for Alliance Defending Freedom, where he helps oversee the implementation of strategic initiatives and advocacy campaigns. Full bio… iTunes | Google Play | Stitcher | Tune in

This past Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case formally known as “Masterpiece Cake Shop vs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission.” In terms of religious liberty, there has been no recent case before the Supreme Court more important than this one.The backstory is that in 2012, Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop, denied a request made by two men to create a cake in order to celebrate their marriage. Jack Phillips and his attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom argue that in requiring Jack Phillips to make a cake, and thus compelling him to use his artistic expression in support of same-sex marriage, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission is violating his religious liberty and protection against forced speech.What we are looking at here is basically the sexual revolutionaries bullying a baker. This baker and that profession will not be the last.On religious liberty, there's been no recent case before the Supreme Court nearly so important as this one on Masterpiece Cake Shop.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.