Ted Cruz wins the award for stupidest response to the Supreme Court’s latest anti-LGBTQ+ ruling

Just when we didn’t think Ted Cruz could possibly get any dumber, he issued a statement in response to today’s Supreme Court’s ruling that grants private businesses the right to deny goods and services to LGBTQ+ people.

Colorado web designer Lorie Smith argued before the court that the Bible says she can’t provide her services to a same-sex couple looking to create a wedding-related website, even though no same-sex couple has ever asked her to.

(We’re pretty sure the Bible doesn’t say anything about same-sex marriage, and we’re 100% sure it doesn’t say anything about websites, but we digress.)

Though Colorado state law prohibits discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, Smith said the non-discrimination statute violates her right to free speech. The conservative court agreed in a 6 to 3 vote down ideological lines.

In the statement, which nobody asked for BTW, Cancun Cruz tried spinning the whole thing as a win for people of all faiths–Muslims, Jews, you name it!

“Before today’s ruling, the state of Colorado wanted to compel the speech of Christian artists and business owners who declined to use their God-given talents to celebrate views that run contrary to what their faith teaches,” Cruz said. “This law wasn’t just a threat to Christians either.”

He continued, “Should a Muslim artist be compelled by the government to draw the image of Muhammed? Should Jewish artists be forced to create art that is antisemitic? No, absolutely not. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is a victory for the First Amendment not just in Colorado, but all across the United States.”

Last we checked, nobody in the government was demanding that Muslim artists draw images of Muhammed. And, come to think of it, we haven’t heard of very many Jewish artists be forced to create antisemitic art either.

Christians using their faith to justify discriminating against LGBTQ+ people is definitely a thing that happens, however. And, unfortunately, it will continue to happen thanks to today’s SCOTUS ruling.

Here’s how folx have been responding to Cruz’s statement…

I’m going to bookmark this tweet because you will be the first one screaming when a business denies service to MAGA supporters.— T (@tee_vee17) June 30, 2023

Slavery was upheld by SCOTUS in the 1800s. Slavery is also in your Bible.— JKay (@JKay52297925) June 30, 2023

Cancun cruz— S Garz (@sgarz3) June 30, 2023

LGBTQIA people are created queer in the image of the Divine. To discriminate against them is a sin against the divine.— Ocean_Sapphire (@OceanSapphire82) June 30, 2023

“She was never penalized for rejecting a same-sex couple — and it’s unclear if she ever did — but sued on hypothetical grounds.” So now we can sue on things that never happened because they might happen? Hmmmm.— Susan (@redwitch497) June 30, 2023

I can’t wait for an atheist web designer to refuse to do work for Christians.— Bobby Selah (@bobbyselah) June 30, 2023

She had no standing. No injuries occurred— john smith (@blklung) June 30, 2023

yay! it is a great day for bigotry and discrimination in our country …now let’s do christians!— trixeyfairfield (@trixeyfairfield) June 30, 2023

Wait I thought that discrimination was bad? Or is that only when it can affect straight white people like affirmative action? Or is discrimination based in faith a good thing?— Steve (@dontgoslideaway) June 30, 2023

Should a patriotic America be compelled to listen to
Ted Cruz?— xxxJDxxx (@xxxJDxxx3) June 30, 2023

In the dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayer noted that today’s ruling comes amid a “backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities.”

“New forms of inclusion have been met with reactionary exclusion. This is heartbreaking. Sadly, it is also familiar,” she wrote. “When the civil rights and women’s rights movements sought equality in public life, some public establishments refused. Some even claimed, based on sincere religious beliefs, constitutional rights to discriminate. The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims.”