When I read this article from the Washington Examiner; Justice Barrett is allowed to have religious beliefs, (by Hugo Gurdon E.I.C.) I found myself conflicted in its intention and taken aback by its content. I slowly read the absolute bias and abundant usage of harsh cliche terms for those that are termed “The Left”. The entire article could have been written without the jaundiced derision of those who doubt Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s ability to rule blindly on the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act case before the Supreme Court. Because of her membership association with a religious group that is clearly opposed to the outcome of the case this author’s seemingly only intent is on attacking those that call for impartiality.

The case is based upon the religious freedom of a woman who’s business is the designing of public webpages. In this case the women has been refused the ability to expand her business to provide wedding webpage services because of her refusal to allow public service for an LGBTQ wedding solely on her religious beliefs

“I want to create for weddings, but I can’t because Colorado is censoring and compelling my speech and forcing me to create custom messages and expressions … celebrating messages that violate my deeply held beliefs,”¹

The concept of Religious Freedoms as being so inalienable by the Conservative or Religious Right as presented by Mr. Gurdon and those that oppose this web designer and her ruling on the case as solely the acts of ‘Leftist’ religious persecution deserves a remonstrance regardless of Justice Comey-Barrett’s ability to rule fairly.

I too, feel there is a fine line between using your own beliefs in business and the government’s ability to maintain general authority in society. The conflicts of any civil society with the Governor of the universe and the duty one owes the Creator based upon each individual’s right to exercise it as they themselves dictate cannot be held apart. Religious viewpoints are inalienable because as Madison wrote;

The right is unalienable because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds, cannot follow the dictates of other men. – James Madison

However, as was revealed by Madison’s dissertation there is a conflict between Freedom of Religion and being a member of civil society. It is not just the pocketbook that rules our society as Mr. Gurdon inaccurately portrays but our willing subordination to the institutions of that civil society that acts to protect our basic freedoms. The conflict arises from the Constitutional holding that in matters of religion no man’s rights are to be held back by the institutions of civil society. Religion must be wholly exempt from the institutions of civil society is our belief. “No other rule exists”, Madison writes. Yet questions that divide society can only be decided by the majority for a free and democratic society to exist. As Madison continued the concept”

but, it is also true the the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority

Since the make up of civil society has never been a fad or a short lived movement it cannot be fleeted away by Mr. Gurdon as simply a ‘cultural revolution’ and its change in society as simply ‘fashionable opinion.’ Civil society adherence to the Constitution has a requirement to uphold the will of the majority and at the very same time protect the rights of the minority. In this article Mr. Gurdon directs a reader into the idea that the ‘traditional Christian’ viewpoint is the minority to be protected. Yet, it is just that Christian viewpoint in the majority that trespasses and persecutes the LGBTQ minority and violates the separation of civil powers that have protected so called traditional Christians from the dictates of other Christian sects, including protection of Justice Coney Barrett’s own Roman Catholic sect.

Can Justice Coney Barret rule impartially on the matter without recusal? I cannot tell you the conscience of this Roman Catholic and her inalienable right to the Creator left to her own reasoning and convictions by . I can hope she will not overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of people. She must do so without the violation of the free rights of every citizen in every aspect of their equal participation in civil society. She must do so free from the dictates of religious viewpoints and opinions of other men, in this particular case women and of her own.

“If all men are by nature equally free and independent.  All men are to be considered entering into society on an equal conditions;  as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less one than another of their natural rights.  Above all are they to be considered as retaining ‘equal title’ to the free exercise ..to the dictates of their conscience.  While we assert for ourselves to embrace, to profess, and to observe the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yielded to the evidence which has convinced us”  – James Madison.