The recent Supreme Court ruling favouring a Colorado Christian web designer has sparked intense debates nationwide. This landmark case, which centres around the designer’s refusal to create websites promoting same-sex marriages due to religious beliefs, brings forth challenging questions about personal freedom, the free market, and the delicate balance between societal norms and individual beliefs. Amid the uproar, this article aims to delve deeper into the implications of this Supreme Court ruling and its broader impact on our society.

The unsettling silence surrounding the recent arrest of Abi Roberts, a London-based comedian renowned for her staunch opposition to authoritarianism during the ‘pandemic’ and her advocacy for those adversely affected by the vaccine, shines a glaring spotlight on the deteriorating state of free speech in the UK. The fact she was detained solely for swearing is a startling reminder of the increasing threats to freedom of expression. This incident also unearths the disconcerting absence of principled reporting from supposed ‘alternative media’ outlets on issues they profess to champion.

Roberts, a familiar face on free speech platforms like GB News, Talk TV, and YouTube’s Tiggernomentary during the early ‘pandemic’ days, is no newcomer to controversy. However, her increasingly sidelined status, due to her heterodox common sense views, casts serious doubt on these platforms’ alleged commitment to freedom. It also questions the ability of broadcasters to genuinely uphold free speech under the scrutinising gaze of regulatory bodies such as OFCOM.

However, I am also aware that my viewpoint could be seen as opening the door to a slippery slope, where allowing one person or business the right to discriminate could invite further discrimination. So let’s unpack this.

In supporting an individual’s or business’s right to discriminate, my contention is not to advocate for discrimination as a societal norm, but to underscore the importance of freedom of choice, personal beliefs, and the role of market forces in a free society.

Think about it from a free market perspective. If discrimination becomes prevalent, it could open up potentially lucrative business opportunities for those willing to serve the disenfranchised clientele. This is the power of the free market at play, and societal attitudes would naturally serve as a check on such behaviour.

The Supreme Court ruling has far-reaching implications. The decision could carve out significant exceptions in state public accommodation laws, allowing businesses that provide customised, “expressive” goods or services to select their clientele.

Critics argue that this might destabilise the public marketplace, enabling businesses to refuse service based on client identity. However, I posit that this could also lead to a more diverse marketplace where businesses specialise in serving specific communities, creating a broader array of choices for consumers.

Ultimately, this case presents a perfect case study for us to enrich our understanding of freedom of speech and the power of the free market in balancing societal norms and personal beliefs. This is not a debate about endorsing discrimination, but rather about endorsing the freedom of personal choice in a free market society.