During the Mahmoud v. Taylor oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court this week, universal school choice was lauded by none other than Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Of course, Jackson did not intend to do this.
Jackson said she was “struggling to see how it burdens a parent’s religious exercise if the school teaches something the parent disagrees with. You don’t have to send your kid to that school. You can put them in another situation.” What a powerful, albeit inadvertent, endorsement for school choice.
Supreme Court justices and Democratic Party voters alike wonder why Maryland parents don’t just move along. After all, there are other schools, right? But universal school choice does not exist in the state. In fact, most of the country lacks universal school choice. Many families do not have the financial resources to send their children to private or religious schools. Many do not have the time and resources to homeschool.
As a result, parents’ rights must be protected. Just based on the oral arguments alone, it seems likely that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of parents who want to shield their children from gender ideology.
Jackson’s unintentional declaration of support for choice contrasts sharply with her viewpoints on another matter involving choice. The hypocrisy is glaring.
For years, leftists on the bench and elsewhere have targeted Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado. Phillips has been labeled a bigot for refusing to create custom cakes for gay weddings or gender transitions. Phillips’ personal religious beliefs are such that he could not in good conscience fulfill the customer requests. In no way does Phillips refuse to serve LGBT customers for merely existing. Instead, it’s clear that only when an order violates the free expression of his faith does he refuse.
In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission against the commission. The majority opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy states, “the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint.”
In 2022, Phillips was again discussed in relation to the 6-3 decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. This time, a Colorado web designer who refused to create websites for same-sex weddings was taken to court for discrimination. The majority opinion concluded, “The First Amendment prohibits the state of Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.”
The dissent included Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan, and Jackson. For years, the message from left-leaning justices and activists has been that Phillips and designer Lorie Smith are wrong to refuse client requests. Overwhelmingly, the attitude is that Phillips’s bakery and Smith’s design studio are the only ones in Colorado. The option to take the business elsewhere is never even entertained.
But now, with the question of parental control taking center stage, Jackson is quick to say, “You don’t have to send your kid to that school. You can put them in another situation.”
Where was this sentiment when she dissented in the 303 Creative case? “You don’t have to take your business to that baker or web designer. You can put yourself in another situation.” What an easy solution to those dilemmas.
It’s obvious that the preference for LGBT issues overrides personal or religious liberty in some minds. Apparently, it means common sense is discarded and consistency is missing. Parents don’t like LGBT indoctrination in schools? Oh, just go elsewhere. The choices are endless. Even though school choice doesn’t exist where you live.
‘HEY PARENTS, LEAVE THOSE KIDS ALONE’
Customers are refused service for very specific, values-bending requests? Well, the business owner needs to change. The customer simply can’t be made to patronize another bakery or design studio that could fulfill the request.
Hopefully, the result of the Mahmoud v. Taylor case is a win for parents. There must be accommodations for those who don’t have access to school choice. Jackson was adamant that choice is a good thing. She’s correct as far as that’s concerned. When other options are available, the decision is clear. If only left-leaning justices would be honest about that.
Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog and a contributing freelance columnist at the Freemen News-Letter.