It’s been a scary couple of days for post-liberals in America, with two major Supreme Court decisions (one of them unanimous) defending old-liberal concepts of religious liberty and free speech.

When the 303 Creative LLC decision hit the headlines (click here to read the majority opinion), I did something that’s quite rare in my household — I turned on the television and tried to watch mainstream cable-TV news.

Let’s face it: I struggle to understand why we have journalists who want the state to have the power to compel speech (intellectual content in general) in the work of writers, artists, video professionals, etc. But this post isn’t about the content of the news coverage of these decisions.

No, this is a post that I was requested to write after a recent luncheon with clergy, students, faculty and others at the Overby Center at Ole Miss. We kept coming back to a crucial question for news consumers: How do we find a compelling mix of news and commentary — representing different points of view — in an age in which most newsrooms embrace business models in which they tell paying customers exactly what they want to hear?

Here is another way of stating that: How do we find news and commentary that helps us understand the views of people what we need to respect (or at the very least truly tolerate), even when we disagree with them?

This led me to Twitter. I told folks that, when the 303 Creative decision was released, they needed to read whatever First Amendment specialist David French wrote about it. Why? Because I was convinced that he would find a way to parse the opinions and offer insights that made people on both sides of the decision very uncomfortable.

This is, frankly, why I have followed his work for several decades. This is why he is on a short list of people that I follow on Twitter when digging into major news trends and events. Hold that thought, because I will share my current version of that list at the end of this post.

But back to French and the headline on his New York Times column about this SCOTUS decision: “How Christians and Drag Queens Are Defending the First Amendment.”

Told ya.

Here is his overture, which is long — and essential — and readers can compare its contents with more than a few mainstream-news reports on this case:

I’m mostly done with my legal career. In 2015, after more than 20 years of full-time litigation, I hung up my courtroom spurs and moved into the world of writing and thinking for a living. But every now and then, I re-enter the fray. Last year I wrote an amicus brief in a case called 303 Creative L.L.C. v. Elenis, arguing that a wedding website designer had a First Amendment right not to speak. And on Friday the Supreme Court reached a decision in the case, ruling for the website designer and holding that the State of Colorado could not require her to design websites that, for example, celebrated same-sex weddings.

This case was not, as it has been widely described, about whether a website designer could refuse gay customers. That would be both illegal and immoral, and I would not participate in such a case. Indeed, the parties stipulated that the web designer, Lorie Smith, was “‘willing to work with all people regardless of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation and gender,’ and she ‘will gladly create custom graphics and websites’ for clients of any sexual orientation.” She was simply not willing to design websites that contained messages that violated her religious beliefs.

The case was not about whether a business could refuse to provide goods or services but whether it could refuse to generate specific expressions with which it disagreed. Here the parties agreed that “all of the graphic and website design services Ms. Smith provides are ‘expressive’” and that “websites and graphics Ms. Smith designs are ‘original, customized’ creations that ‘contribute to the overall messages’ her business conveys.”

As a result, no one should think that the Supreme Court sanctioned, say, whites-only businesses or permitted a business owner to slam the door shut on gay and lesbian customers.

What old-school liberal (now called “conservatives” in many news reports) readers need, of course, is a way to look at this case in a mirror image — attempting to see it from the point of view of the new “progressive” creative class that dominates news and Big Tech.

Thus, French offered these thoughts:

When could the government require a commercial provider of expressive services to say things she found objectionable? Could the government compel a portrait artist to paint a heroic picture of a white supremacist? Could the government compel a speechwriter to pen an anti-gay screed on behalf of a right-wing politician?

Under traditional First Amendment doctrine, the answer was a clear and emphatic no. The First Amendment doesn’t just protect my right to say things I believe, it also protects my right not to say things I don’t believe. As Justice [Neil] Gorsuch wrote in the court’s majority opinion, “The opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong.” And when one does encounter objectionable speech, he said, “tolerance, not coercion, is our nation’s answer.”

Please allow me to offer my own spin on that.

The following is a church-state parable that I have used many times here at GetReligion over the past decade or two, with details crafted to fit the truly liberal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which passed on a 97-3 vote in the U.S. Senate in 1993. Once again, I have tweaked a detail or two:

… Let's say that there is a businessman in Colorado who runs a video-production company. He is an openly gay Episcopalian and, at the heart of his faith (and the faith articulated by his church) is a sincere belief that homosexuality is a gift of God and a natural part of God's good creation. This business owner has long served a wide variety of clients, including a nearby Pentecostal church that is predominantly African-American.

Then, one day, the leaders of this church ask him to shoot and edit a video about a major event — the upcoming regional conference of the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays. He declines, saying this would violate everything he stands for as a liberal Christian. He notes that they have dozens of other video options in their city and, while he has willingly served them in the past, it is his sincere belief that it would be wrong to do so in this specific case.

As you would expect — see that headline again — this French column included material sure to offend his fellow evangelical Protestants and others to the right of center in American public discourse.

What did that look like, this time around? Well, it was sort of like my attempts on Twitter to ask if parents who are Episcopalians have a right — thinking First Amendment rights and religious liberty claims — to seek medical treatments to transition their minor children to another gender (in keeping with their family’s religious beliefs).

But French offered some lower-key language:

Make no mistake, this is a bipartisan phenomenon. As I’ve written before, parts of red America have engaged in wholesale acts of censorship designed to suppress speech about race, sexual orientation and gender identity that many conservative Americans find distasteful. In the run-up to the Supreme Court’s decision in 303 Creative, two different federal courts, in Tennessee and Florida, struck down restrictions on drag performances, holding that the states’ efforts to target drag shows violated the First Amendment.

Indeed, Florida has been a locus of unconstitutional culture warring. The administration of Gov. Ron DeSantis currently faces court injunctions against the governor’s efforts to override private social media corporations’ ability to moderate their own websites, regulate corporate diversity training and regulate university instruction regarding race.

A fundamental reality of American First Amendment law is that it is sustained and defended by outsiders, people who are typically unpopular in their own communities. Sometimes that lack of popularity is well earned and enduring. When American Nazis demanded to march through Skokie, Ill., for example, they deserved every drop of the public condemnation they received. But they still retained their constitutional right to speak.

Yes, there is more. Read it all.

Let me conclude by stating, once again, why I think it is important for news consumers to seek out informed, high-quality points of view (on Twitter and elsewhere) that make them uncomfortable.

You see, we cannot read everything in a world in which thousands of niche, advocacy media outlets compete for our attention. And, sadly, it’s no longer possible to trust mainstream news — even the Associated Press (essential Richard Ostling Memo here) — when it comes to coverage of hot-button news about culture, religion and morality.

So who do I follow? Remember that the goal here is to note the URLs offered by these thinkers, pointing to news coverage and documents worthy of attention. Also, you are looking for writers and readers who are willing to critique and even criticize “their side” of public debates, looking for weaknesses and important new information.

This is my list, not a list for everyone.

The common denominator here — on left and right — tends to be respect for old-school First Amendment thought. Do these writers on my “old left” and the “complex right” see eye to eye with each other (and moi) on all issues? Of course not. That’s the point. Here we go:

* David Shor — head of Data Science at Blue Rose Research in New York City.

* Michael R. Wear — best known for his work with faith-outreach efforts for Barack Obama.

* Father James Martin — Jesuit, media-maven best known for his work on LGBTQ+ issues.

* Bari Weiss — Editor of The Free Press; formerly of The New York Times.

* Andrew Sullivan — Gay-rights activist and one of the world’s blogging pioneers.

* Jonathan Haidt — Social psychologist known for his writings at The Atlantic.

* Glenn Greenwald — Hard-to-label online journalist and Pulitzer winner.

* JK Rowling — Author.

* Ryan Burge — Political scientist, liberal Baptist pastor, master of religion-info charts

* Democrats for Life — An often forgotten, but surprisingly large, political minority group.

Just to be provocative, consider following Democrat Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. — if only to watch his battles with the mainstream press.

Now, here are some of my favorite, and often unpredictable, right-of-center voices and sources of information. Yes, there are lots of #NeverTrump folks. I know that. It’s the times in which we live.

* David French

* Marvin Olasky — Journalism historian and religious conservative (as opposed to being a generic Republican).

* Kristen Waggoner — President of Alliance Defending Freedom

* Sen. Tim Scott — Not your normal GOP voice in U.S. Senate

* Robert P. George — Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton; Catholic banjo player

* Karen Swallow Prior — Relentless evangelical thinker who only pays attention to news when she needs to.

* Frederica Mathewes-Green — Eastern Orthodox scribe on family issues (and a friend for decades)

* Rod Dreher — Author of bestsellers, blogger, provocateur (and a friend for decades)

* Anthony Sacramone — Relentless reader who edits Religion & Liberty

* Tim Carney — Author of the must-read book “Alienated America”

Yes, I am very aware of the weaknesses in my list, especially when it comes to finding Scribes of Color, female and male, who thrive outside obvious niches in the media on right and left. This is, I fear, a comment on trends in niche media. Who should journalists turn to in Black and Latino churches, in particular?

That’s all for now.

Remember that this is my list. The goal is to find Your. Own. List. of Twitter thinkers who point you toward news and commentary that you would have missed, otherwise. We are seeking scribes who save us time and make us think. Period.
FIRST IMAGE: Screen shot from David French appearance on CNN.