Welcome to the advisory opinions podcast. This is David French with Sarah Isker and we've got legal developments for you today, including.

I don't know what was the word that you used to describe this case out of the 10th circuit. Sarah was it bonkers?

It was bonkers. It was bonkers. Okay. Pretty wild case involving a web developer and a same-sex marriage developing a website for a gay marriage celebration.

And how the court, the 10th circuit court of appeal said, yep, the web developers gonna have to do it. They're gonna have to do it, which is creating a circuit split.

And we talked before about the Arlene flower case, Arlene's flowers case, masterpiece, cake shop case.

How there have not been what you might call a perfect vehicle for determining the underlying free speech question here. When can the state compel your unquestionably creative expression to celebrate an event that you disagree with?

And this is the case that might do it. So we're gonna talk about that. We're also gonna talk about some interesting developments related to January 6th.

And if we've got time, we may not. If we've got time, maybe a bit of a post script about the Amy Chua discussion that we've had previously.

There was some really interesting reporting from Elizabeth Brunig and the Atlantic that has sort of fleshed out that story. But let's start with the 10th circuit.

Sarah, do you want to launch us?

Yeah. So you have a panel of the 10th circuit to Clinton appointee judges and then Chief Judge Tim Kovitch, who is a W appointee taking on this case of a wedding website developer.

Who declined to make a website for a gay wedding.

This, if it sounds like masterpiece cake shop, it's because it is. It's still Colorado. It's still that same statute in Colorado. That same, like it's everything of masterpiece cake shop.

And yet the case comes out the opposite way where the two judges find that in fact the website developer must to not violate the law must design a website for same sex weddings.

Judge Tim Kovitch in descent, the whole thing is 103 pages. It's super duper long. But here's the punchline. The majority says that it is compelled speech.

But that it meets strict scrutiny that the government has such a compelling interest to limit discrimination that in fact it can compel the speech in descent. Tim Kovitch is just head scratching Lee saying no.

Some things that are interesting about this big picture. So the reason that this is such a good vehicle is because it is unquestionably artistic, right?

The website, there's like all these things they include of like how artistic the website development is so much so that the majority actually says that this person should be considered a monopoly because it is so artistic.

And that's the fact that she is the only one who can create it. Therefore she's a monopoly of one. That's like separately insane that like the way you can get around the compelled speech problem is by declaring every artist a monopoly because no one else does it the way they do that's a message.

And then you have the speech on its head and then spins it on its head and then kicks it in the stomach. That's crazy. So, but you have the creative side losing.

That's how you want to go up to the Supreme Court.

The question is does a judge on the 10th circuit move to hear this on bomb so that they can correct it internally within their own circuit in which case if they do the Supreme Court probably will not take it or do all the judges on the 10th circuit basically write a concurring in denial of rehearing on box saying we hope the Supreme Court takes this and corrects it.

...