The Supreme Court rules in favor of religious business owners and against Joe Biden's

illegal student loan bailouts. The media launch a full-scale assault on the Supreme Court and

universities look for a way to avoid the law on affirmative action. I'm Ben Shapiro. This is The Ben Shapiro

show. Today's show is sponsored by ExpressVPN. Thousands of my listeners who already

secured their network data, join them at ExpressVPN.com slash Ben. Well, there are two major Supreme Court decisions that came down on Friday. One of them was on religious freedom. The other one was on Joe Biden's decision to get rid of student loans, essentially to bail out all student loans in the United States. So both decisions came down the right direction.

The Supreme Court, which again, this is the big victory for Donald Trump, the lasting victory that Donald Trump is going to have had from his presidency, whether or not he becomes president, again, that's another issue. But the big victory he's going to have had from his presidency is the remolding and reshaping of the Supreme Court. He got three picks on the Supreme Court, and all three of them

seemed to have been victories on behalf of conservative jurisprudence and originalism.

The first case concerned religious freedom. This would be 303 Creative LLC versus Elanus.

This opinion was written by Neil Gorsuch, who was one of Donald Trump's appointments.

He was actually his first appointment to the Supreme Court. And that particular case went

six three, and it was the six conservatives versus the three liberals on the court. And this

opinion concerned the question of whether a religious website designer could be forced to

essentially create a website on behalf of a same-sex wedding. Now, you may say to yourself,

that sounds exactly like the Masterpiece Cake Shop case. Masterpiece Cake Shop case was a case in which there was a guy who was asked to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and he decided they didn't want to do that. And the Supreme Court said that's artistic expression. The question was, how broadly would that apply? To what level of services would that apply? Because there are essentially two issues in American law that are in conflict right now. One is the so-called public

accommodations law. Okay, that comes from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I've suggested

before that the Public Accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act are wrongheaded.

I actually think that they are an overstep in terms of constitutionality. They essentially

say that if you act in business, then you quote unquote cannot discriminate. And that was written for good reason. It was originally written in order to make sure that, for example, black people could stay at hotels and people who operated hotels couldn't bar black people from hotels. So you understand exactly where it came from. The motivations are good. The problem is it's overbroad because it also allows the government now to dictate exactly who you must do business with. So the public accommodations law of the Civil Rights Act is on the one hand. On the other hand is freedom of association and freedom of speech. Let's say that, for example, you weren't a public accommodation in the same way. It wasn't a hotel that was open to everyone. Let's say that you were a bed and breakfast. Did the same thing apply? Well, the Supreme Court said in the past that it did

apply. So these two things come into deep and abiding conflict when you are talking not really about

issues of race, but issues of activity. So same-sex marriage is in fact an activity. So there's a

difference in the law between discrimination against quote- gay people and discrimination against activities done by gay people. Those are not quite the same thing. So for example, if somebody came into your business and you live in a state that has a strong anti-discrimination law like the state of Colorado, somebody walks in your business and they say, I want to buy a donut. And you say, are you gay or are you

straight? That's a violation of anti-discrimination law in the state of Colorado. If, however, the person

...