I've now read all 59 pages of the decision,
including the dissents.
This is nuts.
The justices are arguing among themselves and with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Court of Appeals over wedding cakes.
Is there a difference if the cake is
pro-gay or anti-gay? What if it's an undecorated cake? Is there cultural significance to a wedding cake? Is the decorating of a wedding cake an "expressive" act and therefore subject to state protection from interference?
It's unbelievable.
Because simple freedom of association is ruled out from the
start, they have to contort themselves this way and that to justify why in some cases people should have a right not to be forced to do things they don't want to do.
Convoluted. That's the word for it.
Much simpler is what Matt McWilliams and I are discussing tomorrow: newbies and affiliate marketing,
my favorite thing in the world. When you promote someone else's product as an affiliate (and anyone can do this), all you need is a link. You don't even know who winds up clicking on it.
But when they click and buy, you earn a commission.
No controversy, nothing. Just moolah.
I'll be announcing the creation of my mastermind group at tomorrow's event, too, and how to get in.
I'd offer you a piece of cake for signing up, but after those 59 pages I'm sick of cake.
But this is going to help you, so
sign up and I'll see you there:
Tom
Woods