Tangle - The same-sex wedding website ruling.

Episode Date: July 6, 2023

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. On Friday, the Supreme Court sided with a Colorado web designer who argued that the First Amendment entitles her to refuse to build wedding websites for same-sex couples. The 6-3 decision, with all Republican-appointed justices in the majority, was widely described as a win for religious conservatives and a defeat for LGTBQ rights.You can read our previous edition, where we broke down the oral arguments, here.Tickets are officially live (and public!) for our event in Philadelphia on Thursday, August 3rd. Thanks to all the folks who bought tickets — we're on track to sell this baby out! Remember: Our goal is to sell out the venue, and then take Tangle on the road. Please come join us! Tickets here.You can read today's podcast here, the Blindspot report on the left here and on the right here, and today’s “Have a nice day” story here. You can also check out our latest YouTube video here.Today’s clickables: Quick hits (1:08), Today’s story (3:16), Left’s take (7:21), Right’s take (11:16), Isaac’s take (15:08), Reader feedback and response (20:42), Blindspot Report (24:30), Numbers (25:08), Have a nice day (26:02)You can⁠ subscribe to Tangle by clicking here⁠ or drop something⁠ in our tip jar by clicking here.⁠Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we are going to be talking about the 303 Creative case. This was a case about a Colorado web designer who was arguing that the First Amendment allowed her to refuse to build a wedding website for same-sex couples. The Supreme Court just ruled in her favor last week. We're going to be talking about that ruling. This is a week of Supreme Court rulings. We had one yesterday, we're going to have another one tomorrow, and we've got this one today. Before we jump in, though, as always, we'll start off with some quick hits. First up, the Philadelphia mass shooting suspect is being charged with five counts of murder and

other charges that include carrying a firearm without a valid permit. Number two, former President Trump fundraised more than $35 million over the last three months, doubling his haul over the first quarter of 2023. Number three, Meta, formerly Facebook, launched a new Twitter competitor called Threads yesterday. More than 10 million users joined in the first seven hours. Number four, the Biden administration approved the largest ever offshore wind power project, which will produce enough power for 500,000 homes and be built off the coast of New Jersey. Number five, officials investigating who brought cocaine into the White House

said it was found near the West Wing entrance, where visitors are asked to keep their phones in small cubicles. We come on the air with breaking news from the Supreme Court at this hour. The justice is deciding on a pair of cases for sweeping implications here for the First Amendment, anti-discrimination laws, as well as student debt. And the court has just ruled now on the first of those cases. It features the owner of a Colorado web design company who did not want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples. A major decision for states across the country that have anti-discrimination laws like Colorado trying to enforce them.

But in this case, the high court in a divided ruling has ruled in favor of Lori Smith, that graphic designer who, as you mentioned, says that she wants to make wedding websites, but she hasn't actually made any thus far. This is the ruling on free speech case involving a familiar challenge here. The question, whether businesses can refuse service to LGBTQ customers because doing so would violate the business owner's First Amendment rights. This was a 6-3 decision the Supreme Court rules for a Christian web designer who objected to making wedding websites for same-sex couples. On Friday, the Supreme Court sided with a Colorado web designer who argued that the First Amendment entitles her to refuse to build wedding websites for same-sex couples. The 6-3 decision,

in which all Republican-appointed just The 6-3 decision, in which all Republican-appointed justices were in the majority, was widely described as a win for religious conservatives and a defeat for LGBTQ rights. A quick refresher on the case. Lori Smith, a devout Christian, was challenging a Colorado law that prohibits most businesses from discriminating against LGBTQ customers, saying a requirement to create a website for a same-sex wedding would violate her right to freedom of speech. Specifically, Smith wants to post a message on her wedding website with a note that she will not create websites for same-sex marriages or any other marriage that is not between one man and one

woman. Rather than denying services to gay people, she argued that she was exercising her right not to perform speech she disagreed with. The law at the center of the case is Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act, also known as a public accommodation law. It requires businesses that serve the public to serve everyone. Unique to Smith's case is that she was challenging the law preemptively before building out or selling any custom wedding websites. In fact, some reporting has suggested that Smith invented a gay couple seeking her services shortly after filing her case in court, which her lawyers have denied. During oral arguments, Colorado's Solicitor General Eric Olson said the state law targets discriminatory sales, not a speaker's message, arguing that a store can decide to sell only Jewish-themed items, but it cannot refuse to sell those items to Muslim

or Christian customers. He argued that if Smith's religious beliefs prevent her from serving gay couples, that would open the door to genuine discrimination against LGBTQ customers. Smith's lawyers countered that she would decide what to create based on the message, not who requested. In other words, she will happily serve a gay couple, but has a right to refuse to create a wedding website promoting a marriage that offends her religious beliefs. In other words, she will happily serve a gay couple, but has a right to refuse to create a wedding website promoting a marriage that offends her sincerely held religious beliefs. During oral arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made the case that ruling in Smith's favor would mark the first time the court has ever allowed a commercial business to refuse a customer

based on their race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation. Chief Justice John Roberts countered that the court has never approved efforts to compel speech that is contrary to his speaker's belief, which was ultimately the more convincing argument for the court's conservative majority. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that Colorado's anti-discrimination law cannot be enforced to require a business owner to express an idea they oppose. 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, Gorsuch said in his opinion. Gorsuch indicated that the decision would apply to other business owners whose services involve speech, such as artists, speechwriters, and movie directors. Writing for the dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said there is no right afforded to businesses to refuse service to a disfavored group. The public accommodation law, Sotomayor said there is no right afforded to businesses to refuse service to a disfavored group. The public accommodation law, Sotomayor said, bars business owners from

discriminating based on sexual orientation and does not compel any speech. If Smith offers her services to the public, she can decide what messages to include or not include, but she cannot offer wedding websites to the public, yet refuse those same websites to gay and lesbian couples. A quick reminder, today's podcast will focus on Friday's ruling. You can listen to our previous episode where we broke down the oral arguments by going into our archives. As always, we'll be sharing views from the left and the right, and then my take. First up, we'll start with what the left is saying. Many on the left criticize the decision, saying it opens the door to all kinds of discrimination. Some argue that the case is bizarre because it rests entirely on hypotheticals. Others suggest that the commercial

nature of Smith's business is why she cannot discriminate in this instance. In the Denver Post, Doug Friednash said this was a sham case and Gorsuch fell for it. Colorado's own Neil Gorsuch has granted a business open to the public for the first time in our nation's history a constitutional license to discriminate and refuse to serve members of a protected class. The court also gave businesses license to post notices in the future, like no wedding websites will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages. 303 Creative was a made-up case, he said. There was no live dispute and the case was a sham. Colorado Christian graphic web designer Lori Smith has never made or sold a wedding website. Colorado never enforced its anti-discrimination laws against her, he said,

adding this court should have never handpicked this hypothetical as a pre-enforcement challenge as such challenges are typically reserved for new laws and not ones that have been on the books for years. Now, a website designer could refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple because they view it as a sin, or a photographer could refuse to take pictures for women-owned businesses because they don't believe women should work. In the Washington Post, Amanda Katz said it is easy to see what this case will mean. Smith, by her own account, is not a designer of wedding websites. She is merely an aspiring wedding website designer who reportedly dreamed from childhood of the heterosexual wedding

websites she would someday create. While one can admire the particularity of this vision, her plight pales a bit beside the counterweight of gay couples trying to plan weddings without facing discrimination, Katz wrote. On top of that, according to the mind-blowing reporting of the New Republic's Melissa Grant, a 2016 email included in the plaintiff's filings from a gay man asking Smith for wedding design services is apparently fake. Then there is the argument itself. A wedding website is an example of expression. Sure, both sides can agree on that, Kat said. But Gorsuch, following a lower court, calls such a wedding website pure speech, as if no services were being provided and the primary

point of the website was to express the designer's view on matrimony. But as Sotomayor points out, the only thing the business may not do is deny whatever websites it offers on the basis of sexual orientation. In Slate, Mark Joseph Stern said the Supreme Court was blessing LGBTQ plus discrimination. The difference between previous cases cited by the court and Lori Smith's is that this case involves a commercial enterprise, not private individuals or expressive associations, Stern wrote. Thus, as Sotomayor wrote in Dissent, Friday marks the first time in its history that the court has granted a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. Never before has the court held that the government cannot compel commercial enterprises to serve all customers equally on

constitutional grounds. Gorsuch has tried to draw a line between discrimination based on status and discrimination based on message, claiming that the First Amendment protects only the latter. He concluded that Smith was refusing to express a message about sexual orientation that she does not believe, Stern said. That distinction favors Smith because she says she will serve gay clients, just not those who are getting married. Sotomayor replied that this logic would be amusing if it were not so embarrassing, clipping that on Gorsuch's logic, a racist hotel could argue that Black people may still rent rooms for their white friends. All right, that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to the right's take. Many on the right celebrate the case as a win for the First Amendment and free

speech. Some argue that the government can never be allowed to compel the kind of speech Smith could have been forced to make. Others suggest that this is not an attack on LGBT people, but a necessary outcome in a pluralistic society. In the Denver Post, Jake Warner, the senior counsel who represented Smith, said this was a win for free speech. Like most artists, Lurie works with all people but can't express all messages. For Colorado officials, that was a problem, Warner said. Lori learned that officials would misuse state law to force her to say things about marriage she doesn't believe if she were to start making wedding websites with marriage stories

that she reported and wrote. This is the norm in Colorado. For some years, state officials and others have been trying to punish cake artist Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop, for refusing to create art inconsistent with his beliefs. Lori feared the same punishment, so she faced a grueling choice. Curb her business, change her beliefs, or challenge an unjust law. She chose to protect free speech, both for herself and those who disagree with her. And it's a good thing she did, Warner said. The ruling protects all people, including those who disagree with her. And it's a good thing she did, Warner said.

The ruling protects all people, including those who disagree with Lori's views. As the opinion notes, the state of Colorado's position would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty. The ruling ensures that speakers, not the government, choose what they say. National Review's editors called it a huge win for the First Amendment. In the last decade, rather than be content to celebrate victories in the battle over same-sex marriage, activists decided to press their advantage, pursuing a society that allows no quarter to any individuals or businesses that hold different views, the editors wrote.

Activists went from libertarian arguments that the government shouldn't prevent gay couples who loved each other from getting married to arguing that the government should compel business owners to provide services to gay weddings despite the owners' deeply felt religious objections. But the court smashed the idea that the government could compel speech in the name of civil rights. Liberals have attempted to portray this as court-sanctioned discrimination, but the decision does nothing of the sort. Smith is perfectly willing to offer her services to gay customers or even gay couples, the editor said. There is not a shred of evidence in the record of the case to the contrary. But because of Smith's deeply held convictions, she does not want to offer her creative services to make custom

designs for gay weddings. Doing so would be an act of expression against her will. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season?

Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at FluCcellvax.ca. In the New York Post, Brad Palumbo said, as a gay man, I don't see the Supreme Court's ruling as infringing on my rights. This is exactly the outcome that all Americans, gay or straight, should want, Palumbo said. I don't personally agree with Smith's values or beliefs,

but nobody has the right to force others to adopt their ideas using the power of government, and I sure wouldn't want that kind of imposition placed on me. Under the logic the court's liberal justices embrace in their dissent, a gay business owner could be forced to design a website promoting anti-gay Bible verses. You can't have it both ways, Palumbo added. If LGBT people don't want to be forced to violate our beliefs, we can't support forcing our religious neighbors to do so. And I, for one, would rather live in a world where all Americans have freedom of conscience than one where we're constantly using the government to force each other into conformity. This ruling doesn't undermine protections for LGBT Americans, the court's opinion carefully clarifies that its ruling only applies to expressive activity, a narrow category of commerce that

involves speech and ideas like creating a website. All right, that is it for the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. So when we covered the original arguments in this case, I asked if it was possible to agree with everyone. As I wrote then, the idea that the state can compel a person to express something counter to their beliefs is one of the most troubling brands of government intrusion that I can imagine. That, in abstract, is a clear-cut violation of someone's First Amendment rights. But as I said last week on Twitter, in response to the Supreme Court's three most newsy recent rulings, I was very torn on the affirmative action case, which we covered yesterday. I thought the student debt ruling was correct, and I'll explain why in tomorrow's podcast.

And I thought this ruling was correct, and I'll explain why in tomorrow's podcast, and I thought this ruling was a farce. So how did I go from I agree with everyone to this is a farce? The crux of this case is that Lori Smith is claiming to not discriminate against gay couples, but is simply asserting her right to not create speech that would promote a same-sex wedding. She believes unique wedding websites represent a piece of expression similar to a song or painting, and while she'll gladly provide her services to a gay couple, she won't create something that implies support for their same-sex wedding. From the opinion, quote, Ms. Smith stresses that she does not create expressions that defy any of her beliefs for

any customer, whether that involves encouraging violence, demeaning another person, or promoting views inconsistent with her religious commitments. This makes total sense. If the facts presented in this case existed as such, we'd get a fascinating piece of legal debate pitting First Amendment rights against public accommodation laws. The opinion itself is a very interesting and quick 70 pages of reading, if you're curious. And frankly, I'd be inclined to side with the majority if there were such a case. But that's just it. There are no actual facts of the case. Because there is no live dispute, no actual customers, and not even a wedding website design company. None of it exists. This is, of course, not news to the justices or the lawyers involved. It is not totally unheard of for plaintiffs to create test cases to fight new laws,

but it is unusual for hypothetical challenges to well-established law like this to make it all the way to the Supreme Court. Consider for a moment the other major Supreme Court rulings we've covered in Tangle recently. In the affirmative action ruling, there were real students who were actually claiming to be discriminated against by current Harvard and North Carolina admissions policies. In the independent state legislature ruling, there were real lawmakers actually trying to gerrymander state districts and keep state courts out of it. In the Clean Water Act ruling, there was a real couple actually trying to build a house near a protected waterway. In the Section 230 ruling, there were real family members of real victims of terrorism who actually believe was a real couple actually trying to build a house near a protected waterway. In the Section 230

ruling, there were real family members of real victims of terrorism who actually believe YouTube and Google algorithms had caused the death of their family members. It goes on and on like that. In this case, we have a real person, Lori Smith, who does actually create websites. But her wedding website business is theoretical, and it is very much in doubt whether the gay man who purportedly reached out to Smith even exists, given that the person listed in the filing appears to be a heterosexual man married to a woman. The form submitted to her website requesting services was also submitted the day after this case was filed in 2016, which would be one hell of a coincidence. Of course, it's possible that this person submitted

the form as some kind of prank or simply doesn't want to be identified now, but nobody bothered to investigate until a reporter at the New Republic found the person in question this month. To be perfectly clear, the Tenth Circuit, even in ruling against her, held that Smith did have standing to sue, and clearly the Supreme Court believes she does too. National Review has a three-part series making that case as well. The basic argument is that in Smith's view, there was a credible threat that if she were to launch a wedding website, the state would have compelled her to create speech she does not endorse. Reasonable people can and do disagree on that. I happen to be one of them. Primarily, my issue is not that it is outlandish to expect

Smith would have eventually gotten a request from a same-sex couple to make a wedding website. Further, the details in this case are critical, and without them, there is no case to be argued. For instance, Colorado has insisted that it would not compel Smith to actually design a wedding website only to sell pre-existing templates to all customers. Gorsuch essentially dismissed this claim without engaging in it in any meaningful way. But we'll never know what the state would actually do, because Smith never actually launched her company, and we're unsure if any gay couple ever actually asked her to design a website for them. I, for one, have gone to dozens and dozens of wedding websites, and I've never once viewed the content there

as an expression of the website designer. I certainly never considered the designer in the same way I consider a painter while staring at a painting or consider a musician while listening to a song. How expressive is her wedding website company? How custom are her services? What would the couple asking her to produce

put on their website? What variety of services would Smith be offering? What other website designers could couples use? We don't have answers to any of those questions, except the ones Smith and her lawyers invented to make their case as strong as possible. There are times when these preemptive cases are necessary and appropriate, but this, in my opinion, was not one of them. And without actual facts to debate,

the court was left engaging on the grounds that Smith created. In a case this meaningful, that is a pill too large to swallow. All right, that is it for my take. Instead of our reader question today, I'm going to do a little bit of responding to some reader feedback that I got. On Friday, we published a piece about a conservative writer whose anti-Semitic and racist texts were leaked to Breitbart News. I wrote a subscribers-only opinion piece suggesting that the writer should probably lose his job and take a time out from public life. The piece generated dozens of comments, many of them critical of my position. I wanted to reply to those criticisms. Here are some samples of what people said, quote, I'm not

comfortable having a journalist request censorship. How does that make you any different from every other practitioner of cancel culture? With only a few limitations, freedom of speech allows everyone to say almost anything. Once you start restricting speech for being abhorrent to you, then you are on the slippery slope, end quote. Finally, someone said, I think you're too close to this one, Isaac. When you say things like lose his job, be punished, and ostracized and condemned, you've lost the battle. Here's my response to those comments. I appreciate all of my readers who criticize me by digging their heels in on an anti-censorship free speech position. I think my long track record of writing about victimhood, imagined transgressions, censorship, misinformation, and conspiracy theories has made it quite clear I

am opposed to nearly all forms of censorship, cancel culture, and mob mentality, which is why I hope you will hear me when I say I do not think my suggestions here fall into any of those categories. Pedro Gonzalez is not a factory worker who had his racist text messages put on Twitter where a mob bombarded his boss to get him fired. He is not a CEO who had a video of himself as a teenager saying offensive things go viral. He's not a comedian who made an off-color joke that offended some people. He is a professional political writer who had a clearly fleshed-out vision of a world where Jews and minorities were subversive threats to America. He espoused those

views as recently as last year. He is actively working to promote a presidential candidate. His job as a writer is to help make sense of the world to readers, to explain to his audience how the world is. What his text messages revealed is that he was cleverly trying to shoehorn those racist views into the public psyche. He openly explained how he was attempting to create animosity toward Jews and minorities through his writing and tweets, and how he was able to do so without getting canceled or caught. To me, suggesting he lose his job over that is no more cancel culture or censorship than it would be to say a doctor who had secretly been texting

friends about how he intentionally mistreated conservatives should lose his job. Again, Gonzalez's job is informing the public. If you're the editor at the Chronicles where Gonzalez works, and you find out a writer on your staff privately abhors Jews and minorities and has been using your publication to intentionally inject his anti-Semitic and racist views into the public, is that not grounds for dismissal? How is firing him out of bounds? I get the knee-jerk reaction to protect anyone from losing their job for their politics. But in this case, I think Gonzales' worldview is about more than just politics and is directly tied to his ability to do his job. As I said in my piece,

I actually do think it is worth extending him some grace. I do not support banishing Gonzales from the public for good, nor do I think his future should be revoked from him. But I do not support banishing Gonzalez from the public for good, nor do I think his future should be revoked from him. But I do think losing his job and taking a quote unquote time out from public commentary would serve him well and would hold the line on a reasonable boundary for what we view as acceptable in mainstream political discourse. All right, that is it for my response to some reader feedback. Next up is our blind spot report today, which we have in place of our typical under the radar section. A reminder, once a week, we present a blind spot report from our partners at Ground News, an app that tells you the bias of news coverage and what stories people on each side are missing.

The left missed a story about how New York City is now housing more asylum seekers than homeless people for the first time ever. The right missed a story about U.S. maternal mortality more than doubling since 1999, with most pregnancy deaths among Black women. All right, that is it for our Blind Spot Report, which brings us to our numbers section. The percentage of Americans who agree that protecting free speech is an important part of American democracy, according to a 2022 Knight Foundation poll, is 91%. The percentage of Americans who agree people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions is 90%. The percentage of Americans who agree free speech rights help

marginalized groups be heard is 86%. The percentage of Americans who oppose allowing a small business owner in their state to refuse products or services to gay or lesbian people if providing them would violate their religious beliefs is 56%. That's according to a 2019 PRRI poll. The percentage of Americans who support allowing a small business owner in their state to refuse those products or services to gay or lesbian people is 37%. All right, that is it for our numbers section. And last but not least, our have a nice day story. A growing initiative is building tiny home villages for veterans and could be getting a big funding boost from Congress. Ida, a Navy veteran with PTSD, works in medicine and is among the 33,100 veterans who've struggled to find a safe, affordable home. But after receiving a grant from Operation Tiny Home, a nonprofit dedicated to

housing for at-risk people, she was able to finance the construction of a house for her and her two dogs. Now, the House of Representatives is considering the Havens Act to help address the problem of homelessness among our nation's veterans. If it passed, it would allocate $20 million a year for five years for the development of five tiny home villages around the country. Zach Giffen, a spokesman for Operation Tiny Home, said the bill is not just putting a Band-Aid on it, but actually demonstrating what a comprehensive solution can look like. Business Insider has the story, and there's a link in today's episode description.

All right, everybody, that is it for today's podcast. As always, if you want to support our work, please consider going to retangle.com forward slash membership. Don't forget, we have a new YouTube video up on affirmative action, and we're putting out new YouTube content all the time. So please go check out our channel, like the videos, leave some comments. It's a nice way to see my face and also bloopers, which we have at the end of every episode because I am constantly screwing up our videos and it's kind of fun to watch after the fact. Also a reminder, we have our event in Philadelphia on August 3rd.

Yes, I'm going to keep bringing this up. We've sold about half of our tickets. We need to sell 200 to sell out, which is our goal. Most ticket sales are supposed to happen in the final month of selling the event. So we're in July 6th and it's less than a month away. And we got some very, very cool guests we are going to announce soon. So I hope you go get your ticket before it sells out. You can do that by going to readtangle.com forward slash live.

All right, everybody, we'll see you tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Peace. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. For more on Tangle, please go to readtangle.com and check out our website. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, We'll be right back. His family's buried history and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot.

Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at FluCellVax.ca.