Rocci Stucci Media

Gorsuch Ridicules Sotomayor’s Dissent In Christian Web Designer Ruling

On Friday, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Christian web designer Lorie Smith, who had challenged Colorado’s CADA law which would have forced her to create wedding sites for same-sex couples.

Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court’s six conservative justices: “The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.”

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented harshly, claiming that the ruling granted businesses open to the public a constitutional right to refuse service members of a protected class.

Gorsuch responded with an equally powerful opinion, accusing Sotomayor of making stuff up and reimagining facts from top to bottom.

He noted how she had previously said “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” during a speech at Berkeley Law School in 2001.

But here she was being reprimanded by Gorsuch for her dangerous belief that governments could force enlightened speech on unwilling individuals.

In response to this blistering opinion from Gorsuch, conservatives have celebrated yet another victory in their fight against liberal overreach and unwarranted government control over citizens’ lives.

Here’s How it went according to an article from the Gateway Pundit:

“The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court’s six conservative justices.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented: “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.”

“Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class,” Sotomayor wrote.

Remember when Sotomayor said as a “wise Latina” she could reach a better conclusion than a boring white male?

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” Sotomayor said in 2001 during a speech at Berkeley Law School.

“It’s difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case,” Gorsuch wrote. “Much of it focuses on the evolution of public accommodations laws, post, at 7–13, and the strides gay Americans have made towards securing equal justice under law, post, at 14–17. And, no doubt, there is much to applaud here. But none of this answers the question we face today: Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?”

Gorsuch continued….

“When the dissent finally gets around to that question — more than halfway into its opinion—it reimagines the facts of this case from top to bottom. The dissent claims that Colorado wishes to regulate Ms. Smith’s “conduct,” not her speech….The dissent chides us for deciding a pre-enforcement challenge…” Gorsuch wrote.

Gorsuch blasted Sotomayor for claiming the court was granting a business open to the public a right to refufse to serve members of a “protected class.”

“Nor does the dissent’s reimagination end there. It claims that, “for the first time in its history,” the Court “grants a business open to the public” a “right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.” Post, at 1; see also id., at 26, n. 10, 35. Never mind that we do no such thing and Colorado itself has stipulated Ms. Smith will (as CADA requires) “work with all people regardless of . . . sexual orientation.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 184a. Never mind, too, that it is the dissent that would have this Court do something truly novel by allowing a government to coerce an individual to speak contrary to her beliefs on a significant issue of personal conviction, all in order to eliminate ideas that differ from its own.”

Gorsuch accused Sotomayor of opening fire on her own position!

“In some places, the dissent gets so turned around about the facts that it opens fire on its own position. For instance: While stressing that a Colorado company cannot refuse “the full and equal enjoyment of [its] services” based on a customer’s protected status, post, at 27, the dissent assures us that a company selling creative services “to the public” does have a right “to decide what messages to include or not to include,” post, at 28. But if that is true, what are we even debating?” Gorsuch wrote.

Gorsuch described Sotomayor as a rudderless vessel adrift at sea.

“Instead of addressing the parties’ stipulations about the case actually before us, the dissent spends much of its time adrift on a sea of hypotheticals about photographers, stationers, and others, asking if they too provide expressive services covered by the First Amendment.” Gorsuch wrote.

Gorsuch blasted Sonia Sotomayor for her dangerous belief that a state government can coerce “enlightened” speech.

“Finally, the dissent comes out and says what it really means: Once Ms. Smith offers some speech, Colorado “would require [her] to create and sell speech, notwithstanding [her] sincere objection to doing so”—and the dissent would force her to comply with that demand. Post, at 29–30. Even as it does so, however, the dissent refuses to acknowledge where its reasoning leads. In a world like that, as Chief Judge Tymkovich highlighted, governments could force “an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message,” they could compel “an atheist muralist to accept a commission celebrating Evangelical zeal,” and they could require a gay website designer to create websites for a group advocating against same-sex marriage, so long as these speakers would accept commissions from the public with different messages. 6 F. 4th, at 1199 (dissenting opinion). Perhaps the dissent finds these possibilities untroubling because it trusts state governments to coerce only “enlightened” speech. But if that is the calculation, it is a dangerous one indeed.” Gorsuch wrote.

This case marks yet another reminder of what can happen when those committed to upholding our Constitution stand together against those who seek merely their own personal goals regardless of how it affects us all.

Author

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
LinkedIn

14 Responses

  1. Normal straight people need to try to do business with LGBTQ+ businesses to create or produce products that reflect what those business doesn’t believe in. If they refuse, sue them like they’ve been doing to normal people! Give them the same treatment.
    The LGBTQ+ community has every opportunity to find another provider that doesn’t object, but they continue to intentionally look for objections in order to file civil suits and for publicity!
    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
    Thankfully, conscientious refusal is no longer a civil rights violation.
    Thank you SCOTUS!!

  2. Fantastic ruling and an even better rebuttal by Gorsuch. It looks like we might at last be turning the corner in support of normal people and their personal beliefs.

  3. What protected class and who designated them as protected? I still believe that if I owned a business, I should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason, if society deems that wrong then society will not frequent my business and I have to close up. I can’t stand smoke, bar owner wants to allow smoking he should have that right, because I have the right to not do business there. Problems solved.

  4. What was position of Justice Sotomayer on old Twitter refusing services to Conservatives? I bet she was using the same mantra her compatriots have invented – Twitter is a private company and it can refuse services to anyone, including sitting President, as it wishes. I guess, this smart Latina with her “reach experience” is not smart enough to see duplicity of her discent.

  5. AAAHHHhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, choke, gag, cough, fart, ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    1. Can I assume, Drosack, that your response was intended for the diversity-hire justice sotomajor and not justice gorsuch?

  6. Well they both fell short, we are a Constitutional Republic, the law and rights the same for all, we should not have classes of people. Our founders knew that was bad and democracy worse then a dictatorship. The fact they do not get that is more troubling. Also businesses and especially those online, were allowed to censor speach or force people to get and experimental jab in violation of their 4th amendment rights and in violation of the Nuremberg Code.

  7. Finally! A conservative thinker that does not have to hate to think. Honest dialogue based on Constitutional principles! We should be able to disagree with someone’s ideas without them acting as if we have whipped them with a ‘Cat of nine-tails.’
    Reimagine that we are once again free to think our own thoughts. Disagreement is not hate. Imagine if the Left could understand that they can be loved and have a disagreement at the same time. As a Christian, and simply a man, I have been rejected and punished for stating what I thought was right numerous times. It is true that without hope, we are of all men most miserable.

  8. Sotomayer simply proves that racism and discrimination are well represented in our highest court. She doesn’t mind using government blackmail tactics to force people to support what they consider to be evil and wrong. Nor is she against racism. As long as she can define its terms and enforcement.

  9. “Protected class”
    Since when is our society governed by class?
    Not allowed. Or is it?
    Are fetuses and infants a “protected class?” And if not why not? Are they more self-sufficient, wealthy, intelligent, and stronger than everyone else?

  10. If the non-heterosexual crowd wanted to live in harmony with everyone they would open their own web site building companies, bakeries, flower shops, wedding planning venues, etc., etc. and leave those whom they KNOW don’t want to promote this ungodly lifestyle ALONE! And WHY are they a “protected class”?

  11. sotomayer, DO YOUR JOB, you CANNOT let emotions and whatifisms, you need to STICK TO THE FACTS

  12. The “Liberal” is defined by a single
    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *characteristic: Hypocrisy.

  13. this is the 2nd article that i have read today from this site that, for some reason, feels the need to waste webspace and the readers’ time by literally repeating the exact same info multiple times throughout an article. here is a quote from just one example:

    “…“Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.”

    “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class,” Sotomayor wrote. …”

    what’s the point of this waste? the author needs to take lessons on being succinct.

  • Decide Right

  • On Key

    Related Posts