Gorsuch v. Sotomayor on Free Speech: The Colorado Ruling

[Deplorable Yankee]

The good news is that we have six Constitutional Justices on the Supreme Court who believe and adhere to American principles like Free Speech in the First Amendment.

The bad news is that we have three black robes who would throw the First Amendment over for other goals.

This is clear in the writings of Gorsuch and Sotomayor in the Colorado web designer case. Gorsuch opines on the First Amendment and how pivotal it is in ALL avenues of life for ALL Americans. Sotomayor emotes all over, but cannot escape what she is ultimately requesting: that anyone who opens a business in America must then be forced to say things against their conscience because of "public accommodation".

Gorsuch smokes her: he wrote that rather than address the key aspects of the case, 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."

The high court's majority stated that "under Colorado’s logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic — no matter the message — if the topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected trait."

Gorsuch ends with this: “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.” He said Colorado sought to “deny that promise.”

Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/politics/supreme-court-303-creative-lgbtq-rights-colorado/index.html#:~:text=Gorsuch%20wrote%20that%20%E2%80%9Cthe%20First,to%20%E2%80%9Cdeny%20that%20promise.%E2%80%9D

Gorsuch blasts Sotomayor's dissent in Christian web designer ruling: 'Reimagines' facts from 'top to bottom'

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a blistering response to Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent in a case involving a Christian web designer's free speech claim.

www.foxnews.com

Free speech is a danger to our democracy BIGOTS!

 

[SweetSue92]

It should not matter if if causes any harm at all. What right does the Govt have to force some baker to give someone Sunday off? Why should an employer be forced to give a shit about your religion?

Let's all agree to this then, and we can all stop having to attend "diversity and inclusion" affairs at work. That is essentially a religion.

 

[SweetSue92]

Like I said before the cake thing needs clarification... although I think the two people were singling out the baker for aforementioned reasons which makes them assholes.
But as for the website developer - same thing, the guy mostly made websites for churches.
These idiots most certainly singled him out to cause trouble... assholes.
At any rate, the SCOTUS is 100% correct because a website is speech. Waay different than just baking a cake.

The Rainbow Gestapo. 100% after Christians, note. Never Muslims.

 

[JoeB131]

Is serving blacks or interracial couples expressive goods within the meaning of this ruling? Should a Jewish architect be required to design a building in the shape of a swastika?

It would depend, wouldn't it.

In Asia, the Swastika is considered a holy symbol in many religions, completely divorced from Nazism.

Not that baking the same cake for a gay couple that you would bake for a straight couple is anything like a swastika shaped building.

 

[JoeB131]

The Rainbow Gestapo. 100% after Christians, note. Never Muslims.

Because the Muslims aren't acting like shitheads.

 

[sparky]

so do we nuke or save gay whales for Jesus?

help me out......~S~

 

[sparky]

The European Union is preparing to enact the Digital Services Act (DSA) in August. It would force all social media platforms to allow the monitoring of content and the suppression of any information that doesn’t fit The Narrative. This is all part of what’s coming to be known as The Censorship Industrial Complex.

something from a link in the 'burning France' thread fits here....~S~

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Let's all agree to this then, and we can all stop having to attend "diversity and inclusion" affairs at work. That is essentially a religion.

At first I thought you were crazy, but then I thought about it more and you are right, diversity and inclusion teach people not to hate other people and to do unto them how they would like to be done unto.....sounds just like the religion you claim to be a part of.

 

[Blaster]

diversity and inclusion teach people not to hate other people.

Wrong.

 

[GMCGeneral]

We now have six justices who are willing to discard decades of social Justice and ignore judicial precedents to advance their twisted view of society.

We are rapidly returning to the 1950s

Thank G-d, we're returning to normalcy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The good news is that we have six Constitutional Justices on the Supreme Court who believe and adhere to American principles like Free Speech in the First Amendment.

The bad news is that we have three black robes who would throw the First Amendment over for other goals.

This is clear in the writings of Gorsuch and Sotomayor in the Colorado web designer case. Gorsuch opines on the First Amendment and how pivotal it is in ALL avenues of life for ALL Americans. Sotomayor emotes all over, but cannot escape what she is ultimately requesting: that anyone who opens a business in America must then be forced to say things against their conscience because of "public accommodation".

Gorsuch smokes her: he wrote that rather than address the key aspects of the case, 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."

The high court's majority stated that "under Colorado’s logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic — no matter the message — if the topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected trait."

Gorsuch ends with this: “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.” He said Colorado sought to “deny that promise.”

Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/politics/supreme-court-303-creative-lgbtq-rights-colorado/index.html#:~:text=Gorsuch%20wrote%20that%20%E2%80%9Cthe%20First,to%20%E2%80%9Cdeny%20that%20promise.%E2%80%9D

Gorsuch blasts Sotomayor's dissent in Christian web designer ruling: 'Reimagines' facts from 'top to bottom'

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a blistering response to Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent in a case involving a Christian web designer's free speech claim.

www.foxnews.com

The Progressive AA SCOTUS picks are fucking horrible. Disgraceful

 

[Coyote]

So in your estimation, "free speech" would be me explaining the life and death of Jesus Christ to my public school students, and why they should be born again believers?

Yes?

Is that normally part of a public school curriculum?

What about state workers being forbidden from even saying ”abortion” in conversation at the work place?

I bet you hate that idea, since a classroom of kids is an underage, captive audience. Well, a business owner, by the dissent's opinion, would be a "captive" speech creator to any request that came through the door.

Is a public school the same as a business that is open to the public?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It would depend, wouldn't it.

In Asia, the Swastika is considered a holy symbol in many religions, completely divorced from Nazism.

Not that baking the same cake for a gay couple that you would bake for a straight couple is anything like a swastika shaped building.

If a cake for a gay couple is the same for a straight couple, just go over to the cake case and buy one. The minute the baker has to create a cake bearing a message of acceptance the rules change.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Wrong.

It requires people to hate themselves.

 

[JoeB131]

If a cake for a gay couple is the same for a straight couple, just go over to the cake case and buy one. The minute the baker has to create a cake bearing a message of acceptance the rules change.

Quite the contrary.

If the "Christian" baker was following the bible rules, he wouldn't sell any cakes.

Have a tattoo - No Cake for you!
Lived together before marriage - No Cake for you!

The idea that a cake or a website indicates "acceptance" is a bit silly, don't you think.

I mean, I just put down a downpayment on a wedding cake. Did you know that the baker didn't ask me once about the status of our relationship, or any details about it that she may or may not have approved of.

In fact, all she asked me was what flavor we wanted, and where we wanted it delivered!

 

[Blaster]

Quite the contrary.

If the "Christian" baker was following the bible rules, he wouldn't sell any cakes.

Have a tattoo - No Cake for you!
Lived together before marriage - No Cake for you!

The idea that a cake or a website indicates "acceptance" is a bit silly, don't you think.

I mean, I just put down a downpayment on a wedding cake. Did you know that the baker didn't ask me once about the status of our relationship, or any details about it that she may or may not have approved of.

In fact, all she asked me was what flavor we wanted, and where we wanted it delivered!

Religious Freedom.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Quite the contrary.

If the "Christian" baker was following the bible rules, he wouldn't sell any cakes.

Have a tattoo - No Cake for you!
Lived together before marriage - No Cake for you!

The idea that a cake or a website indicates "acceptance" is a bit silly, don't you think.

I mean, I just put down a downpayment on a wedding cake. Did you know that the baker didn't ask me once about the status of our relationship, or any details about it that she may or may not have approved of.

In fact, all she asked me was what flavor we wanted, and where we wanted it delivered!

Good thing this ruling has nothing to do with religion.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Good thing this ruling has nothing to do with religion.

Perhaps the status was obvious.
Perhaps the baker didn't care one way or the other.
What one baker does in No way obligates any other baker.

 

[rightwinger]

Quite the contrary.

If the "Christian" baker was following the bible rules, he wouldn't sell any cakes.

Have a tattoo - No Cake for you!
Lived together before marriage - No Cake for you!

The idea that a cake or a website indicates "acceptance" is a bit silly, don't you think.

I mean, I just put down a downpayment on a wedding cake. Did you know that the baker didn't ask me once about the status of our relationship, or any details about it that she may or may not have approved of.

In fact, all she asked me was what flavor we wanted, and where we wanted it delivered!

Christians are very selective on which aspects of Biblical marriage they choose to enforce.

Chritisans and Conservative courts are only outraged over same sex marriage

 

[JoeB131]

Religious Freedom.

Awesome, so can I now declare myself a follower of Quetzalcoatl, and cut out the hearts of my enemies with an obsidian knife, because religious freedom?