Gorsuch v. Sotomayor on Free Speech: The Colorado Ruling

[SweetSue92]

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

 

[sparky]

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.”

Gorsuch is spot on......

But isn't that exactly what our government is doing ? And doing so (more than just CO) by proxy of corporate toadies ?

~S~

 

[SweetSue92]

Gorsuch is spot on......

But isn't that exactly what our government is doing ? And doing so (more than just CO) by proxy of corporate toadies ?

~S~

That is certainly what they're trying to do....

 

[sparky]

That is certainly what they're trying to do....

since 9/11 Sue

Let me leave you with this notion ,before i go slop the pigs....

Why is the first amd first?

Wouldn't the right to bear arms be any rouge governments biggest threat?

oink...oink...oink oink oink....

~S~

 

[wamose]

Democrats keep trying to invent new, anti constitutional laws that they can use to control their Republican enemies. Democrats and young, brain washed students are too stupid or too conditioned to know their rights are being confiscated.

 

[occupied]

What's happening is that the conservative side of the court eagerly allowed itself to be manipulated by someone who had not even started a business yet and who had not been forced by the accommodation law to do anything. The court allowed a hypothetical question to be heard for the express purpose of cutting into discrimination laws.

 

[SweetSue92]

What's happening is that the conservative side of the court eagerly allowed itself to be manipulated by someone who had not even started a business yet and who had not been forced by the accommodation law to do anything. The court allowed a hypothetical question to be heard for the express purpose of cutting into discrimination laws.

Well seeing as how Christian business owners had already been hounded in CO this seems legit to me. Purposely targeted, forced to bake that cake, photograph that wedding, etc--because they are opposed.

This was the correct ruling, based not on the characteristics themselves but the business owner being forced into compelled speech about it. This is different than an owner of a grocery store or a restaurant simply serving food to gay people, or similar circumstances. It's beyond public accommodation to being forced to produce artistry/speech for events with which you are morally opposed.

 

[occupied]

Well seeing as how Christian business owners had already been hounded in CO this seems legit to me. Purposely targeted, forced to bake that cake, photograph that wedding, etc--because they are opposed.

This was the correct ruling, based not on the characteristics themselves but the business owner being forced into compelled speech about it. This is different than an owner of a grocery store or a restaurant simply serving food to gay people, or similar circumstances. It's beyond public accommodation to being forced to produce artistry/speech for events with which you are morally opposed.

No one got forced to do anything. The court usually requires someone to be injured by the law in some way to gain standing before the court. They threw out one the student loan cases for this reason.

 

[SweetSue92]

No one got forced to do anything. The court usually requires someone to be injured by the law in some way to gain standing before the court. They threw out one the student loan cases for this reason.

People had ALREADY been injured. Are you kidding? Florists and bakers hounded out of business by the Rainbow Gestapo. So yes.

 

[occupied]

People had ALREADY been injured. Are you kidding? Florists and bakers hounded out of business by the Rainbow Gestapo. So yes.

If that was their reason for allowing the case it's even worse. This is a signal that all discrimination laws may now be brought back for revision.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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

In my opinion Sotomayors rantings, and that is what it was, is unbecoming of a Supreme Judge.
The court justices are supposed to be objective. Her writings were anything but objective.
Looking like it was written by an LBQBT activist and not a Supreme judge.
The Supreme Court is the last hope for objective rulings, without them we can so easily become fascist and mob rule.

 

[JoeB131]

Well seeing as how Christian business owners had already been hounded in CO this seems legit to me. Purposely targeted, forced to bake that cake, photograph that wedding, etc--because they are opposed.

This was the correct ruling, based not on the characteristics themselves but the business owner being forced into compelled speech about it. This is different than an owner of a grocery store or a restaurant simply serving food to gay people, or similar circumstances. It's beyond public accommodation to being forced to produce artistry/speech for events with which you are morally opposed.

Okay, so what if a person says for religious reasons, they won't serve blacks, or they think that the mixing of the races is against God's Law?

For that matter, what if I as a Catholic (well, I used to be) decide that I won't serve Mormons because they are a deranged cult?

You see the problem of allowing people to ignore a law because their sky fairy told them they could?

Well, you probably won't.

 

[rightwinger]

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

 

[SweetSue92]

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

I would have fully enjoyed it when, had your Utopia come to pass, Christians went into gay-owned businesses and demanded gays print up messages with anti-gay marriage on them.

 

[buckeye]

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

Sometimes there is absolutely nothing just about social justice, which seems to mean whatever leftists want it to mean.

 

[rightwinger]

Sometimes there is absolutely nothing just about social justice, which seems to mean whatever leftists want it to mean.

It means a society no longer structured to sustain white, male, Christian, straight men.

The idea that opportunity must be equal to all has been rolled back by the intolerant TRUMPCourt

 

[Hollie]

It means a society no longer structured to sustain white, male, Christian, straight men.

The idea that opportunity must be equal to all has been rolled back by the intolerant TRUMPCourt

It means that self-loathing white leftists should join forces with the global warming syndicate and go play in traffic.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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

HAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
really?????
This is the 1950s??







really.... 1950s??

 

[wamose]

Fuck public accommodations. The first amendment trumps these peoples fragile feelings. Sticks and stones. Anyway, why the hell would anyone want to do business with anyone who doesn't approve of their lifestyle? Notice, we're not talking about race, we're talking about lifestyle.

 

[rightwinger]

HAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
really?????
This is the 1950s??

View attachment 800400

View attachment 800401

View attachment 800402

really.... 1950s??

This is the 1950s