Gorsuch v. Sotomayor on Free Speech: The Colorado Ruling

[JoeB131]

Good thing this ruling has nothing to do with religion.

It has everything to do with religion.

No one was going in and arguing, "I don't want to make cakes for gays because I think the butt-sex is icky". They were arguing that it was condemned by their religion, and that's why they couldn't participate.

 

[Blaster]

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?

Whatever turns you on.

 

[Meathead]

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.

So, if I pay debts and others who have the same not don't, I have no standing for a refund?

 

[HikerGuy83]

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.

Garbage.....

In 2016, Ms Smith filed a lawsuit that sought to block the state's public accommodation law. After two lower courts sided with Colorado, the case headed to the Supreme Court which has now sided in her favour.

There have been question marks over whether there was ever an actual request to 303 Creative to provide a website for a same-sex couple.

But according to legal expert Katherine Franke, director of the Center for Gender and Sexuality Law at Columbia University, it does not matter whether any request had been made.

The Colorado state Supreme Court upheld the Colorado accommodations law. She's been at this a while.

Not started a business ? This all started with a some kind of suspicious request in 2016 to her business.

Maybe I am not reading that right. But everything I read acknowledged her business.

BTW: Colorado got slapped down in 2018 with the baker ruling. Why can't they follow the law ?

 

[HikerGuy83]

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

Opportunity for what ?

Pray tell let us know how the government can steamroll religious convictions in the name of your so-called opporutnity. It's against the first amendment.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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?

That's not religious freedom. It's abortion and it's legal.

 

[JoeB131]

That's not religious freedom. It's abortion and it's legal.

Oh, no, it's homicide.

But the point is, if you can ignore laws you don't like, because hey, my Imaginary Friend in the Sky said so, then we should be able to ignore all laws, just the public accommedation ones.

Because we've already established you can't discriminate against gays because you don't like the Butt Sex.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Oh, no, it's homicide.

But the point is, if you can ignore laws you don't like, because hey, my Imaginary Friend in the Sky said so, then we should be able to ignore all laws, just the public accommedation ones.

Because we've already established you can't discriminate against gays because you don't like the Butt Sex.

The Court carved out an exception to public accommodation laws dealing with expressive goods. The minute you ask an artist for a custom job you have left public accommodation.

Artists should never even have to give a reason. I don't want to should be good enough.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

YouTube 11 minutes


Entire rumble video

 

[JoeB131]

The Court carved out an exception to public accommodation laws dealing with expressive goods. The minute you ask an artist for a custom job you have left public accommodation.

Artists should never even have to give a reason. I don't want to should be good enough.

Uh, you bake cakes. You are not a fucking artist. Nobody is going to put your standardized cake in a museum.

I recently put down a payment on a wedding cake. We picked out a picture from their catalog and said, "Do that one".

This isn't art. It's product.

Now, I am marrying a woman from outside my race. (I'm white, she's Asian). Once upon a time, that was illegal in this country, just as gay marriage was illegal.

In fact,

On October 28, 1964, after waiting almost a year for a response to their motion, the ACLU attorneys filed a federal class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This prompted the county court judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile (1890–1967), to issue a ruling on the long-pending motion to vacate. Echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, Bazile denied the motion with the words:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.[22]

Now, should a baker have a right to deny us a wedding cake because they think that race-mixing is against God's Law?

 

[initforme]

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

View attachment 800400

View attachment 800401

View attachment 800402

really.... 1950s??

The 50s were NOT a great era. Those that claim they were are simply liars. Ies lies lies.

 

[initforme]

Uh, you bake cakes. You are not a fucking artist. Nobody is going to put your standardized cake in a museum.

I recently put down a payment on a wedding cake. We picked out a picture from their catalog and said, "Do that one".

This isn't art. It's product.

Now, I am marrying a woman from outside my race. (I'm white, she's Asian). Once upon a time, that was illegal in this country, just as gay marriage was illegal.

In fact,

On October 28, 1964, after waiting almost a year for a response to their motion, the ACLU attorneys filed a federal class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This prompted the county court judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile (1890–1967), to issue a ruling on the long-pending motion to vacate. Echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, Bazile denied the motion with the words:




Now, should a baker have a right to deny us a wedding cake because they think that race-mixing is against God's Law?

Imagine someone actually being against marrying someone of a different race. Whoever thought this was a bad thing should not have been given the right to vote.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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

/-----/ Your idea of "decades of social Justice " involves discriminating against me because I'm White, Male, Christian, and Straight. And don't forget discrimination against Asians who don't play along with your victimhood scam.

 

[rightwinger]

/-----/ Your idea of "decades of social Justice " involves discriminating against me because I'm White, Male, Christian, and Straight. And don't forget discrimination against Asians who don't play along with your victimhood scam.

You got me there

This court is here to protect White, Male, Straight Christians and undo decades of progress for everyone else

 

[JoeB131]

Imagine someone actually being against marrying someone of a different race. Whoever thought this was a bad thing should not have been given the right to vote.

yet the law of the land until 1969.

It gets even better. I was reading a biography of Ana Mae Wong, one of the first prominent Asian American Actresses.

She wanted to play the female lead of the adaptation of Pearl Buck's "The Good Earth" which is set in China. But their was a problem. The male lead was being played by a white actor in "Yellowface" (i.e., they darkened his skin and made him squint a lot). So she was rejected for the role because they didn't even want to PRETEND that there was a mixed race couple.

 

[initforme]

yet the law of the land until 1969.

It gets even better. I was reading a biography of Ana Mae Wong, one of the first prominent Asian American Actresses.

She wanted to play the female lead of the adaptation of Pearl Buck's "The Good Earth" which is set in China. But their was a problem. The male lead was being played by a white actor in "Yellowface" (i.e., they darkened his skin and made him squint a lot). So she was rejected for the role because they didn't even want to PRETEND that there was a mixed race couple.

How was such a law justified and what braintrust(really lack there of) thought mixing races was somehow bad? What I'll conceived anti American backwards regressive thinking.

 

[bodecea]

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

Fake ruling on a fake case.

 

[bodecea]

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.

It's not Democrats who made a fake ruling on a fake case.

 

[JoeB131]

How was such a law justified and what braintrust(really lack there of) thought mixing races was somehow bad? What I'll conceived anti American backwards regressive thinking.

It was justified by a combination of religious pressure that God forbid the mixing of races, and by messed up interpretations of Darwinism that some ethnic groups were more evolved than others.

But mostly, it was a fear of black men going after white women, or worse, pleasuring them better then white men could.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Uh, you bake cakes. You are not a fucking artist. Nobody is going to put your standardized cake in a museum.

I recently put down a payment on a wedding cake. We picked out a picture from their catalog and said, "Do that one".

This isn't art. It's product.

Now, I am marrying a woman from outside my race. (I'm white, she's Asian). Once upon a time, that was illegal in this country, just as gay marriage was illegal.

In fact,

On October 28, 1964, after waiting almost a year for a response to their motion, the ACLU attorneys filed a federal class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This prompted the county court judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile (1890–1967), to issue a ruling on the long-pending motion to vacate. Echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, Bazile denied the motion with the words:




Now, should a baker have a right to deny us a wedding cake because they think that race-mixing is against God's Law?

There should be no such thing as services being denied because of God's law. I don't want to should be more than sufficient.