Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch destroyed the self-described “wise Latina” Sonia Sotomayor in a blistering opinion on Friday.
The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of a Colorado-based Christian web designer who doesn’t want to make LGBTQ wedding sites.
Lorie Smith is a graphic design artist who wanted to start creating wedding websites, but she was afraid she would be forced to make sites for same-sex couples because of Colorado’s CADA law.
The high court ruled 6-3 in favor of Lorie Smith and agreed that forcing her to create wedding sites for same-sex couples would violate her First Amendment rights.
“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.
Well, Gorsuch responded to the wise Latina’s dissent on Friday, and it’s a sight to behold.
Gorsuch accused Sonia Sotomayor of making stuff up.
“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.
OUCH!
Gorsuch accusing Sotomayor of making stuff up and getting lost in her own web of lies is a sight to behold. pic.twitter.com/lWEfxZbDTC
— Marina Medvin 🇺🇸 (@MarinaMedvin) June 30, 2023
This story originally appeared on TheGateWayPundit
