Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch criticized his colleague Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent from his majority opinion ruling in favor of a Christian web designer’s right not to design websites for same-sex weddings .
Sotomayor said in her dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, that the court’s opinion Friday had for “the first time in its history granted to a business open to the public the constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.” ,” seconds in the text of the case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. Gorsuch mocked Sotomayor for her lengthy dissent that “reimagines the facts” in her majority opinion. (RELATED: Supreme Court Sides With Christian Web Designer)
“In some places, the dissent turns so much on the facts that it opens fire on its own position,” Gorsuch wrote. “For example: while stressing that a Colorado company cannot refuse ‘the full and equal enjoyment of.’ [its] services” based on a client’s protected status,” the dissent assures us that a company that sells creative services “to the public” has the right “to decide which messages to include or not include.” But if this is true, what are we debating about? Instead of addressing the parties’ stipulations on the case at hand, the dissent spends much of its time adrift in a sea of hypotheticals about photographers, stationers, and others, wondering whether they too provide expressive services covered by the First Amendment.
The case involved the plaintiff Lori Smithwho sued Colorado in 2016 over its laws that would have forced her to create a same-sex wedding website, arguing that it violated her. religious beliefs and the right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment.
Gorsuch pointed to Sotomayor’s assertions that the majority opinion erases the immense strides made by the gay community, according to the text. He pointed out that “there is much to applaud” on this issue, but he stressed that the concerns of the dissent do not answer “the question we face today: can a State force someone who provides his own expressive services to abandon his awareness and utter your preferred message? instead?”
“When the dissent finally gets to that question, more than half of its opinion reimagines the facts of this case from top to bottom,” Gorsuch argued. “The dissent asserts that Colorado seeks to regulate Ms. Smith’s ‘conduct,’ not her speech. . . . The dissent chides us for deciding a pre-enforcement challenge. . . . The dissent suggests (over and over again) that any burden on speech here is “incident”. .’ All despite the Tenth Circuit’s finding that Colorado intends to compel Ms. Smith to convey a message she does not believe with the “purpose” of “[e]limiting . . ideas’ that differ from their own’”.
Gorsuch also noted that his colleagues’ claims that his ruling had created the right for “the first time in history” to refuse service to a “protected class” were false, as Smith is still required by law to work with anyone “regardless of their sex”. orientation”, according to the text. He further explained that the dissent would have required the “Court to do something truly new” by allowing the government to compel a person to “speak against their beliefs on an important matter of personal conviction.”
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news service, is available at no charge to any legitimate news publisher who can deliver a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, the name of our reporter and their affiliation with DCNF. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
English 
Español de Venezuela