Sonia Sotomayor Pens Withering Dissent in Gay Discrimination Case

[riversedge]

Source: daily beast



‘PROFOUNDLY WRONG’
Chris Hippensteel Published Jun. 30, 2023 3:05PM EDT



Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a strongly worded dissent to the court's ruling on a same-sex wedding website case
Erin Schaff/Reuters

In a scathing dissent on Friday, liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor tore into the court’s conservative majority for what she called a “heartbreaking” ruling on discrimination and free speech. The case centered on the evangelical owner of a website design business—303 Creative LLC—who argued that Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws would violate her free speech rights by compelling her to make websites for gay couples. The court ruled 6-3 in favor of the business owner. “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, who was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote. “That is wrong. Profoundly wrong.” Sotomayor also implied that the ruling was part of a trend of “reactionary exclusion” toward marginalized groups. “The act of discrimination has never constituted protected expression under the First Amendment,” she wrote.

Read it at NPR



Read more: https://www.thedailybeast.com/sonia-sotomayor-pens-withering-dissent-in-gay-discrimination-case?source=twitter&via=desktop

---

She will fight for us. I hope her health says good.

Link to tweet

?s=20

Link to tweet

?s=20

Link to tweet

?s=20

[DENVERPOPS]

1. They are targeting Colorado

with this PHONY, made up case THEY created, as well as the case about the Baker who wanted a law so he could refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

Both cases are hilarious, what people who are gay, lez, or trans would even want to hire them in reality??????? Let alone sue the organization to force them to have them as customers/???????? LMFAO

They are going directly after Colorado to specifically target our Governor, who is openly gay and married.

Now that they have this ruling, they can now open up Pharmacists refusing to fill Abortion pills, birth control, any drugs to treat HIV etc etc. Then they can have Dr.'s refusing to treat anyone in the gay les or trans community.

If you want to carry this ruling to the extreme, they could not make fire depts, police, paramedics, etc respond to any business or home that has gay, lez, or trans people.............And after that, go after minorities, and certain religions they disagree with.......

[mountain grammy]

6. You are so right..

Because we are passing laws to protect all citizens from unequal treatment. Yes, they are targeting Colorado. There's a reason that braindead Boebert was wined, dined and put into that seat.

We really must be diligent.

[yardwork]

7. That's what Sotomayor's dissent says.

There are millions of Americans who want to go back to the days when it was legal to put up a sign that says "Whites only."

[The Grand Illuminist]

9. Or more than likely demand voter registration cards

to check party.

[jmowreader]

4. Next up...

Permission for Christians to refuse to follow any law they don't like because it's against their religion.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. right?

The law changes over time. From what I recall in Jim Marrs' Rule by Secrecy, Christians were not ok with killing anyone even in battle until the Crusades. But they found a way. So morality shifts, and it sometimes shifts in ways we don't like. Universal Christian Entitlement, Pre-pardon if you like, would be such a step. Nothing is off the table at this point.

[Bayard]

8. Ridiculous!

As Chris Hayes was saying last night, there is no wronged party here, just a religious nut who's afraid she MIGHT be asked to do something.

[Wild blueberry]

10. Best thing I did yesterday was read all of Sonia Sotomayor's dissent

Thank you, Justice Sotomayor. And Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson.

Still furious. Will apply all this energy into 2024 turnout for Democrats.

Thank you for posting this.

[Novara]

11. I have a question for the lawyers

Since sexual orientation is a protected class in Colorado, the SCCOTUS just invalidated that state law with this ruling. Can't the state of Colorado petition to have this vacated on that basis? State laws can give protections federal laws do not. This ruling violates Colorado law regarding sexual orientation as a protected class.