Skip to comments.Gorsuch Grills Lawyer Over Whether Colorado Baker Had To Go Through ‘Reeducation Program’
Posted on 12/05/2022 12:27:58 PM PST by MtnClimber
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Monday whether Colorado baker Jack Phillips was forced to undergo “reeducation” after refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Gorsuch’s question came during oral arguments in the case of 303 Creative v. Elenis. Lorie Smith, who owns 303 Creative and provides graphic and web design services, sued the state in 2016 because she did not want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples, arguing the law violated her First Amendment rights.
The case is similar to that of a 2018 case involving baker Jack Phillips, also from Colorado, who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. The Supreme Court ruled that Phillips was not given a fair hearing before the state Civil Rights Commission due to anti-religious bias. The court did not, however, overturn Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws or answer the question of whether Phillips had the right to discriminate against LGBT couples.
Gorsuch invoked the case Monday while questioning Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson.
“Mr. Phillips did go through a reeducation program pursuant to Colorado law, did he not?” Gorsuch asked.
“He went through a process that ensured he was familiar with—” Olson began to say before Gorsuch interjected.
“It was a reeducation program, right?” the justice said.
“It was not a reeducation program,” Olson responded.
“What do you call it?” Gorsuch asked.
The Globohomos will put their boot on your neck.
I call it insane.
Gorsuch’s, hopefully majority opinion …. Hope he gets to author it
Gorsuch is my new favorite SCJ.
So Gorsuch had a sarcasm tag on that because that’s not even ok to infer.
People have attacked Gorsuch on some of his other opinions, but being a judicial conservative and a politic conservative are not the same. And while he’s both, it’s the former that determines how he does his job, not the latter. So when there’s a conflict, he’ll do what the law says regardless of his personal opinions on the issue.
I wonder if like the little boy said...YOU MAY SEE ME STANDING UP ON THE OUTSIDE, BUT INSIDE IM SITTING DOWN. Thought police don’t have the ability to force people HOW or what to think.
“Die Gedanken sind frei”
Simply put, the states are free to make laws and policies that reasonably discriminate on the basis of any criterion that they don't amend the Constitution to expressly protect imo.
In this Colorado case, institutionally indoctrinated, pro-LGBQ Colorado state actors wrongy weaponized 10th Amendment-protected state power to abridge 1st Amendment-protected right of religious expression, a violation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A) imo.
Excerpted from the 14th Amendment:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Note that 14A protections were successfully used awhile back to compensate free speech abridgement by UC Berkeley.
Regarding Berkeley case, I woudn't be surprised if California taxpayers effectively paid settlement, a problem that Congress can probably fix with appropriate legislation if such was the case, although I'm not holding my breath until Congress does its job.
What's probably going on with enforcement of 14A is this imo. Corrupt Democratic and RINO-controlled Congress gets around making laws that discourage state actors from abridging constitutionally enumerated protections by letting activist Supreme Court jutices get away with legislating such laws from the bench.
Cases like this should be able to sue the goverment for reimbursement and punitive damages.
Maybe they do and I just don’t hear about it, but what I often hear about are cases where a cop is accused of being too heavy handed w/someone and the state/city pays out.
Should be same deal here.
Will they show up at Gorsuch’s house, do you think?
Only until they activate Room 101.
Again? You would think that Gorsuch would have markers indicating range for all fields of fire from his house.
Way to go Judge Gorsuch.
I would say there is a good likelihood. But by "They" do you mean Antifa or Merrick Garland's goon squad? Although both are likely to show up there these days. .
What did Olson say the (re)education program was called?
It probably has a benign name like "Learning to Worship Men with Penis Breath".
They can, indirectly, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows a person to sue any person acting under color of law for deprivation of civil rights and recover actual and punitive damages and attorney's fees. The lawsuit is technically against the person acting under color of law (i.e., the government official who deprived the plaintiff of his or civil rights), but the judgment is usually paid by the defendant's government employer and/or insurance carrier.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.