Posted on 06/30/2023 8:06:05 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision to back a Christian wedding website designer’s choice not to provide services to gay couples, calling the decision “profoundly wrong” in a scathing dissenting argument read from the bench.
“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.
The associate justice harkened back to the civil rights and women’s rights movements in her dissent, suggesting that in recent years, gender and sexual orientation minority groups have faced “backlash to the movement for liberty and equality.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Sorry.
That was inappropriate.
I should have said, “Moza mezquina.”
LGBTQPEDOGROOMERS!
“..Christian wedding website designer’s choice not to provide services to gay couples..”
As usual, the Hill lies in its first sentence. The business is a website design business, not just a wedding website design business. The business also provides services to gays so the writer lies about that as well. These facts were not disputed by the state or the business. The state was trying to compel the designer’s speech to be what is acceptable to the state. That is a violation of the designers free speech and is an unconstitutional act by the state of Colorado.
Congress should impeach her for being a racist and thinking there are protected classes of people above the law.
Does she believe a web designer should be forced to make am anti-LGBT web site?
They aren’t refusing, If a guy person asked them to make a web site for their interior design business it’s not a refusal. Whst if a guy person asks them to create a Nazi wen sire? They are required to make it?
This was a wise and just decision.
This guy shouldn’t be required to do this anymore than a jewish magazine should be required to run Nazi ads.
Why does who you want to play slap and tickle with make you a member of a protected class? With that logic protection must be expanded to include pedophiles and a whole other host of perversions.
My thoughts, “She really is that dumb.”
The Wide Latina brays again.
We seriously need to impeach certain judges. And get rid of scardy cat rinos.
All those years of believing that “Black is slimming.” just went pffft.
That is not true at all. If a gay couple asked her to create a web site about Yellowstone National Park she couldn’t refuse based on orientation.
The erection of "protected classes" is repugnant to the Constitution, and is prohibited by Article IV, Amendment XIV, Amendment XV and by the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1957, and 1964.
This has to be torn out, root and branch, or the nation will perish.
That was my example too Nick. Should a black web designer have to create a site promoting a white supremicist cross burning? Same thing.
She is another reason against affirmative action.
Roz from Monster’s Ink is not happy.
So are two non-homosexuals that get married a protected class?
“a protected class”
where the hell is that in the constitution.
———-
A great point!
If ANY “class” should be protected, it should be the UNBORN.
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.