FOLLOW US

In a recent Supreme Court ruling, Justice Neil Gorsuch came under fire from his liberal colleague, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, for allegedly relegating LGBT individuals to "second-class status." Gorsuch insisted everyone’s first amendment rights were equal.

 The case in question, 303 Creative v. Elenis, dealt with a Colorado web designer, Lorie Smith, who refused to include certain messages on websites for same-sex couples based on her sincere Christian beliefs. 

Gorsuch, writing the 6-3 majority opinion, firmly rebuked Sotomayor's dissent, highlighting what he believed to be distortions of the case's facts.

According to Sotomayor, the majority's decision granted a "new license to discriminate" and marginalized the LGBT community. She argued that the ruling had the immediate effect of branding gays and lesbians as second-class citizens. 

However, Gorsuch vehemently disagreed, asserting that Sotomayor had mischaracterized the nature of the case and had gone so far as to contradict her own position. He added that it "reimagines the facts of this case from top to bottom."

"In some places, the dissent gets so turned around about the facts that it opens fire on its own position," Gorsuch wrote.

 "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 … 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 …' But if that is true, what are we even debating?"

Free Speech Issues

Gorsuch argued that the dissent engaged in speculation and hypotheticals rather than focusing on the core elements of the case at hand.

 He questioned why the dissent was fixated on including or excluding messages in creative services when the case revolved around a web designer's First Amendment rights. 

Gorsuch further emphasized that the majority's decision was not a condemnation of public accommodation laws but a defense of individual freedom and tolerance.

Joining Sotomayor in dissent were Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, both appointed by Democratic presidents. Sotomayor contended that the majority's opinion perpetuated social hierarchies and went against the principles underlying public accommodations laws. 

She urged a broader interpretation of the law, emphasizing that a democratic society should prioritize equality and reject coercion.

In contrast, Gorsuch and the five other Republican-appointed justices found the majority's decision consistent with the First Amendment.