If this sounds like a broken record it is because it sort of is. If it it not the baker who Colorado wants to force to bake a cake that violates his Christian convictions, or the florist whom Colorado wants to force to provide flowers to an event that violates his personal convictions, then it is the website designer who Colorado wants to force to create websites supporting views that she is opposed to based on deeply held convictions.
Previous decisions were always parsed and targeted fairly specifically to the issues at hand. Leaving them vulnerable to other attacks and other means to try to get around them. But this opinion (written by Gorsuch and basically declared to be the "opinion of the court") was much more direct and forceful. Bottom line: a state cannot compel someone to perform any sort of creative expression that violates their personal convictions. This sort of forced legal compelling is a violation of free expression and quite obviously the First Amendment.
As surely as Ms. Smith seeks to engage in protected First Amendment speech, Colorado seeks to compel speech Ms. Smith does not wish to provide. As the Tenth Circuit observed, if Ms. Smith offers wedding websites celebrating marriages she endorses, the State intends to “forc[e her] to create custom websites” celebrating other marriages she does not. 6 F. 4th, at 1178. Colorado seeks to compel this speech in order to “excis[e] certain ideas or viewpoints from the public dialogue.” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 633, 642 (1994). Indeed, the Tenth Circuit recognized that the coercive “[e]liminati[on]” of dissenting “ideas” about marriage constitutes Colorado’s “very purpose” in seeking to apply its law to Ms. Smith. 6 F. 4th, at 1178.
This has been the open and obvious goal of the left. To shut down dissent from any of their own personally held political and social views. To the left, it is not enough to be allowed to have their own views, but rather the left wants to compel everyone else to hold the same views. They demand obedient acceptance of their ideals as the only one truth. All other ideals and beliefs need to be shut down. In this case the court argues that Colorado seeks to compel someone to not only accept another person's viewpoint (that differs from their own) but to outwardly promote it. Sorry folks, but where in the topsy-turvy concept of logic does this make any sense what-so-ever.
While most accept the idea of alternate lifestyles and Ms Smiths idea of marriage might be a minority opinion, the reality is that she is still allowed to believe what she believes and speak and act accordingly. Can she discriminate? Nope... just like the baker, she is more than willing to provide a website to a gay person. What she wants (and is legally entitled to) is the creative control over is the content of the websites she creates. You wouldn't demand a Jewish person create a website promoting Nazism any more than you would demand a gay person promote a website the suggests same sex is a sin that will send you to the eternal fires of hell. Why then do we treat a Christian any differently than we would treat a Jew or a member or the alternate lifestyle community?
It seems that liberals simply hate (for whatever reasons) the idea of religious freedom for Christians. Moreover, they only seem to take issue with Christians.
Will this finally stick as a precedent? How many times will Colorado and others defy the courts and pass and enforce laws that they know will be overturned eventually by the courts? The reality is that liberals (especially those in power) are petulant children and they will continue to throw their tantrums. But hopefully this decision provides fodder for those adults who want to put the children back in their place.
So does this do away with all the "required" pronoun nonsense ?
Asking for they/them