Dem attorney general promises to defy landmark Supreme Court ruling — but the facts dismantle her narrative



Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D) is openly defying a recent Supreme Court ruling.

After the Supreme Court ruled that Colorado cannot compel business owners to make expressive speech that violates their religious beliefs, Mayes issued a statement saying Arizona's public accommodation law, which is similar to Colorado's, will still be enforced.

"[A] woefully misguided majority of the United States Supreme Court has decided that businesses open to the public may, in certain circumstances, discriminate against LGBTQ+ Americans," Mayes said.

On that basis, Mayes declared, "I will continue to enforce Arizona’s public accommodation law to its fullest extent."

"Arizona law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, including discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity," she explained. "If any Arizonan believes that they have been the victim of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, or ancestry in a place of public accommodation, they should file a complaint with my office."

Mayes, moreover, expressed agreement with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote the dissent in the case, that it is "profoundly wrong" to suggest "the Constitution gives businesses the right to discriminate."

In the dissent, Sotomayor claimed, "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."

The problem — both with Sotomayor's dissent and Mayes' framing of the ruling — is that the Supreme Court did not write anyone a license to discriminate.

The stipulations in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis — facts that both sides agree to —dismantle this narrative. The stipulations included the agreed facts that:

  1. Smith is "willing to work with all people regardless of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender" and she "will gladly create custom graphics and websites" for LGBTQ clients
  2. Smith's designs are "expressive" in nature. With regard to wedding websites, this means the designs express her "message celebrating and promoting" her view of marriage, which is grounded in "biblical truth"

Based upon those stipulations, the Supreme Court ruled that "the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees."

Thus Mayes is essentially spreading disinformation about the ruling as she boasts about ignoring it.

The Supreme Court said nothing about permissible discrimination. What it did say is that governments cannot discriminate against closely held personal beliefs by forcing citizens to make and promote expressive speech they disagree with.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Top Biden official says admin supports forcing businesses to 'engage in speech' they 'disagree' with



The White House admitted Monday that the Biden administration believes the government should be allowed to compel businesses to express speech they disagree with.

At the White House press briefing, a reporter asked press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre about 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the case that the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for on Monday. The case centers on whether public accommodation laws that compel artists to violate their religious beliefs violate the First Amendment.

At first, Jean-Pierre claimed the Biden administration supports both free speech and anti-discrimination. But she followed up by endorsing government-forced speech.

"The administration believes that every person — no matter their sex, race, religion, or who they love — should have the equal access to society, including access to products and services on the same terms as other members of public," she said.

Then, noting that the Justice Department believes "non-discrimination public accommodations laws have coexisted with the First Amendment," she claimed, "We can require businesses open to public to service people, regardless of their backgrounds, even when that means businesses must incidentally engage in speech which they disagree upon."

Jean-Pierre added that there "is no reason to upend this balance right now."

12/05/22: Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre youtu.be

The final remark suggests the Biden administration wants the Supreme Court to rule against the Colorado website developer who is seeking the protection of her religious expression under the First Amendment.

But the truth is that, in Colorado at least, there is no balance between public accommodation laws and First Amendment protections.

This is the second case on the issue from Colorado to make it to the Supreme Court. In the first case, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of cake baker Jack Phillips. The ruling, however, was narrow and did not directly address the broader questions related to public accommodation laws. The case now before the court will (probably) finally provide an answer.

At any rate, the First Amendment's free exercise and establishment clauses generally protect Americans from government interference in their expressions of religious freedom. The Supreme Court permits only narrow exceptions.

And if oral arguments on Monday are any indication of how the court will rule in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, Colorado's public accommodations law and others like it do not make the cut.

Justice Gorsuch corners Colorado solicitor general into admission about what state did to cake baker Jack Phillips



Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch got Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson to essentially admit on Monday that cake baker Jack Phillips went through a reeducation program.

The admission happened as Gorsuch grilled Olson during oral arguments for 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, a case about whether public accommodation laws that compel artists to violate their personal beliefs violate the First Amendment.

What happened?

After an intense back-and-forth, Gorsuch questioned Olson about the legal remedy that Colorado imposed against Phillips for not having baked a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Though Olson denied it was a "reeducation" program per se, what he described was a reeduction program.

"Mr. Phillips did go through a reeducation training program pursuant to Colorado law, did he not?" Gorsuch asked.

"He went through a process that ensured he was familiar with —" Olson responded.

"It was a reeducation program, right?" Gorsuch interjected.

"It was not a reeducation program," Olson fired back.

"What do you call it?" the justice followed up.

"It was a process to make sure he was familiar with Colorado law," Olson admitted.

"Someone might be excused for calling that a reeducation program," the justice then quipped. Olson responded by saying, "I strongly disagree."

The exchange came after minutes of interrogation from Gorsuch in which the justice sought to draw out the difference between a freelance writer and a website designer who both refuse to provide services that contradict their sincerely held religious beliefs.

The writer, Olson explained, would have his religious beliefs protected, but the website designer in this particular case would not. He failed to explain why and even admitted the state can neither change someone's sincerely held religious beliefs nor allegedly make a practice of compelling people to express ideas or speech that violate those beliefs.

How will the court rule?

While the decision is not expected until sometime next year, the court is sympathetic toward the plaintiff, the website developer who sued Colorado because she argues the state's public accommodation law would force her to violate her religious beliefs if she designed wedding websites.

In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Phillips.

The court, however, did not rule on the broader questions related to public accommodation laws, answers the present case will likely provide.