Attorney General Claims SCOTUS Used “Made Up” Cases

Colorado Attorney General Phillip Weiser critiqued the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that a web designer couldn’t be forced to create wedding websites for LGBTQ couples, labeling the ruling as a “permit to discriminate.”

During an MSNBC interview, Symone Sanders-Townsend queried Weiser on Justice Gorsuch’s assertion, “Under Colorado’s rationale, the government can mandate anyone paid to speak on a certain subject to accept all commissions on that same subject.”

“He’s implying that a person’s right to free speech is being negatively impacted in this scenario,” Weiser explained. 

He added, “However, the initial problem is that this is a fabricated case. 

It was based on hypothetical scenarios, and the court didn’t grapple with the entire situation. 

In an actual case, a victim would be denied services, and the consequences of the court’s ruling would be far more apparent. 

Furthermore, it’s important to clarify that any website creator or artistic work producer can create what they wish. 

Our stance is that they must offer it to everyone and not limit sales in a public business due to dislike of a person’s religion, race, ethnicity, or any other factor.”

Weiser contended that the Supreme Court’s decision presents legal and societal obstacles.

“There’s a societal challenge because, as a society, we must choose if we operate an expressive business. 

We can either serve everyone, embodying our national motto of E Pluribus Unum, or as you mentioned, people are now licensed to discriminate by stating, ‘I have this expressive product, and I’m not going to make it available to everyone.”

On the legal front, Weiser argued that people might try to exploit the exception.

“The courts will then have to interpret what this exception implies. It’s a new concept. 

The task will be to define an expressive business and determine who genuinely exercises a free speech right versus attempting to justify discrimination under false pretenses.”

Roughly a month after a case was lodged in federal court questioning the anti-discrimination law in Colorado, state attorneys argued that Smith hadn’t experienced any harm due to the law and moved for the case to be dismissed.