In a remarkable display of disregard for the highest court in the land, Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has announced she will not follow the recent Supreme Court ruling that protected the First Amendment rights of a Christian website designer to decline work conflicting with her religious beliefs.
In the landmark case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Colorado could not compel the web designer to create wedding websites for same-gender couples when the content infringed upon her faith. Despite this decision, Mayes has defiantly promised to enforce Arizona’s public accommodation law “to its fullest extent.”
Rulings are more important than feelings https://t.co/lEtTsIUoMg
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 5, 2023
Mayes’ controversial reaction underscores a profound misunderstanding of the ruling itself. The Supreme Court decision did not endorse or legitimize discrimination; it simply upheld the First Amendment right to free speech and freedom of religion, fundamental pillars of our democratic society. Nonetheless, Mayes labeled the ruling as “woefully misguided.”
While she acknowledged her office was still reviewing the decision’s implications, Mayes indicated her agreement with Justice Sotomayor’s view that businesses do not have a constitutional right to discriminate. This perspective, however, distorts the intent behind the ruling. The case was not about sanctioning discrimination but protecting an individual’s right to religious expression and personal convictions.
Following this ruling, other Arizona lawmakers have voiced their opposition. The central argument made by these dissenters suggests the ruling could lead to more widespread discrimination, including racial and religious bigotry.
It’s important to note the bright line between discriminatory practices and respecting religious freedom and free speech rights, which our Constitution guarantees. A healthy democratic society thrives on accommodating diverse opinions and beliefs, ensuring that no individual is forced to act against their convictions. By promising to disregard the Supreme Court ruling, Mayes has effectively dismissed this essential democratic principle.
Moreover, this isn’t the first time Mayes has taken a controversial stance on a significant legal issue. Recently, she stated that she would not prosecute doctors who perform abortions, another highly contentious topic in our society.
Mayes’ actions and statements highlight a troubling trend among public officials who seem willing to disregard the judiciary’s authority when it doesn’t align with their personal or political ideologies. This behavior undermines the established separation of powers and threatens the stability of our legal system.
