Michael Imperioli turned the tables on “fanatics and homophobes” and supported the Supreme Court’s decision to allow a Christian website designer to discriminate against same-sex couples.
The Sopranos star responded to news of the verdict in one angry instagram post on Saturday, where he posted a screenshot of an article headlined “Supreme Court protects web designers who don’t create gay wedding websites.”
On Friday, the court ruled by a conservative 6-3 majority that a Colorado graphic designer could legally refuse to provide services to same-sex couples based on her First Amendment rights.
Imperioli tried to twist the Supreme Court’s own logic in the case, telling fans, “I have decided to ban fanatics and homophobes, ‘The Sopranos,’ ‘The White Lotus,’ ‘Goodfellas,’ or any other film or watch every TV show.” I was in it.”
“Thank you, Supreme Court, for allowing me to discriminate against and exclude those I disagree with and reject,” he continued wryly. “USA! USA!”
Imperioli expanded his thoughts in the comments section, telling critics, “Hate and ignorance are not a legitimate view” and “America is getting dumber by the minute.”
The decision of the Supreme Court in 303 Creative vs. Elenis expanded the rights of people who wish to refuse services to same-sex couples on religious or ideological grounds.
A Colorado antidiscrimination law was established that prohibits the denial of goods, services, or facilities “based on disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, national origin, or ancestry,” your religious liberties and her Freedom of expression would be violated if she were forced to create a website expressing the views she opposes.
However, the dispute cited in this case was entirely hypothetical. Plaintiff Lorie Smith was never hired to create a website for a same-sex couple, nor did she professionally create a website.
Slurring the majority’s opinion in a dissent with Liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, “Today, for the first time in its history, the court grants a public-facing corporation the constitutional right to refuse to serve its members.” a protected class.”
Axelle/Bauer-Griffin via Getty Images
“By granting this new license to discriminate in a case brought by a company that seeks to deny same-sex couples full and equal enjoyment of its services, the immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to reclassify gays and lesbians as second-class. “Status,” the dissent continued.
“In this way, the decision itself causes a kind of stigmatic damage, on top of the damage caused by denials of service. The court’s opinion is literally a notice that reads: “Some services may be denied to same-sex couples.”
Judge Neil Gorsuch wrote in a majority that states still have the ability to protect protected classes from discrimination, but not in matters that “concern the First Amendment.”
“States are generally free to apply their public housing laws, including their provisions protecting gay people, to a wide variety of businesses,” he wrote, later adding, “When a state public housing law and the Constitution conflict, there is no doubt that it must prevail.”
This week the Supreme Court ended its session with a string of victories for the Conservatives.
Just hours after his decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis, the court overturned President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan. On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that the college’s use of racially aware admissions, also known as Affirmative Action, was unconstitutional.
