Yarger, who appeared befuddled through the question, responded honestly, telling Gorsuch that “a training requirement is a very common remedy which is used in lots of civil legal rights cases.” The justice, however, pressed on.
Gorsuch’s theory would hobble this nondiscrimination regime by stopping the federal government from directing employers to inform employees regarding their legal rights and responsibilities under law. And even for good reason: Expensive hotels supervisor who believes that interracial relationships are sinful could won’t let her know employees that they have to let mixed couples book rooms. A cafe or restaurant manager with spiritual objections to interfaith marriage could decline to coach her employees within their legal duty for everyone customers without regard to religion. Based on Gorsuch, these employers hold an initial Amendment right not “to speak with techniques that perhaps offend [their] religion.” Thus, they ought to be excused from telling their workers about civil legal rights law that they object.
Gorsuch, having a appearance of grave concern, stated:
Join Dahlia Lithwick and her stable of standout visitors for any discussion concerning the high court and also the country’s most significant cases.
Finally, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg leaped directly into save Yarger, telling him: “His belief is his belief. All he needs to instruct [his family] is this is exactly what what the law states of Colorado requires.”
Why is that not compelled speech and perhaps in breach of his free-exercise legal rights? Because presumably he needs to tell his staff, including his family people, that his Faith are discriminatory.