Neil Gorsuch passionately defended free speech in his defense of 303 Creative with these 8 powerful quotes.

Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered a powerful defense of free speech and religious liberty in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 303 Creative v. Elenis decision on Friday, marking a significant victory for Americans’ First Amendment rights.

In a landmark ruling, the high court declared that the government cannot compel Colorado graphic artist Lorie Smith to create wedding websites for same-sex couples, as it would violate her constitutional right to practice her Christian belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. The court emphasized that such state-enforced coercion infringes on Smith’s First Amendment rights.

Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch made it clear that the current court is committed to safeguarding Americans’ rights to free speech and religious liberty. Here are eight standout quotes from his opinion:

1. Gorsuch challenges the dissent’s distortion of the facts:

It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case. Much of it focuses on the evolution of public accommodations laws … and the strides gay Americans have made towards securing equal justice under law … And, no doubt, there is much to applaud here. But none of this answers the question we face today: Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?

When the dissent finally gets around to that question—more than halfway into its opinion—it reimagines the facts of this case from top to bottom.

2. State-enforced speech violates the First Amendment:

If [Ms. Smith] wishes to speak, she must either speak as the State demands or face sanctions for expressing her own beliefs, sanctions that may include compulsory participation in ‘remedial . . . training,’ filing periodic compliance reports as officials deem necessary, and paying monetary fines. … Under our precedents, that ‘is enough,’ more than enough, to represent an impermissible abridgment of the First Amendment’s right to speak freely.

3. The dissent’s arguments in favor of coercing Smith’s speech are illogical:

In some places, the dissent gets so turned around about the facts that it opens fire on its own position. For instance: While stressing that a Colorado company cannot refuse ‘the full and equal enjoyment of [its] services’ based on a customer’s protected status … the dissent assures us that a company selling creative services ‘to the public’ does have a right ‘to decide what messages to include or not to include’ … But if that is true, what are we even debating?

4. The First Amendment protects all Americans:

[T]he First Amendment extends to all persons engaged in expressive conduct, including those who seek profit (such as speechwriters, artists, and website designers). … If anything is truly dispiriting here, it is the dissent’s failure to take seriously this Court’s enduring commitment to protecting the speech rights of all comers, no matter how controversial—or even repugnant—many may find the message at hand.

5. Gorsuch criticizes the dissent for selective defense of free speech:

Today, however, the dissent abandons what this Court’s cases have recognized time and time again: A commitment to speech for only some messages and some persons is no commitment at all. By approving a government’s effort to'[e]liminat[e]’ disfavored ‘ideas,’ … today’s dissent is emblematic of an unfortunate tendency by some to defend First Amendment values only when they find the speaker’s message sympathetic.

6. The Constitution upholds tolerance, not state-enforced coercion:

Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider ‘unattractive,’ … ‘misguided, or even hurtful’ … But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.

7. Free speech is fundamental to the American experiment:

[T]he opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong.

8. The Constitution takes precedence:

[T]his Court has also recognized that no public accommodations law is immune from the demands of the Constitution. In particular, this Court has held, public accommodations statutes can sweep too broadly when deployed to compel speech. … When a state public accommodations law and the Constitution collide, there can be no question which must prevail.