• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay Wedding Cake Issue Revisited In Denver . . . Only Now It's Websites - Not Cakes

SkyChief

SkyChief

USN Veteran
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
5,436
Reaction score
3,786
Location
SoCal
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Lorie Smith runs a business (303 Creative) in Colorado designing websites, including weddings. Smith sued the state of Colorado because she doesn't feel she should not be forced to design websites for same-sex weddings.

Smith's lawsuit is preemptive - she is asking SCOTUS to decide that she cannot be punished under Colorado's anti-discrimination law for refusing to design websites for same-sex weddings. Smith asserts that she has a Free Speech right under the Constitution's First Amendment to refuse to design websites for same-sex weddings.

Smith says the Respect For Marriage Act would compel her to design a website even though it goes against her religious beliefs.

In 2018, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips refused bake a wedding cake for a Lakewood, Colorado gay couple. SCOTUS gave the baker a partial victory, saying that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had acted with anti-religious bias, and that Phillips could not be forced to bake the cake.

source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...ork-sex-weddings-supreme-court-clas-rcna57374
 
Gosh…she started 303 Creative IN 2022 and even includes the lawsuit on her website. A lawsuit she filed “proactively”

And we are supposed to believe there isn’t a concerted effort by a certain subsection of “Conservatives” to attack same sex marriage.
 
BirdinHand said:
Gosh…she started 303 Creative IN 2022 and even includes the lawsuit on her website. A lawsuit she filed “proactively”

And we are supposed to believe there isn’t a concerted effort by a certain subsection of “Conservatives” to attack same sex marriage.
Click to expand...
Wingnut bigoted marketing. Get the rubes out.
 
The question is whether states like Colorado can, in applying their anti-discrimination laws, compel an artist to express a message they disagree with. In the Phillips Masterpiece Cakeshop case they ruled that Mr. Phillips could not be forced to bake the gay wedding cake because it was a creative design. In the 303 Creative case, it is also a creative design (obviously), so we should expect SCOTUS to rule in favor of Smith.

"Nobody should be forced to create artwork, custom expression, that goes against the core of who they are and what they believe. And that's what Colorado [statute] is doing," Lorie Smith said.

edit to add correction:

In the OP I mistakenly wrote

Smith says the Respect For Marriage Act would compel her to design a website even though it goes against her religious beliefs.

Please disregard that. It was someone else who argued that in a different source. I ran out of time to edit the OP.
 
Last edited:
SkyChief said:
Lorie Smith runs a business (303 Creative) in Colorado designing websites, including weddings. Smith sued the state of Colorado because she doesn't feel she should not be forced to design websites for same-sex weddings.

Smith's lawsuit is preemptive - she is asking SCOTUS to decide that she cannot be punished under Colorado's anti-discrimination law for refusing to design websites for same-sex weddings. Smith asserts that she has a Free Speech right under the Constitution's First Amendment to refuse to design websites for same-sex weddings.

Smith says the Respect For Marriage Act would compel her to design a website even though it goes against her religious beliefs.

In 2018, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips refused bake a wedding cake for a Lakewood, Colorado gay couple. SCOTUS gave the baker a partial victory, saying that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had acted with anti-religious bias, and that Phillips could not be forced to bake the cake.

source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...ork-sex-weddings-supreme-court-clas-rcna57374
Click to expand...
Smith has not been sanctioned for refusing to design such a website but filed the lawsuit on the premise that she could be.
Click to expand...

Frivolous lawsuit. I guess lawyers need work too.
 
here's some of their recent work...


1670205558790.png
1670205610528.png
 
adflegal.org

303 Creative v. Elenis

A Colorado law would have forced web designer Lorie Smith and her studio, 303 Creative, to design and publish websites promoting messages that violate her religious beliefs.
adflegal.org adflegal.org


1670206611170.png
 
You can't get to court for a crime which hasn't been committed yet, nor for a law which hasn't been applied yet. She's wasting her money.
 
Sort of ironic. People that never stop screaming about their rights want to deny someone elses rights. And then call them a bigot. Morality continues to be under attack. I’m tired of hearing about it. And tired of these monotonous propaganda threads.
 
SkyChief said:
Lorie Smith runs a business (303 Creative) in Colorado designing websites, including weddings. Smith sued the state of Colorado because she doesn't feel she should not be forced to design websites for same-sex weddings.

Smith's lawsuit is preemptive - she is asking SCOTUS to decide that she cannot be punished under Colorado's anti-discrimination law for refusing to design websites for same-sex weddings. Smith asserts that she has a Free Speech right under the Constitution's First Amendment to refuse to design websites for same-sex weddings.

Smith says the Respect For Marriage Act would compel her to design a website even though it goes against her religious beliefs.

In 2018, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips refused bake a wedding cake for a Lakewood, Colorado gay couple. SCOTUS gave the baker a partial victory, saying that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had acted with anti-religious bias, and that Phillips could not be forced to bake the cake.

source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...ork-sex-weddings-supreme-court-clas-rcna57374
Click to expand...
If she wants to discriminate then she should not open a business to the public. I don't understand what is so hard about this very basic concept.
 
Hari Seldon said:
Religion, an excuse to be a bigot.
Click to expand...
Pretty much... early Christianity accepted slavery as an institution. I am just waiting for some racist to pull that one out and claim religious protection to discriminate against black people... although any could be slaves.
 
SkyChief said:
The question is whether states like Colorado can, in applying their anti-discrimination laws, compel an artist to express a message they disagree with. In the Phillips Masterpiece Cakeshop case they ruled that Mr. Phillips could not be forced to bake the gay wedding cake because it was a creative design. In the 303 Creative case, it is also a creative design (obviously), so we should expect SCOTUS to rule in favor of Smith.

"Nobody should be forced to create artwork, custom expression, that goes against the core of who they are and what they believe. And that's what Colorado [statute] is doing," Lorie Smith said.

edit to add correction:

In the OP I mistakenly wrote

Smith says the Respect For Marriage Act would compel her to design a website even though it goes against her religious beliefs.

Please disregard that. It was someone else who argued that in a different source. I ran out of time to edit the OP.
Click to expand...
Businesses are bound to be open to the public and not discriminate. This really isn't any more complicated than that.
 
Bodi said:
Pretty much... early Christianity accepted slavery as an institution. I am just waiting for some racist to pull that one out and claim religious protection to discriminate against black people... although any could be slaves.
Click to expand...
The bible was used to justify anti-miscegenation laws because of all that morality.
 
SkyChief said:
... compel an artist to express a message they disagree with.
Click to expand...

Why is it artists? What if I don't want to wash the restaurant dishes of an artist or a Pentagon warmonger?
 
Be an interesting one to watch.

The courts could certainly go either way on this one.

..
 
Hari Seldon said:
The bible was used to justify anti-miscegenation laws because of all that morality.
Click to expand...
Heaven Forbid people are attracted to those outside their race!
 
Antiwar said:
Why is it artists? What if I don't want to wash the restaurant dishes of an artist or a Pentagon warmonger?
Click to expand...
Who is compelling you (or anyone else) by force of statute to do such a thing?
 
Bodi said:
Businesses are bound to be open to the public and not discriminate. This really isn't any more complicated than that.
Click to expand...
The Constitution suggests otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom