• 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

That you do not “get it” is irrelevant. Yes, maybe to you this isn’t sensible, but that is simply not a rebuke or refutation of the legal arguments or the religious beliefs.
But according to your interpretation of the 1st Amendment if someone says some belief or practice is their sincere religious belief the law can't stop them from inflcting this on other people in the public market place.

Ms Smith wants, according to the text of the suit, not only refusal of wedding site creation to gays but she also wants to explain publicly, on her web site, why gay marriage is not acceptable to her and her God.
(from the suit before the SC)
71. Another purpose of 303 Creative is to develop and design unique visual and textual expression that promotes, celebrates, and conveys messages that promote aspects of Ms. Smith’s Christian faith.
79. By creating wedding websites, Ms. Smith and 303 Creative will collaborate with prospective brides and grooms in order to use their unique stories as source material to express Ms. Smith’s and 303 Creative’s message celebrating and promoting God’s design for marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman.

80. The collaboration between Plaintiffs and their clients who desire custom wedding websites will also allow Plaintiffs to strengthen and encourage marriages by sharing biblical truths with their clients as they commit to lifelong unity and devotion as man and wife.

Can she put a curse on gays because she sincerely believes that gay marriage is wrong? Can she advocate, on her website for the stoning deaths of gays who are married? Can she buy paid advertising on the radio and TV saying gays should be stoned to death. Can she advocate publicly for the deaths of non-Christians. Where does it end?
 
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.
The Colorado law does not force Ms Smith to create something that is against her core religious beliefs. It prevents her from discriminating against a protected group. What the law says is if she decides to create something she has create for all customers. Ms Smith doesn't want to do that. She wants to exclude gay couples asking for a wedding site design.

Mr Phillips the custom wedding cake baker decided not to make custom wedding cakes. He now gives customers a choice of standardized wedding cakes that he will not alter for any customer. What you see is what you get; no changes because of your sexual orientation straight or gay. Ms Smith can do the same. She doesn't want to. She wants to design wedding sites only for heterosexual couples. She also wants to use the market place to explain why God doesn't want gay marriage.

Most of the writers of the Constitution had experienced the controlling hand of a state religion or had family members that had. In writing the 1st Amendment they made religion a private personal choice. Religious beliefs or no religious beliefs would be a private matter free from government control nor could the government make any laws that established a religious pecking order giving one denomination greater power over other denominations. " Free exercise" never, ever intended to give anyone or any denomination the right to use the market place to denigrate, harm, bully, threaten, frighten, deny service or explain why God despised specific people. If the SC decides that Ms Smith can explain her intolerance in the public market place so can all religions.
 
She hasn't even been ASKED to make a website for a gay couple.


Why do people think that gay couples are going to go off to Christian businesses (and she openly advertises her Christian faith on her website) and want them to make a website or a cake?

It is 2022, and this plaintiff is from Colorado. Why would a hypothetical couple not seek out a business such as Tree Ring Digital - right there in CO - which is certified as LGBT-friendly and owned?

That's where this entire argument falls apart. Gays aren't rushing off to Christian-owned businesses ANYWHERE and demanding that Christians make websites for them. They go to one of the countless businesses that advertise that they are inclusive and spend their money there.

But, see, free market capitalism like that isn't what these religious conservatives want. The goal is to use the legal system as a weapon.

No more, no less.
Their goal is to remain free from sin. Collaborating with sinners in their pursuit of sin, is sin. Selling alcohol for example, is a sin for Christians. Selling a wedding cake to gay couples is abetting their sinful union. You understand. You just don't like it so you make stuff up. It's not an effort to weaponize the legal system. That's pure BS.
 
Their goal is to remain free from sin. Collaborating with sinners in their pursuit of sin, is sin. Selling alcohol for example, is a sin for Christians. Selling a wedding cake to gay couples is abetting their sinful union. You understand. You just don't like it so you make stuff up. It's not an effort to weaponize the legal system. That's pure BS.
No, it is an effort to weaponize the legal system. Which has zero to do with any religion.
 
How?

Your references are in relation to government speech where the facts of this case involve purely private speech, whose private speech is it, and what impact a public accommodation law has in relation to private speech.

You’ve done nothing more than present a slippery slope whose slope isn’t parallel to the facts of the case.
"purely private speech" can hurt government and societies interests... when it comes into conflict with what is best for society, i.e. anti-discrimination laws, then it can be deemed in violation of said laws.
 
Their goal is to remain free from sin.
Just an excuse to discriminate.
Selling alcohol for example, is a sin for Christians.
Then don't open a liquor store.
Selling a wedding cake to gay couples is abetting their sinful union.
Then don't open a wedding cake bakery.

See how easy that was?

It's not an effort to weaponize the legal system.
Whether it is an effort or not to do so... that is what will be happening. Pretty soon black people will not be served in restaurants in Virginia again.

Good job.
 
"purely private speech" can hurt government and societies interests... when it comes into conflict with what is best for society, i.e. anti-discrimination laws, then it can be deemed in violation of said laws.
Emphasis mine.

Not in the U.S. and not under U.S. law. The rights in the Constitution, such as free speech, exist in the Constitution to preclude subjugation of those rights to “said laws.”

Rightly, public accommodation laws cannot compel speech, exactly and precisely because free speech means in part and includes freedom from government compulsion to speak, create speech, or engage in speech.
 
Emphasis mine.

Not in the U.S. and not under U.S. law. The rights in the Constitution, such as free speech, exist in the Constitution to preclude subjugation of those rights to “said laws.”
Speech has been restricted and denied as free in certain situations though, correct? If the government deems something discriminatory, as has already happened in cases denying black people the right to eat in a restaurant, for example.
Rightly, public accommodation laws cannot compel speech, exactly and precisely because free speech means in part and includes freedom from government compulsion to speak, create speech, or engage in speech.
That is a separate issue though, correct?
 
Rightly, public accommodation laws cannot compel speech, exactly and precisely because free speech means in part and includes freedom from government compulsion to speak, create speech, or engage in speech.
The Colorado law does not compell speech. It states that store owners may not discriminate against protected groups.

"In a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, the attorney general’s office says that the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act simply prevents sales discrimination. What a business chooses to sell to the public remains entirely up to the business. Once a business offers something to the public, however, the law ensures it must offer it to any customer regardless of their race, religion, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristic.
“Public accommodations laws enacted in Colorado and across the country protect equal access to goods and services and the dignity of all customers. Colorado’s law regulates ordinary business sales. The mere act of selling something to all on equal terms is not expressive conduct, and the law does not compel businesses to speak or stay silent,” Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser explained. “Advertisements that effectively say ‘straight couples only’ are not protected by the Court’s free speech precedents. Rather, the Court has repeatedly affirmed the state’s ability to regulate ordinary sales discrimination and it should do so again in this case.”

Ms. Smith wants to discriminate because she thinks she would be participating in a sin against her God if she were to design a website for a gay maiirage That is her personal religious problem. It is not Colorado's problem. Colorado is free to enact non-discrimination laws. The SC in its decision about Masterpiece Cakes did not declare the Colorado law unconstitutional. They decided they would not sanction Mr. Phillip's because the Colorado civil rights commission made rude comments about Mr. Phillips religious beliefs. Mr. Phillips still has to follow the Colorado law. He cannot make custom wedding cakes for one group and deny a custom cake to another group.
 
A very late update to this story:

Back in June, SCOTUS ruled 6-3 in favor of web designer Lorie Smith who refused to design wedding websites for same-sex couples, finding the 1st Amendment prohibits the State from forcing Smith to express messages contrary to her religious beliefs.

The ruling establishes that states cannot force or coerce artists to create speech which would violate their free speech rights.

source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/read-f...ner-declining-to-make-lgbtq-wedding-websites/
 
A very late update to this story:

Back in June, SCOTUS ruled 6-3 in favor of web designer Lorie Smith who refused to design wedding websites for same-sex couples, finding the 1st Amendment prohibits the State from forcing Smith to express messages contrary to her religious beliefs.

The ruling establishes that states cannot force or coerce artists to create speech which would violate their free speech rights.

source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/read-f...ner-declining-to-make-lgbtq-wedding-websites/
Except for the fact that she never had a website business and there as never gay couple seeking her to make a website, so there was no standing to even bring this legal clusterpuck to the SCOTUS for a ruling on an issue that only existed as a hypothetical.
 
Last edited:
Except for the fact that she never had a website business and there as never gay coupleassking her to make a website, so there was no standing to even bring this legal clusterpuck to the SCOTUS for a ruling on asn issue that only existed as a hypothetical.
I think it was a preemptive gambit for Smith in the event that her company (303 Creative) would be solicited to design a web page for same-sex couples.

In other words, she was covering her butt.
 
I think it was a preemptive gambit for Smith in the event that her company 303 Creative would be solicited to design a web page for same-sex couples.
Then its not ripe for a ruling until there was an case to be decided. She had no standing to even object because it never happened. The SCOTUS is not to be ruling on hypothetical possibilities. This decsion is a legal sham.
 
Except for the fact that she never had a website business and there as never gay couple seeking her to make a website, so there was no standing to even bring this legal clusterpuck to the SCOTUS for a ruling on an issue that only existed as a hypothetical.
There is standing if there is a grievance. The hypothetical gay couple wouldn't be involved in the lawsuit at all the lawsuit named the state is the defendant therefore it has to go to the supreme Court.

And yes you absolutely do have standing if the state makes laws regarding who you can and can't do business with.

To think that you have no standing against the state would nullify Lawrence vs texts because that was someone with a grievance against the state.

Sorry there wasn't actually a gay couple involved I don't see why that would be necessary.
 
Their goal is to remain free from sin. Collaborating with sinners in their pursuit of sin, is sin. Selling alcohol for example, is a sin for Christians. Selling a wedding cake to gay couples is abetting their sinful union. You understand. You just don't like it so you make stuff up. It's not an effort to weaponize the legal system. That's pure BS.
It is an effort by evangelicals to use the legal system elevate their religious beliefs into law. The SC has said it is OK for Ms Smith refuse service to gay couples because her right to be free from sin is a greater right than their right to freely buy products and services.

Our laws say that people and businesses cannot discriminate based on race, color, country of origin, sex, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, physical disabilities. Presbyterians, Methodists, United Church of Christ and others honor and follow these anti-discrimination laws. Evangelicals do not. And the court has supported their right to ignore the law. How many people understand that this is a very big step toward federal establishment of a protected state religion.
 
Smith was not the defendant. She was the plaintiff and sued the State of Colorado to block enforcement of their anti-discrimination law.

The case became ripe the day Colorado passed the unconstitutional law.
 
I think it was a preemptive gambit for Smith in the event that her company (303 Creative) would be solicited to design a web page for same-sex couples.

In other words, she was covering her butt.
Well I would argue Lisa's dead wrong on this one the aggrieved party is an individual citizen defendant is a state. Such a situation must involve federal courts.

Pretending that some third party person has to be involved is ludicrous.

If my state says to me that for example I can't engage in homosexual behavior which they did I have every right in the world to bring that to Federal Court.

There doesn't have to be someone arresting me or anything I don't have to have gotten a ticket nothing the existence of the law would be persecution.
 
Then its not ripe for a ruling until there was an case to be decided.
there was a case to be decided obviously because it was. I think the supreme Court knows their job better than you. The aggrieved party was the one that made the website the defendant was the state for making the law on the first place cuz that was the problem.
She had no standing to even object because it never happened.
she absolutely had standing it happened the moment the law went into effect. There doesn't need to be some third party that you seem to think there needs to be.
The SCOTUS is not to be ruling on hypothetical possibilities. This decsion is a legal sham.
so do you want to overthrow the government?

The ruling was perfectly correct if it wasn't the Congress would enact jurisdiction stripping they're not even talking about it. If you think it's just because there's too many Republicans and the only way you would get to strip the jurisdiction from the court is if you had an overwhelming majority then it's fair because you shouldn't always get your way no matter what that's a dictatorship.
 
there was a case to be decided obviously because it was. I think the supreme Court knows their job better than you. The aggrieved party was the one that made the website the defendant was the state for making the law on the first place cuz that was the problem.
she absolutely had standing it happened the moment the law went into effect. There doesn't need to be some third party that you seem to think there needs to be.
so do you want to overthrow the government?

The ruling was perfectly correct if it wasn't the Congress would enact jurisdiction stripping they're not even talking about it. If you think it's just because there's too many Republicans and the only way you would get to strip the jurisdiction from the court is if you had an overwhelming majority then it's fair because you shouldn't always get your way no matter what that's a dictatorship.
This is not true. It seems you have no idea what legal standing is.

At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).


You are assuming that SCOTUS is infallible. It is not. We are all entitled to our own opinions regarding how militant and detached from reality our crooked puppet shithead “justices” are when they unconstitutionally legislate from the bench.
 
Smith was not the defendant. She was the plaintiff and sued the State of Colorado to block enforcement of their anti-discrimination law.

The case became ripe the day Colorado passed the unconstitutional law.
The Colorado LGBT rights law was passed in 2008. Its not unconstional. She is just a relgious bigot would doesnt know the differnce bwteen her religious rights as a private person and the equal rights proections of an incorporated business under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The SCOTUS destroyed their constitutional credibility with this farce of a decision.
 
This is not true. It seems you have no idea what legal standing is.
it doesn't really matter what you think. The supreme Court does know what standing is and they ruled. Sorry they didn't consult you.



You are assuming that SCOTUS is infallible. It is not.
No I'm not. I'm assuming they know better what is it is not standing than you do.
We are all entitled to our own opinions regarding how militant and detached from reality our crooked puppet shithead “justices” are when they unconstitutionally legislate from the bench.
It seems like your just upset that the country isn't authoritarian left. Just because you don't get your way 100% of the time doesn't mean that anybody is legislating from the bench. I remember Republicans saying the exact same thing you said a few years back.

Same crying different crap parties
 
it doesn't really matter what you think. The supreme Court does know what standing is and they ruled. Sorry they didn't consult you.
That may be your opinion, but your opinion that mine has no value because it’s not from SCOTUS applies to your opinion as well as mine.

No I'm not. I'm assuming they know better what is it is not standing than you do.

You do not understand, I am not questioning whether they know what standing is. I am saying that the case that was brought did not have standing. If SCOTUS is either deceived or negligent, they may not care or not realize that the case did not have standing. In either case, I’m sure that they would know what standing is more than I do.

It seems like your just upset that the country isn't authoritarian left. Just because you don't get your way 100% of the time doesn't mean that anybody is legislating from the bench. I remember Republicans saying the exact same thing you said a few years back.

Same crying different crap parties

I know those who support republican ideals have difficulty appreciating that the law should be based on reality, and not right wing bullshit.
 
You do not understand, I am not questioning whether they know what standing is. I am saying that the case that was brought did not have standing.
Well, you're just wrong.

Pre-enforcement challenges are well-established and happen all the time.
 
That may be your opinion, but your opinion that mine has no value because it’s not from SCOTUS applies to your opinion as well as mine.
I didn't express an opinion I agreed with the court.
You do not understand, I am not questioning whether they know what standing is. I am saying that the case that was brought did not have standing.
if you were correct they would not have heard it.
If SCOTUS is either deceived or negligent, they may not care or not realize that the case did not have standing. In either case, I’m sure that they would know what standing is more than I do.
So, either the supreme court has been taken over by people who are in some vast right-wing conspiracy to do... God only knows or you're wrong. I am going to go with Occam's razor on this one.
I know those who support republican ideals have difficulty appreciating that the law should be based on reality, and not right wing bullshit.
So, the constitution is right wing Bullshit? So, the left wing is anti-constitution? All the more reason not to agree with you.
 
there was a case to be decided obviously because it was. I think the supreme Court knows their job better than you. The aggrieved party was the one that made the website the defendant was the state for making the law on the first place cuz that was the problem.
she absolutely had standing it happened the moment the law went into effect. There doesn't need to be some third party that you seem to think there needs to be.
so do you want to overthrow the government?

The ruling was perfectly correct if it wasn't the Congress would enact jurisdiction stripping they're not even talking about it. If you think it's just because there's too many Republicans and the only way you would get to strip the jurisdiction from the court is if you had an overwhelming majority then it's fair because you shouldn't always get your way no matter what that's a dictatorship.
So I will agree with you partially. The ruling was correct. However, I don't think the standing was there.
 
Back
Top Bottom