• 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

This was bound to happen, Republicans will not be happy until they see "No gays and lesbians allowed" signs go up paying homage to the past "no negros allowed" signs.

We are on our way, and Christian hatred will be the common theme between.
They're bringing it upon themselves.
 
Yes, they’re looking for a solution/answer where there isn’t a problem.
One business - wedding cakes - in 6+ years has brought an ACTUAL case.

This woman has never been approached by a gay couple to design a website.

Ever think, perhaps, gay people simply know enough not to approach religious fanatics after the cake incident?

Problem solved itself.

So why the need for SCOTUS?

Because the Christian fundamentalists want to take down gay marriage and anti discrimination protections enjoyed by gay people.

That’s the goal here. It’s not actually about businesses - or you’d have actual plaintiffs with real instances. And you don’t.
When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in February, the justices sidestepped whether the law violated Smith’s free exercise of religion. Instead, the court said it would look at the dispute through the lens of free speech and decide whether applying the public accommodations law “to compel an artist to speak or stay silent” violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

Again in this case, SCOTUS doesn't want to rule on whether this law violates the free expression of religion clause, so we're going to get more cases like this.
 
So no more We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone signs? I haven't seen one of those in a long time.
 
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/supreme-court/web-designer-tests-ability-refuse-work-sex-weddings-supreme-court-clas-
Conservatives are laying the legal groundwork for their own exclusion from society. If Christians can refuse to do business with gay people, then another religion can refuse to do business with evangelicals and conservatives. And all you have to do to create a legally recognized religion is make it up.
 
Conservatives are laying the legal groundwork for their own exclusion from society. If Christians can refuse to do business with gay people, then another religion can refuse to do business with evangelicals and conservatives. And all you have to do to create a legally recognized religion is make it up.
One can wish.

They’d cry “religious persecution” in a heartbeat.

It’s rules for thee but not for me with this crowd.
 
I predict the court will rightly side with Smith in this case... She does not have a physical presence and there is nothing unique about her "business". A cake shop is different in that there are only a certain number of cake shops. To be clear, I think this is more of a fundraising scheme than a real case but it is scheduled to be argued before SCOTUS today.
 
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.
false, he actually didn't get any victory because what he wanted was not addressed and it is still 100% illegal to deny service based on sexual orientation in colorado
what SCOTUS did find and made a VERY narrow ruling about was that felt colorado for the specific case used it and violated their own procedure and policies not practicing due diligence, rushing to judgment and did so possibly based on bias and for that colorado RIGHTFULLY got its hand smacked and they should have

nobody was trying to force anybody to bake a cake LMAO moronic dishonest factually wrong claims like that will always be tinfoil hat nutter propaganda that nobody honest, educated an objective fall for.
Right now, just like before that case it is 100% illegal to deny service to people based on sexual orientation.
 
This was bound to happen, Republicans will not be happy until they see "No gays and lesbians allowed" signs go up paying homage to the past "no negros allowed" signs.

We are on our way, and Christian hatred will be the common theme between.
Is that what you think the Masterpiece Bakery case was about?
 
Is that what you think the Masterpiece Bakery case was about?
Thats what the OWNER "wanted" it to be . . . .
SCOTUS disagreed, they smacked colorado for not following procedure and protocol and possibly showing bias and they left the protections for the sexual orientation of all Americans in colorado intact
 
Is that what you think the Masterpiece Bakery case was about?

It was sure not about opening up a business to serve all of the public.
 
Why is it artists? What if I don't want to wash the restaurant dishes of an artist or a Pentagon warmonger?

The baker, the florist, the website designer - - these people create things.

The dish washer at a restaurant doesn't create. He is not creating a message that he could potentially be judged on by his customers (or God).
 
The baker, the florist, the website designer - - these people create things.
very specific custom work there "could" be a defense for . . . . . .
basic work (creations) there is no defense for its just pure vile hatred and or bigotry

if you run a public access business and make a wedding cake 101A out of your product book, you must sell cake 101A to everybody or nobody

if you sell cakes, you sell cakes the same as if you sell houses, chairs, omelets, burgers, computers etc and not selling it to a person based off their sexual orientation is vile the same as it would be not selling it to somebody because of race, religion sex etc
 
very specific custom work there "could" be a defense for . . . . . .
basic work (creations) there is no defense for its just pure vile hatred and or bigotry

if you run a public access business and make a wedding cake 101A out of your product book, you must sell cake 101A to everybody or nobody

if you sell cakes, you sell cakes the same as if you sell houses, chairs, omelets, burgers, computers etc and not selling it to a person based off their sexual orientation is vile the same as it would be not selling it to somebody because of race, religion sex etc
You ignored the important of my post:


The dish washer at a restaurant doesn't create. He is not creating a message that he could potentially be judged on by his customers (or God).

Many people with religious beliefs believe that, when they die, they will be judged by their God. Many also believe that God doesn't like gays. So they think they will not be accepted into Heaven if they create things that promote or enable the gay lifestyle.

This is why they cannot be forced to create gay-themed things.

(Disclaimer: These are NOT my beliefs)
 
You ignored the important of my post:
no i factually did not
i made no mention of any dishwasher because it was meaningless to the factually wrong parts of your post.
Many people with religious beliefs believe that they will be judged by their God.
see like this right here, this is meaningless to rights and laws and freedoms.
if i believe god will judge me for not stoning you and casting you from the city that does not justify me to stone you and cast you from the city

just like if i believe god will judge me for serving you because you are a woman or black or Christian that does not justify me to illegally discriminate against you and violate your rights
I have a VERY simple choice, i can open a public access business and play by the same rules as EVERYBODY or not open a public access business, as a Christian like myself i don't get special rules
whats also hugely funny about these bigots is they often expose themselves by proving how hypocritical they do other things that should supposedly upset their god but they magically only enforce it when it comes to "the gays"

thanks for proving my point even further,let me know if there's any other mistakes i can help you with, you're welcome
 
Last edited:
now here's a thought provoking tweet...



 
It was sure not about opening up a business to serve all of the public.
To the contrary...they had MANY gay clients. They served their bakery products daily to anyone that walked through their door.

They just dont participate in gay weddings.
 
imo,
The owner of the website design company is making religion a pollical issue. tied to her business.

- How is doing a webpage design forcing her to "participate" in the wedding? She is not asked to attend, be a witness. She was asked to design a webpage.
Now if the owner was being told you will attend the wedding and be a witness to the couple's marriage she may have something.

imo, there is a difference in actively participating in an event that goes against one's beliefs and sell a product (web page design).
 
To the contrary...they had MANY gay clients. They served their bakery products daily to anyone that walked through their door.

They just dont participate in gay weddings.

the type of dishonesty in your post is so stupid and bigoted that nobody honest, objective, educated and non-bigoted falls for it is just exposes your post for the moronic and hatred it is

its STILL discrimination

just like if you served MANY black people but only if they came to the alley door and you claimed you just don't participate in black dining, its RACIAL discrimination and its vile
or you hired MANY women but only as cleaning ladies and didn't allow them to be managers and claimed you just don't participate in female managerialism its SEX discrimination and its vile

but go ahead tell us how its magically different LMAO
😂 🤦‍♂️ 🍿
 
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
What's your point?
 
imo,
The owner of the website design company is making religion a pollical issue. tied to her business.

- How is doing a webpage design forcing her to "participate" in the wedding? She is not asked to attend, be a witness. She was asked to design a webpage.
Now if the owner was being told you will attend the wedding and be a witness to the couple's marriage she may have something.

imo, there is a difference in actively participating in an event that goes against one's beliefs and sell a product (web page design).
She actually hasn't been asked to do anything.
 
imo,
The owner of the website design company is making religion a pollical issue. tied to her business.

- How is doing a webpage design forcing her to "participate" in the wedding? She is not asked to attend, be a witness. She was asked to design a webpage.
Now if the owner was being told you will attend the wedding and be a witness to the couple's marriage she may have something.

imo, there is a difference in actively participating in an event that goes against one's beliefs and sell a product (web page design).
She hasn’t even been asked to make a website or do a design.

She’s been the plaintiff in suits since 2016 and has had not ONE gay client approach her that she’s refused work for and mentioned in any suit.

It’s all hypothetical nonsense where religious minded conservatives are searching for a problem that doesn’t exist.
 
She actually hasn't been asked to do anything.

then who filed the suit to the SC and what is it about?

I will admit I am going on what I heard on a FM radio station story on this. Have not dived deep into the story.
 
She hasn’t even been asked to make a website or do a design.

She’s been the plaintiff in suits since 2016 and has had not ONE gay client approach her that she’s refused work for and mentioned in any suit.

It’s all hypothetical nonsense where religious minded conservatives are searching for a problem that doesn’t exist.
Until now, 303 Creative has not dabbled in weddings. The owner, Lorie Smith is planning to include nuptials into the scope of her business.

As explained in the OP, today's lawsuit is a preemptive measure to ensure that 303 Creative won't be penalized in the event that 303 Creative is commissioned to create a web page for same-sex weddings.
 
Back
Top Bottom