Posted on 12/13/2022 2:00:12 PM PST by Eleutheria5
.....
And the difference between the two women should be studied in what is wrong with the radical left and why they should not be in power to defend the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in the case.
“For nearly a decade, the justices have dodged and weaved on this clash of legal values, declining to hear some cases and punting on one involving a baker who refused to make custom wedding cakes for same-sex couples. But now the issue is back before a far more conservative court, a court that reached out to hear Monday’s case even before any same-sex couples complained that they were the victims of illegal discrimination,” NPR reported, adding:
The plaintiff in the case is business owner Lorie Smith, a Colorado web designer who for the past decade has created all kinds of custom websites for clients.
“The lead attorney who represented Colorado web designer Lorie Smith before the Supreme Court this week said she believed Justice Amy Coney Barrett “identified the real issue” in her client’s fight to refuse working on same-sex wedding websites, which violates her sincere religious beliefs,” Kaelan Deese reported for the Washington Examiner, adding:
Smith, a Littleton-based web and graphics designer, was represented by Alliance Defending Freedom CEO and attorney Kristen Waggoner, who told the Washington Examiner that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act caused her client a six-year “constitutional injury” because it would compel her to create messages for clients whose lifestyle goes against Smith’s religious conscience.
“In terms of Justice Barrett’s question, I thought that it identified the real issue here, which, again, is about what the message is and not who the person is,” Waggoner said, noting that Smith “serves everyone” and has worked on projects in the past for LGBT clients. .....
(Excerpt) Read more at republicbrief.com ...
Correct.
If she were refusing service simply because someone is gay, that might be an issue - but that’s what is happening here. They are specifically trying to require her to use their talents and her time to promote something she disagrees with. If they wanted her to make a website about a different subject but then she found out they were gay and refused to make it that is another legal matter entirely. The press and Left of course lie and claim the case is about “refusing to serve gays.”
“Surrender will be cheaper than taking a stand.”
That is what the left are counting on. It’s what the left have ALWAYS counted on. The left are just bullies, and they hate it when someone fights back.
Especially when they’re in the right. There you have the root cause of their vendetta against Trump. Also because he Alinskis the Alinskiers, and does the ridicule and humor part of it way better than they do.
Insurance liability rates for business are usually surprisingly low for a small business. While working as an individual as the sole employee of my LLC about 20 years ago, I had a $1 million umbrella policy for a couple of hundred $$$ a year. I would not sign a contract with a client if their contract would expose me to a liability greater than my insurance coverage. 99.9% of the time, a client would sign my LLC’s contract.
YMMV with these opinions. Notta lawyer but have been around the block.
Good on your friend. Those pageants are grotesque. Jon Benet anyone?
Yes, but they did not quote the exact question — just the theme of the question.
EC said “You charge the regular amount, but you still donate it to the family research council.”
??????????????????????????
So you violate your conscience? And then you do a further disgrace by making Family Research Council an unwitting participant?
Some people have a weird way of rationalizing and/or working around ethical challenges.
Do you understand the concept of a poison pill. The idea is that the homosexuals will not want their money to go to the Family Research Council, and so will leave you alone.
“It was a website for gay marriages that she refused to create”
Wow! Thanks!
Very succinct and spot on. The right to say ‘No’, is a critical right.
If you all say so.
I’d have rather the real issue of “is discrimination unconstitutional” be addressed, but whatever.
‘I’d have rather the real issue of “is discrimination unconstitutional” be addressed...’
Well, that’s not even an issue. Discrimination is completely constitutional. It’s just illegal by act of Congress, or by state law, in certain circumstances.
You could say you will donate five times the price of the cake to FRC. 👍🏻👍🏻
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.