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 ...
later
Himalayan tribes have polyandry. If you’re all LGBTQ just have a fixed number of participants in orgies of whatever gender, and call it marriage. A few sheep, cows, chickens, too. At this point what difference does it make.
Did I miss or, or did the article somehow avoid stating Barrett’s actual question?
No need for litigation insurance. Just make sure to offer a poison pill as it were. If you are a baker, you will bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, on the understanding that it will cost double, and all proceeds will be donated to the family research council.
“If you have religious scruples, and you want to go into business involving creativity and weddings, you had better get litigation insurance.”
I don’t care WHAT type of business one has, liability insurance is an absolute must.
“Did I miss or, or did the article somehow avoid stating Barrett’s actual question?”
I feel the same.
Seems to me a factor in these cases would be whether there were other places that would have made a cake for them.
Won’t work. That’s “discrimination,” and you’d still have to litigate.
Make useful household items, like installing and fixing drainpipes, or decorative doorstops. Get paid. Stay out of court.
This person has the same right to deny service to fags as a black magazine has to deny the KKK running ads.
This isn’t about the gays being mentally ill and sick in the head, it’s about trying to force someone to condone it through their work.
😏
Yeah, you have to dig down to find it. It was basically “what if a heterosexual couple wanted a website, but they were previously divorced and now remarrying other people?”
And the attorney said her client probably would not take that job either.
It sounds like compelled speech by force of government. If that’s allowed there really is no free speech. I consider compelled speech more dangerous than censorship since it endorses a point of view. Censorship just silences a point of view.
But liability insurance right now just means accidents and mishaps. Not deliberately targeting your business for litigo-warfare on ideological grounds. You’ll need insurance for that likely eventuality in the present climate. Wedding cakes, websites, photographers and whatnot might as well just go out of business ahead of time. This poor woman’s probably going bankrupt with the legal fees, even if she does win at SCOTUS.
AND ‘why do they have to be people’? Why not dogs and donkeys?
Or be a Muslim.
You missed it. “During oral arguments over the case on Dec. 5, Barrett echoed Waggoner’s point that Smith’s dispute is “about the message” after she posed a hypothetical scenario on whether she would design a website for a heterosexual couple getting married after divorcing other people. Waggoner said her client would likely not design for the hypothetical couple.”
Meet Jordan Peterson, ex professor, present thinker, speaker, author, and free speech firebrand.
Im sure the queers could buy any cake they wanted. They wanted to force the owner to make a specific cake that they don’t have. Might as well ask a plumber to fix your car and then suing them when they refuse. The problem is that the Fag is the current scared victim and have more rights than any other American.
That’s what she asked?
I though this chick was supposed to be smart?
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.