First Amendment

Judges Say Web Design Is 'Pure Speech' and That the State Can Compel It Anyway

Trump's critics fault him for fomenting division. The left's efforts to drive people of faith from the public square are making the problem worse.


The great Masterpiece Cakeshop debates of 2015–2018 could sometimes sound like the refrain from "Anything You Can Do (I Can Do Better)," with people on the baker's side insisting that creating and decorating a custom wedding cake is an expressive activity and thus protected conduct under the First Amendment, and people on the complainants' side insisting it's mere commercial activity and so proprietors cannot pick and choose which jobs to accept based on their moral convictions ("yes it is," "no it's not," "yes it is," "no it's not"). But yesterday, in a similar case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit chucked that criterion out the window and decreed that speech itself can be compelled by the state in the name of preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians.

In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, a divided three-judge panel found that designing a custom wedding website is "pure speech." Under Colorado's anti-discrimination law, the court noted, "Appellants are forced to create websites—and thus, speech—that they would otherwise refuse." This would seem to point to a win for the web designers who do not wish to use their creative skills to "celebrate and promote the couple's wedding and unique love story." But according to Judge Mary Beck Briscoe and Judge Michael Murphy, that fact is less important than the "compelling interest" the state of Colorado has in "protecting both the dignity interests of members of marginalized groups and their material interests in accessing the commercial marketplace." 

The wildest thing about the decision is that it says giving a conscience-based exemption to a web design firm would "necessarily relegate LGBT consumers to an inferior market because Appellants' unique services are, by definition, unavailable elsewhere." The fact that "LGBT consumers may be able to obtain wedding-website design services from other businesses" is irrelevant. "The product at issue is not merely 'custom-made wedding websites,' but rather 'custom-made wedding websites of the same quality and nature as those made by Appellants.' In that market, only Appellants exist."

As Ed Whelan pointed out at National Review, "it is difficult to imagine a ruling more hostile to free speech," since under this standard, every commercial artist would be classified as a monopolist (by definition, no one else can compete in his or her marketplace of one) subject to content regulation. It's as if the same expressive qualities that trigger the First Amendment are also being used to moot the First Amendment.

This decision is harrowing and worth objecting to on the merits. It also strikes me as exactly the kind of thing the U.S. Supreme Court might unanimously overturn. (UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, who disagreed with me and many other libertarians about Masterpiece Cakeshop on the grounds that cake decoration doesn't qualify as speech, notes in a blog post that he co-filed an amicus brief on the side of the web designers in this case.) But even if the 10th Circuit's ruling doesn't stand—and I very much hope it won't—there is reason to be concerned about the way that cases like this can increase political radicalization and animus.

In a January survey of people who supported then–President Donald Trump in 2020, 89 percent said that "Christianity is under attack in America today." Asked how important it was for a politician to "support laws protecting religious liberty," seven in 10 gave it a five out of five; no other attribute was rated so highly by so many.

This is strong evidence that support for Trump was a reaction against something specific—namely, a sense that "people like them" are facing unjust assaults that require an extreme response on their part. The Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the baker in Masterpiece should have been a vindication of their rights, yet the situation* involving 303 Creative is, if anything, even more brazen.

The 45th president's critics have rightly faulted him for fomenting us vs. them division. The left's efforts to drive people of faith from the public square are just as morally deficient, and to the extent they push the right in a more authoritarian direction, they're only making our toxic politics worse.

*CORRECTION: Unlike Masterpiece Cakeshop, which has been repeatedly targeted under Colorado's anti-discrimination law, 303 Creative is preemptively challenging the law's constitutionality. The court found that the company has "a credible fear that Colorado will enforce [the state's Anti-Discrimination Act] against them."

NEXT: Town Drops Obscenity Case Against New Jersey Homeowner for 'Fuck Biden' Signs

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Nothing to do with Trump at all, and the us vs them division has been around a long time. It's just that now neo marxist traitors have taken over the democrat party and are enforcing new loyalty tests and rules.

    And you dither on about Trump...

    1. "neo marxist traitors have taken over the democrat party"


      Yeah today's Democrats are such committed "Marxists" that they gain control of the federal government and create the most billionaire-friendly economy in world history.


      1. Marxism, in actual practice all over the globe, has no apparent problem with billionaires. It's the middle class they literally hate to death.

        1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid inSd the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

          See……………VISIT HERE

    2. Even points out that the Masterpiece Cake Shop 'debate' started in 2015.

    3. Why doesn't she blame this on Obama? Easily the most divisive POTUS in 150 years. All of this BLM, Tranny bathroom, Hands Up Don't Shoot, Bake the Cake, If I had a Son social division bullshit started under Obama. What kind of idiot blames the guy elected as a result of the division sown during the later Obama years?

      1. Er…that is essentially what she argues- people supported trump because he was the only one who gave a shit that the left was attacking their religious values constantly.

        You all need to stop judging these articles based on whatever click baiting jerk writes the headlines.

        1. *KMW has entered the chat*

        2. ITS DUMB TO BLAME THIS ON TRUMP. OR OBAMA. Unless he appointed the judges that delivered this monstrosity

          1. Both judges on this ruling were Clinton appointees. W appointed the chief judge, who was the dissenter here,

    4. Trump was, and is a loudmouthed, spray-tanned knucklehead who had yuge dreams than he rarely followed through on. But, great at trolling the left/progressives and their media running dogs. And an okay president, in the figurehead sense, as a distraction. His ability to get fucktards to decide, regardless of context, usage, intent that anything he did or said was racist, sexist, homophobic was impressive. Or just maybe, those who were doing so, and continue to do so are simply dim.

      1. Trump was, and is a loudmouthed, spray-tanned knucklehead who - was the best POTUS we had in the last century-


        1. True story.
          Which is incredibly sad in a way, because even his biggest fans will freely admit that he's a bombastic, self-absorbed blowhard.
          It's a testimony to the failure of the presidency that Donald Trump of all people was the best since Coolidge.

          1. I think DeSantis will be better.

            1. If you can pry him out of Florida’s cold, dead hands…

              I don’t want to give him up!

          2. Reagan

        2. Coolidge was better.

    5. My last pay test was $9500 operating 12 hours per week on line. my sisters buddy has been averaging 15k for months now and she works approximately 20 hours every week. i can not accept as true with how easy it become as soon as i tried it out. This is what do,..............Read More

    6. Recall Marx's definition of peace: "The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism."

      Similarly, 'division' is fomented by the failure to fall in line with the left's demands.

      Oh, and you'd hardly expect the Supreme court's decision in Masterpiece to have discouraged this sort of thing. Far from being a defense of liberty, it amounted to the Court saying, "Next time don't confess your motives, morons!"

    7. It's finally hitting close to home for these dishonest hacks.

      Ergo, it has to be Trump's fault.

  2. >>Trump's critics fault him for fomenting division.

    jeebus you turned a forced speech case into pearl clutching about T ...

    1. And describe a case about free speech as a case about "their" rights.

      It's almost like the story was written by a Chinese ghostwriter and the managing editor fucked up.

      1. Stephanie: "help! I'm being held prisoner in a Chinese laundry."

        1. Dragon Lady: "Is answer question?"

          Singed Peking Daffy Duck: "Yeah! Is answer question!"

      2. "And describe a case about free speech as a case about “their” rights."


        Shameful, if they had the capacity for it.

  3. Lesson to be learned:
    Don’t be the best in your field, just be average.

    1. Sub-mediocre and outraged, blaming the system and groups to whom one does not belong for one's own shortcomings may be more apropos.

    2. Shameless, stupid, terrible people demanding special favors and empty validation = justice.

  4. You guys really need a “Both sides” category.

    1. I believe they use the header Reason for that everything else is a subcategory from there.

  5. Masterpiece should have been a vindication of their rights

    No, Reason, not their rights, fuckers. Everyone's rights, from the right of a Muslim to refuse/accept to decorate a cake with a Star of David to the right of a gay cake decorator to refuse/accept to decorate a cake with a hetero couple on top. The trial wasn't about Christians any more than the 303 case is/was. The trial was about free speech/association. TDS has rotted your brain to the point that you don't even understand fundamental rights. Get the fuck out with your divisive bullshit.

    1. It is not enough to tolerate those who are different; we must endorse them. Gay people have the legal rights of heterosexuals. People with religious beliefs that do not endorse gay marriage are to accept that they lost and change their beliefs.
      Gay people really need to go to Omar's district and demand support for a gay marriage from a halal store.

    2. I have said before, there are quite a few here who cannot get a handle on the 'civil liberties for all' concept of libertarianism. Slade wasn't one I had pegged, but her 2020 piece on conservatives and authoritarian tendencies aged poorly given the bullshit since 6 January and the fake Whitmer kidnapping plot. Then, it was pretty bad when she first wrote it, as well.

      1. "there are quite a few here who cannot get a handle on the ‘civil liberties for all’ concept of libertarianism."

        Mostly because that is not their version of 'libertarianism.'

        Their version is mostly about government imposing their preferred outcomes.

        1. Their version is ENTIRELY about government imposing their preferred outcomes.

          1. Well, not entirely. If it happens purely by chance or nature I think they are OK with leaving the government out of it.

            1. I think...

  6. Trump's critics fault him for fomenting division. The left's efforts to drive people of faith from the public square are making the problem worse.

    Trump was the predictable result of the left's continuous fomenting of division.

    1. I mean, that is if you have a concept of history Before Twitter.

      1. I think you mean "outside" rather than "before" Twitter. Scalia's dissent against Obergfell v. Hodges is well within Twitter's historical scope.

    2. Ah, yes, the "If only THOSE people had stayed in their place and not rocked the boat, with all those demands to be treated fairly under the law, we wouldn't have all these ugly divisions" argument.

    3. And your wife's black eye is her fault for talking back.

      1. Go fuck off to the Daily Kos, your idiotic contributions here accomplish nothing

        1. Other than to show he hits the bottle early and often.

        2. Sure they do. Everything that you type is a lie, and anyone tempted to become a libertarian should know that.

          1. No, that would be you Tony, you fascist piece-of-shit.

            1. I can see why you think that.

              I consume both normal-people news media as well as your psychotic trash media, often. Do you just stick to your own, perhaps?

              At any rate, one of us is right and the other wrong. Me and all of the scientists in the world, or you and a guy who had to pretend to be a businessman on a reality show because he couldn't make enough money actually being a businessman.

              The mysteries of the universe are boundless.

              1. You lump yourself in with actual scientists? That’s laughable. You’re about as idiotic and unscientific as it gets.

                You really are a silly bitch.

      2. Voting for someone is like punching women in the face. That's why the Democratic party's motto is "Vote early, vote often."

        1. Voting for Trump is to vote for punching women in the face. Couldn't have made a better analogy myself.

          1. Here's a more apt analogy: Reading a Tony post is analogous to reading Mein Kampf.

            1. At least we're still at the phase where you're calling Nazis bad.

              It's gonna be awkward when you meet up with all your Trump compatriots and discover that half of them are actual armband-wearing Nazis.

              1. Yes, we’re calling you bad. As YOU are the Nazi. Yet you somehow attempt to frame us as such. Even though you complain that we won’t control markets or businesses with federal regulations and laws, that we won’t tax enough, that we won’t control people enough, etc..

                But in what passes for your mind, you think us the Nazis.

              2. I see very few Trump supporters who are pro-socialism, so claiming that "half" are National Socialists makes no sense.

                Which is, of course, what we've come to expect from you, Tony.

          2. Voting for Trump is to vote for punching women in the face. Couldn’t have made a better analogy myself.

            That's the analogy you made halfwit.

  7. What the everloving fck?

    By this standard, I cannot be compared to other providers, and therefore when I do a shitty job, you can't complain that I should have done better.

    Whatever happened to "fuck you" estimates that contractors use to avoid projects they don't want to do?

    1. In this sort of case, that would predictably lead to "fuck you" rulings judges use to tell people to stop thinking they have any rights.

      There's no way around this sort of ruling short of getting it overturned, no clever hack.

  8. This is a great decision. It doesn’t mince words. Yes, there’s a conflict between the law and the website’s First Amendment rights. Something has to give and the Court decides which pet had to given. This is much better than being squishy or evasive to try and pretend there isn’t a head on collision. Supreme Court will tell them if they’re wrong or not.

    1. Supreme Court will tell them if they’re wrong or not.

      Maybe - - - - - - - - - -

      *asset forfeiture*

  9. Nothing to do with Trump at all, and the us vs them division has been around a long time. It’s just that now neo marxist traitors have taken over the democrat party and are enforcing new loyalty tests and rules.

    And you dither on about Trump…

  10. I am a super liberal and even I think this decision is wrong.

    1. You are what Rush Limbaugh called a liberal.

      IOW, a leftist.

      1. A far, far leftist.

  11. I notice so many people who aren't anonymous and need their reputation to matter are absolutely committed to ducking the obvious implication. Does Stephanie Slade have the courage to admit that yes, this does mean racial discrimination is permissible as well? Go on, own your position. Tell me someone can, on religious grounds, refuse service to people based on their color as well.

    If you think it wasn't justified in the past on religious grounds, you're not at all familiar with the issue, there's no out there.

    1. There’s no reason to restrict it to religious objections. We should be free to pass on providing our services to anyone for any reason. Maybe we can talk about what services are so important that there should be exceptions. But the default position should be that we don’t compel people to do things for others.

      1. But the default position should be that we don’t compel people to do things for others.

        To oppose this position is to literally and unequivocally endorse slavery. Refusing to serve someone because of their race may be racist but forcing someone to do something they don't want to do at any price is unequivocal slavery.

        1. Health and safety codes = slavery.

          1. Yup. No one's obligated to pay for or eat a pizza with literal shit on it but there ought to be a law against shitting on pizza because... the indescribable depths of Tony's stupidity.

            1. @mad.casual: I think your post is the thread winner.

          2. Tony = idiot.

            1. Unfortunately, he’s far more malignant than that.

        2. Laws against murder = slavery.

          1. No, see murder is an positive act. Not doing something you don't want to do is either passive or negative act. But, typical Tony brilliance, not doing = doing.

        3. Telling me I can't have slaves = slavery.

          1. Reminder that Tony doesn't understand the difference between positive and negative rights.

            1. It's not even that deep. He doesn't distinguish between 'not doing' and 'doing'. I'd say he's retarded but even retarded people are generally able to grasp the concept.

              1. I'd like you to examine whether such a distinction made with words actually corresponds to a distinction in reality.

                To neglect something is literally to do nothing about it. Should it be OK for parents to neglect feeding their children?

                1. Goddamn you’re a moron. You are incapable of having an adult intellectual discussion. You’re the sort that has banal discussions about things like wine at at dinner parties. Yet betrays an ocean of ignorance doing so.

                  You’re just a faggy idiot.

      2. "But the default position should be that we don’t compel people to do things for others."

        It should be but, ever since SCOTUS allowed Congress to legislatively trump the Constitution, it is not the law of the land.

        It is telling that "religious grounds" is mentioned before being dismissed. If only as a nod to something that once was deemed an actual right that could be freely expressed.

    2. I would prefer if it was open. I don't want to give any racists my money.

      Have a "whites only" shop. Please. Try it.
      No respectable person will shop there and it will go out of business

      Try having a "blacks only" shop, and blacks will be so insulted they won't go. The only attempted customers will be white progressives, and they won't be allowed. It will go out of business.

      That's the way it should be.

      1. "Try having a 'Blacks only' shop, and blacks will be so insulted they won't go."

        Colleges all over the country are setting up 'exclusive spaces' for 'People of Color', in response to student demands. I think a lot of blacks would be very much in favor of 'Blacks only' businesses.

        1. Colleges all over the country are setting up ‘exclusive spaces’ for ‘People of Color’, in response to student demands. I think a lot of blacks would be very much in favor of ‘Blacks only’ businesses.

          Colleges aren't exactly a business and I think you'd be surprised at the number of black and brown people who either acknowledge diversity in the workplace (in terms of including white people) or are similarly if not more outright racist in their business/professional choices. Starbucks reports that something like 33% of Hispanics have visited one of their stores in the last 6 mos. Seems that even brown people like overpaid white baristas.

          Again, reason pretends Trump is *the* source of divisiveness. Like we haven't known for over 100 yrs. that black, brown, yellow, and red people are just as racist, territorial, and tribal as white people and only in 2016 did we discover that there are only racists and non-racists.

          All the black slaves brought to this country were just farmers, carpenters, hunters, and fishermen who never once brutalized another human being or even forcibly circumcised a little girl in their native lands. None were criminals, slaves, prisoners of war, or even human sacrifices sold to brown or white people who preferred to put them to work.

  12. What a stupid cunt. There is no Both Sides, Trump is not the instigator, nor even remotely involved. The Progs are the aggressors, they aren't the backlash.

    What an idiotic conclusion to a straightforward article.

    1. What was the storming of the capitol? Obama's fault too?

      1. What was the storming of the Capitol? WITF are you babbling about? What does the Kavanaugh Hearings have to do with this compelled speech case?

        1. Are you proud of deliberately making yourself stupid and angry by consuming right-wing propaganda every day? What a waste of a life.

          1. Good God almighty, the projection here is off the charts.

            I suppose you are going to tell us there were no social divisions before Trump, and therefore legal cases that began before he declared as a candidate are all his fault.

            1. I asked you who was the aggressors during the attack on January 6. You pretended it never happened.

              You are being lied to. Fed countermessaging by partisan interests in thrall to a madman. And you are repeating their lies here. I wish it weren't as fucked up as it is, but I did warn everyone about FOX News in the fucking 90s.

              1. "I asked you who was the aggressors during the attack on January 6"

                The left, corporate media, congress, federal judiciary, poll workers and officials who committed fraud, and the cop who shot Ashli Babbit

                1. Ashli Babbit shouldn't have been so stupid as to be the single actual Trump supporter among a sea of crisis actors.

                  1. FFS, just commit suicide. I’ve been telling you to do that for years, and you still won’t listen. Probably because you revel in being a valueless parasitic piece of shit.

              2. Ypu never asked any such thing. Now quit derailing the discussion, you mendacious shitweasel

              3. "I asked you who was the aggressors during the attack on January 6"

                No, you didn't. You asked about the storming of the Capitol.

                There have been multiple stormings of the Capitol in recent years. Apparently you only care to acknowledge one of them.

      2. sumbitch still hasn't learned to spell "P-R-O-T-E-S-T-E-R".

      3. Mostly peaceful protest?

        1. You should use your brain's reasoning functions and stop repeating the syllables being shoved into it by right-wing propagandists.

          Or just watch some of the video coverage. Go watch that and come back here and tell me it was mostly peaceful. Have you even watched one minute of the footage?

        2. As usual, Tony has no response other than to blame ‘right wing propaganda’.

      4. In 2009, San Diego lost a case to a group of firefighters because it forced them to participate in a gay pride parade against their will. The parade was in 2007. Trump fomenting dissent and pro-gay oppression almost a decade before his presidency?

        1. I asked a specific question. If you think my claim is that Donald Trump is the cause of all our ills, you are mistaken. I think Trump is a symptom, not a cause. A giant orange pustule of a symptom.

          1. I asked a specific question.

            So what?

            "Which pustule is the biggest?"
            "Doesn't matter. The limb is gangrenous, all the boils and pustules will go away once the limb rots and fall off."
            "I asked a specific question!"

  13. The Left defines "disagreeing with the Left" as "divisiveness". This definition should receive only one type of response:


    1. "disagreeing with the Left's Lawfare aggression" is divisive. Just defending yourself from their totalitarian overreach is divisive. Never their Totalitarianism or lawfare or overreach

    2. Y'all called Obama divisive for blacking while president.

      1. GFY. You are totally usless and unwelcome here. Go back to the NAMBLA board and leave discussions on freedom to libertarians

        1. The libertarians who elsewhere are universally arguing for why cash bail is great and we should probably lock more innocent people in cages just to be safe? Those libertarians?

          1. Your master, Usurper Biden, has locked more black men in cages in modern history than anyone else. Even his own Vice Usurper attacked him for it.

            Tony, you’re the totalitarian, not us.

      2. You are really stupid and need to shut up.

    3. If the left continues to be the aggressor, the correct response will be swift blinding violence.

  14. Yeah, this is just plain wrong.

  15. Code is certainly creative speech. Though I do find it annoying how frequently this becomes a religious speech issue, rather than there being a push towards general conscious rights in this type of case. I understand the legal precedent for it taking this shape, but there's nothing inherently religious about choosing not to work for someone due to moral disagreement.

    But, that's a pretty basic point I'm making. This is just a platitude and a basically worthless post.

  16. Ruling the opposite way would have created a new free speech right for religious groups to exempt themselves from civil rights laws. You can want that or not, but I for one don't think you should get an exemption from the law only when you can justify it with the stupidest possible excuse like magic space Santa. Especially because it's hard to imagine someone pursuing this exemption for any purpose that isn't harmful to some vulnerable group or individual.

    The Supreme Court should be along soon enough to declare by fiat that the First Amendment protects businesses' right to kick customers out for being gay, or black, or whatever. I just don't think the big problem with this world right now is that speech isn't free enough, despite the incoherent FOX-News-fueled rage spasms of the right, who don't realize they're using the first amendment as flimsy cover for their need for cultural domination. You get many government-granted entitlements before you ever offer a product to a customer. We're all in this together, and the law sorts out when one rights claim conflicts with another.

    If this all has the effect of suppressing the act of bigoted discrimination to the extent that it changes people's attitudes, good. That's the point. The Enlightenment was not an exercise in maximizing skepticism of any and all truth claims, it was about wresting truth claims from religious authorities, tying it to evidence, and actually making progress as a species. Try and do your part, how about?

    1. It's justified based on the entirely of the 1st amendment of the bill of rights. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant, you fucking shithead.

      Like all good far left nazis, you cannot conceive that the law blocks you from abusing people.


      1. And you apparently struggle to imagine being kicked out of a restaurant because of the color of your skin. Let's see that happen a few times. See how much Trumptards love the First Amendment then.

        All you people do is whine about how it's unfair to you. You wouldn't tolerate that situation for one moment, constitution be damnd.

        1. Compelled speech is not equal to (meaning, because you're dim, not at all the same as) being kicked out of a restaurant because of your skin color. If you can't see that, you really are as abysmally stupid as I take you for. Also, you are the whitest of white people, so much so that you boasted recently of how much you enjoyed your white privilege. If you imagine that black people want you to speak for them, don't, because they don't. Many would support Appellants in this case.

          1. It’s all he’s got. He has no defensible position, nor any real intellectual ability to make a proper argument.

    2. "A new free speech right for religious people"

      I'm gonna stop you right there


      1. Yup. Anybody have any clue when the last time anyone at Masterpiece Cake Shop last attended church? The answer is "No" because it doesn't matter. The religious exemption is to clearly point at the 1A which, traditionally, didn't require a religious rider. "Fuck you, I don't want to bake you a cake." was sufficient.

        1. "Fuck you, I don't want to bake your cake" is a violation of existing law, some of it federal and some of it, stricter, at the state level.

          If you don't get a religious exemption from following the law, what are you demanding your exemption for? Because you don't like the law?

          Can every imprisoned person in America employ this strategy to vacate their sentences?

          1. “Fuck you, I don’t want to bake your cake” is a violation of existing law, some of it federal and some of it, stricter, at the state level.

            No it's not. Fuck you, I don't want to bake your cake. Come arrest me retard.

            1. It's like you people dreamed up how government and society work without actually reading any of the many books written on the subject over the last 500 years.

              "Surely the human population of planet earth can be organized according to a couple commonsense intuitions! The universe is exactly as complex as I need it to be to understand it."

          2. No cake sale was refused. They just didn’t want to do the custom work requested. Not the same. But it’s Ute you see that as the exact same thing as being being kicked out of a restaurant based on skin color.

            Because you’re stupid.

  17. What bugs me about these cases is that they seem to ignore the obvious solution of separating the speech component from the service component.
    Baking a cake with black and red icing? Not speech. Writing "Hail Satan" on said cake? Speech. You can disallow refusing to bake the cake because of the religious affiliation of the satanist, but you can't compel the lettering.

    This gets a little more complicated with websites as not all words would be at issue, but it stands to reason that only elements that would differ between a straight vs gay wedding should be at issue.

    1. Should Vera Wang be sued out of business because she refused to design an inauguration gown for Melania? There were no letters on the gown

      1. Is there a law protecting Melanias from discrimination?

        1. Isn't the law supposed to protect everyone from discrimination, or are some animals more equal than others?

          1. Well, she's an immigrant woman... so there's two protected classes there.

            1. But she is married to Trump, so part of wrongthink.

          2. Tony thinks only black and LGBT people can be discriminated against. He's all about the "four legs good, two legs bad" train.

          3. No, it protects people from being discriminated against for certain well-defined characteristics. One of these characteristics is the religion they choose, for some reason, and that's been on the books for many decades with cultural conservatives barely making a peep about the injustice of it all.

            1. In a nutshell, accept blacks and LGBTQ as your overlords, cis het whites !

              You are less than scum and have no rights!

    2. "Baking a cake with black and red icing? Not speech. Writing “Hail Satan” on said cake? Speech. You can disallow refusing to bake the cake because of the religious affiliation of the satanist, but you can’t compel the lettering."

      You are still claiming control over what other people are permitted to think - specifically what meaning they attach to symbols. Whether the symbols are colors, or letters does not matter.

      It should all be governed by the right to free association.

  18. Just load the site with scriptural references, links to Jewish, Muslim, and Catholic sites, and include a few help line numbers. Add a few well chosen worms and virus downloads, and sit back.
    After all, they insisted on the specific design, so those items must have been intended.

    1. First, that is an ethically awful tactic. Damaging your own reputation for quality is just a bad idea. Also, if you think they would legally get away with that sort of intentional incompetence against a protected class, then you are being terribly naïve..

      1. Actually, I'm just a mean old man - - - - - - - - - -

  19. Crazy. I’ve certainly turned down work simply because I didn’t like the person I would have been doing work for. It used to be that one of the perks of self employment was the ability to avoid those you deemed A-Holes. Now I guess that right is being take away. Well, I’m retired so I don’t need to deal with it.

  20. 'custom-made wedding websites of the same quality and nature as those made by Appellants.' In that market, only Appellants exist."

    Redefine the market to include one party and then declare them a monopoly. Bill Gates should be outraged over this.

  21. "The Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the baker in Masterpiece should have been a vindication of their rights, yet the situation* involving 303 Creative is, if anything, even more brazen."

    That is because SCOTUS' Masterpiece ruling was decided on such narrow grounds it did not give a strong instruction to the lower courts to defend free speech and conscience rights. The Court punted on the general issue. Also this is a direct consequence that equality is more important goal than protecting liberty, opening the way for the 10th Circuit's mischief.

  22. What the fuck is a marginalized group? Is there a special list somewhere? Am I allowed to see who is on it? Do I self identify as marginalized? Sounds like a different and longer list than protected group. At this point I would say that cake bakers are a marginalized group.

    1. "What the fuck is a marginalized group?"

      Supremacists who don't get their way?

    2. Indeed they are. You can't refuse a cake to a couple because they're straight either. Or to these small-minded idiots because they are Christians.

      These laws have protected religious identity a lot longer than sexual orientation. Didn't see you bitching about that.

    3. Marginalized groups have the support of significant portions of the federal government, a number of unconstitutional laws, the Democratic party, most major corporations, most of the educational establishment, and most of the media. Disagreeing with them or otherwise not bowing to what they want is considered violence, which is often punished with the loss their career and reputation, and sometimes with actual violence. This is true even if the person doing the disagreeing is a member of a marginalized group, in which case they are treated as privileged.

      Privileged groups have weak to no support from any of the above. Disagreeing with them or otherwise not bowing to what they want is considered to be fine and just.

  23. How does this ruling apply to a Westboro Baptist asking a web designer to design an anti-gay web site?

    1. Surely one of those inbred mole people can mash a keyboard.

      1. You are certainly one of them.

        1. I have pointed and laughed at them a few times over the years. They were essentially the amuse bouche of our pride parade.

  24. If we're very lucky,The Supremes will hand down a ruling that says:

    "Nobody make any peaceful person do anything, whether in the commercial, artistic, or shits-and-giggles realms! Period!"

    1. If they un-invent the concept of law itself, are they still supreme court justices?

      1. In this republic all law is supposed to be subservient to the Constitution.

        So, yes they should nullify whole swathes of existing law.

        1. I've become more of an accelerationist in recent years. Trump killed so many people, we might as well take advantage of it, since it already happened.

          If the court wants to abandon Roberts's clever long-term strategy of remaking the United States back into a useless shithole in contrast to the world power anyone who's alive actually knows it to be, and declare by fiat of 5 people with black robes that Congress for the past 70 years has been legislating in an impermissible way, they can be my guest. See if we don't get 15 votes the other way the next time the Senate has 51 votes to confirm new justices.

          1. You think the Constitution working as it's supposed to is evidence that it should be abandoned, got it.

          2. Trump killed so many people....
            Trump's been convicted of murder how many times?

            When *lies* become 'facts' in lefty-delusional land.
            Up Next..... "but our science will make the lie a fact".....

            Yeah and Gov-Gods control the weather too?! /s

      2. lmao... Tony only see's the laws that enslave others.
        Why does that not surprise me.

      3. What if they "uninvented" Lawrence V. Texas and Obergefell V. Hodges, reaffirm the sex laws still on the books in many States, and LGBTQ had to go back to being forced to live double lives?

        Would you still hold your position?

  25. How to make room for a tyrranical backlash from the political “right” in three easy steps. trump was not a fascist and i hope we dont get a real one but we could thanks to those people.

    1. Read the election results from 2020 yet?

  26. Website development is a long and hard work. Tools like this are a great opportunity for ordinary users not to overpay web studios and create a project with their own efforts and without special knowledge.

  27. So a web design company is legally required to build a website with content it does not like but social media companies can delete content they don't like?

    1. I was thinking something similar.

  28. There are numerous web designers willing to provide services. It is an insane argument that a specific web design company should be forced to provide services to anyone simply because they are the only web design company with their name and with their employees that code the page.

    Companies should have the ability to enter into a contract freely and also to decide to not enter into a contract. If the market decides that the company is being unfair then the market will punish the company by choosing a competitor.

    It would be interesting to see the Colorado's anti-discrimination law tested by someone requesting a woke company to provide services to a anti-woke customer with a clearly anti-woke message.

    I sure that the case would never be heard or even brought up. The state of Colorado would attempt to prevent the case from proceeding using all available means. The corporate media would attempt to bury it so it would never see the light of day.

    However in reality the anti-woke crowd would probably simply choose a different company to do business with and not turn everything into a three ring circus like the woke crowd always does.

  29. Censorship - Just not a good place to put Gov-Gun-Forces.

    Oh wait; maybe that's why the Bill of Rights were 'restrictions' on Gov-Gun-Forces instead of forced 'rights' enforcement.

    Lefty-Indoctrinated propaganda has mangled this simple concept.
    Keep the government OUT-OF-IT!

    Using Gov-Guns to *force* people to provide service against their will is the very definition of *slavery*.

  30. Why would a gay couple want a wedding website designed by people who oppose them? This isn't about having that special site, it's about forcing their views on others.

    I mean, it would be like a Christian couple wanting a cake celebrating their Holy Union demanding that the courts force Richard Dawkins to make it for them.

    1. This. That courts so readily accept plaintiff's claims at face value says they are not quite the impartial arbiters they purport to be.

    2. It was not a gay couple that instigated this lawsuit. It was a web designer seeking to vindicate a right to flout the anti-discrimination statutes.

  31. At least we're not like Australia, with no Bill of Rights....

  32. A favorite saying from my grandfather might help some of the less enlightened people here and around the world. "Don't be good at something you don't like to do." You don't want to make a cake for ____? Submit to them the worst looking and foulest tasting cake ever. You don't want to supply a website for ______? Have you 6 year old son design it for submission. Not unheard of in many businesses is the over the top bid on a job that nobody wants to do. But that would be too logical.....

    1. Yeah, that's a great idea my younger brother used to get out of chores. Worked, too, much to my annoyance.

      Against a judge who understands the concepts of dumb insolence and malicious compliance, and doesn't particularly like you? Not a terribly good idea.

  33. When appellate judges are appointed by presidents who do not understand or appreciate the First Amendment, don't expect to see appellate judges that will protect First Amendment rights. For obvious political reasons, Senate confirmation hearings never do adequately explore or expose the views of nominees on the meaning of fundamental, Constitutionally-protected rights. Judges who don't understand that meaning too often render the Constitution a mere piece of paper.

  34. You should probably pick a different title since you never actually included any efforts by leftists to drive faith based people off the Internet. And you wrote it in the same week Facebook (small little site, you may not have heard of it) announced a formal partnership with churches to broadcast their services and allow them to charge a $10 monthly subscription fee. But ya Christians are totally getting driven out of public discussion because a bunch of Trump supporters are mad about something.

    Maybe it's the decades of sexual abuse and using hundreds of millions of dollars to settle lawsuits causing people to turn on religion, not leftists.

  35. When sex work is legalized, will the workers be forced to service everybody?

  36. Krishna Ringtone Download Mp3 and Krishna Flute Ringtone Download Mp3 (Android) or M4r (iPhone) 2021.

  37. Speech should never be compelled. I have a right to say what I want and not say what I don’t. Owning a business does not change that. What if someone wanted a gay Nazi themed website and I was Jewish? Would the state compel me to design it? If so, I would make the worst website in history of websites. What would the do then? Maybe these guys in Colorado should take this tack?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.