District Court Judgment in 303 Creative v. Elenis (the Wedding Web Site Design Case)

Following the Supreme Court's remand to the Tenth Circuit, which in turn led to the remand to district court, Chief Judge Philip Brimmer (D. Colo.) rendered the following order Tuesday:

It is ORDERED that plaintiffs are the prevailing parties in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). Plaintiffs and their counsel are entitled to recover their reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses for work related to litigation before the district court. It is further

ORDERED that the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause prohibits Colorado from enforcing the Accommodation Clause of Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act ("CADA"), Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(2)(a)), to compel plaintiffs to create custom websites celebrating or depicting same-sex weddings or otherwise create or depict original, expressive, graphic or website designs inconsistent with her beliefs regarding same-sex marriage. It is further

ORDERED that the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause prohibits Colorado from enforcing CADA's Communication Clause to prevent plaintiffs from posting the following statement on her website or from making materially similar statements on her website and directly to prospective clients:

I firmly believe that God is calling me to this work. Why? I am personally convicted that He wants me – during these uncertain times for those who believe in biblical marriage – to shine His light and not stay silent. He is calling me to stand up for my faith, to explain His true story about marriage, and to use the talents and business He gave me to publicly proclaim and celebrate His design for marriage as a life-long union between one man and one woman.

These same religious convictions that motivate me also prevent me from creating websites promoting and celebrating ideas or messages that violate my beliefs. So I will not be able to create websites for same-sex marriages or any other marriage that is not between one man and one woman. Doing that would compromise my Christian witness and tell a story about marriage that contradicts God's true story of marriage – the very story He is calling me to promote.

It is further ORDERED that defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those acting in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this order are permanently enjoined from enforcing:

[a.] CADA's Accommodations Clause to compel plaintiffs to create custom websites celebrating or depicting same-sex weddings or otherwise to create or depict original, expressive, graphic or website designs inconsistent with her beliefs regarding same-sex marriage; and

[b.] CADA's Communication Clause to prevent plaintiffs from posting the above statement on her website and from making materially similar statements on her website and directly to prospective clients….

For more on the reasoning, see the full order. The quick summary of the underlying factual dispute:

Plaintiff Lorie Smith, through her business, plaintiff 303 Creative LLC …, offers a variety of creative services, including website design, to the public. Ms. Smith intends to expand the scope of 303 Creative's services to include the design, creation, and publication of wedding websites. However, plaintiffs will decline any request to design, create, or promote content that promotes any conception of marriage other than marriage between one man and one woman. Plaintiffs have designed an addition to 303 Creative's website that includes a statement that they will not create websites "celebrating same-sex marriages or any other marriage that contradicts God's design for marriage."

Comments

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Superstitious gay-bashers have rights, too.

If your god is telling you to be an old-timey bigot, your god is an illusory, paltry thing and you are a gullible dope.

Carry on, clingers. So far as your stale, ugly, conservative thinking could carry anyone in a modern America improving against your wishes.

[great Unknown]

It takes guts to attack Islam, the Koran, and its Prophet so openly. Good for you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No flavor of religion-driven bigotry is any better than Christian religious bigotry, which is practiced solely by lousy, gullible, disgusting people.

[Spinach Chin]

Old, white, bitter liberals are my favorite culture war casualties

[grb]

Lorie Smith : “I firmly believe that God is calling me to this work. Why? I am personally convicted that He wants me – during these uncertain times for those who believe in biblical marriage – to shine His light and not stay silent”

Of course it was all a crude lie. Ms Smith never designed wedding websites – not before the lawsuit was filed; not during its long road to the Supreme Court; not anytime since. Like so many of our modern-day Pharisees, it was all a paper-thin pretense. She had an evil gay client – name included in the court filings – but like everything else about Smith, that was phony too. The gentleman was straight, happily married to a woman for fifteen years, and never contacted anyone about a wedding website design.

So often the religious victimhood shtick is crudely hypocritical. Why can’t they treat us with respect, these professional victims wail, as they insist on the (holy) right to treat everyone else like dirt. So often their victimhood posturing is inadvertently hilarious, as when the Little Sisters of the Poor claimed martyrdom over filling out a form. You have to wonder what Jesus would have made of that!

But Lorie Smith is a special case. A total fraud from start to finish.

[AmosArch]

Uh...She was planning to run such business and wanted to post a notice without violating the law referring clients to other sites. Is she supposed to break the law or run her business in ways she doesn't want to?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If someone wants to fire every employee who is stupid enough to believe fairy tales are true, or disingenuous enough to claim to believe that stuff when they don't, is the employer supposed to break the law or run the business in ways the owner doesn't want to (including keeping gullible, substandard, immature employees).

[MaddogEngineer]

It's unfortunate for you that the First Amendment protects such people who believe fairy tales are true.

You're the lawless insurrectionist, arguing otherwise. You don't believe in the protections of the Bill of Rights. You have no credibility speaking about such subjects or the rule of law.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Lorie Smith is a worthless culture war casualty. She can't be replaced soon enough.

[Spinach Chin]

She won.

You're the casualty 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Superstition and bigotry are the big winners in modern America, clinger? Is that what Jesus whispers to you at Federalist Society meetings? Are you genuinely dumb enough to believe that?

[not guilty]

It will be quite interesting to see whether Lorie Smith and 303 Creative will now begin offering website design services to opposite sex couples. If not, that will indicate that this was a sham lawsuit from the outset.

If the Plaintiffs do not offer such services, the Defendants should perhaps seek relief from the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3) because of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by the Plaintiffs. If I were representing the Defendants, I would file such a motion on day 364 following entry of final judgment.

[AmosArch]

Uh….Colorado’s law is unconstitutional regardless of Lorie’s future business plans or personal moral character. If Trump was caught shredding mailin ballots would you let him off the hook if he was just destroying the ballots of those who probably wouldn’t vote anyway?

Its kind of like the activists who went around looking for christian businesses to sue without any intention of actually using their services. You weren't outraged back then.

If you’re a lawyer I hope your clients get a refund.

[not guilty]

Equity (including injunctive relief) acts in personam). The injunction entered by the District Court runs in favor of the Plaintiffs who sued. (Did you read the order?) One who seeks equitable relief must come before the Court with clean hands.

If Lorie Smith and 303 Creative are shown to have perpetrated a fraud on the Court by misrepresenting her intention to offer website design services, the Defendants cand seek relief from the final order under Rule 60(b)(3).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

They hayseeds don't care about lying. They're on a Mission From God.

An illusory, paltry, bigoted god.

[Krayt]

The detente between religions to disallow any from turning the power of government against the others includes hayseed hicks like you who feel your religion gets to stomp all over their beliefs.

Religion and politics aren't just similar phenomena. They are the exact same one. Giant clusters of ideas evolved to seduce new followers, until critical mass is achieved and they can abandon inefficient persuasion and just legally force people to obey the dogma.

Freedom, how little we knew ye.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If you can’t distinguish superstition and fiction from reason and reality, you have no legitimate role in reasoned debate among competent adults. You get to whine about it as much as you like. Hell, you can speak in tongues if it makes you happy. But you will not be part of shaping our continuing national progress. Instead, you and your ideas will continue to be defeated and replaced by better ideas and better Americans.

[MaddogEngineer]

If you can't distinguish that what you mock as superstition and fiction are explicitly protected by the First Amendment, you have no part shaping our continuing national progress. You're not one of our betters, you're the worst kind of intolerant tyrant.

[Nige]

'They are the exact same one.'

The weird philosophy of 'all these different things are exactly the same thing' gets even weirder. Bullshit Zen?

[AmosArch]

Go ahead and show me who is planning to get Colorado to reinstate the enforcement when Lorie is exposed for not allegedly not following through with her website.

Either you’re a liar or your compatriots don’t really care about your passion of forcing people to work on ssm websites.

[not guilty]

I didn't say that Colorado officials should enforce the statute against Lorie Smith. Indeed, they would be foolish to do so. But if she obtained the injunction by fraud or by misrepresenting her intentions to offer wedding website designs, that would be grounds to vacate the injunction, if only to expose her dog and pony show for what it is.

[MaddogEngineer]

Why are you bringing this up again? It was debunked both at the time the case was argued before the Supreme Court, and when the decision was released.

Both sides agreed she hadn't yet established such a website business. It was because she was considering it; it was enough. The Supreme Court took the case with that already established. She had standing and a live controversy.

It doesn't matter if she hasn't subsequently carried through, or even if that was a sham...because under the presentations at a time, it was accepted. The only thing that would get you what you want here is if she came out and said it was all an insincere farce.

[mulched]

What relief do you think they'd get?

The judgement prevents CO from punishing her. Even if it was reversed, CO could do what? Punish her for something she's not doing?

[not guilty]

The available relief would be dissolution of the injunction. The Defendants would then be beyond the contempt power of the Court.

[mulched]

Until another case came up with a better plaintiff. Then the same judgement would get handed down and you'd be salty again.

[David Nieporent]

What value would that relief have in the real world? Some of the bloggers here can masturbate over whether courts "strike down" laws or not, but in the real world, you still have a Supreme Court decision saying that the law cannot constitutionally be enforced on a business engaging in certain conduct. That this decision is technically moot as it applies to Lori Smith/303 doesn't change the fact that state officials are on notice of that. If they try to punish the next website designer (or Lori Smith herself later), well, good luck with defending the 1983 suit.

[not guilty]

SCOTUS did not invalidate the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. It remains fully enforceable as to any person not named Lorie Smith. The instant final order is specifically tailored to benefit Ms. Smith and her LLC alone.

In light of this litigation, Colorado officials are unlikely to seek to use CADA to "compel" another self-styled "Christian" to engage in particular speech. Any prospective future plaintiff would accordingly have difficulty showing a credible threat of prosecution under Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (1974), and its progeny. And while I realize it won't actually happen, exposing Lorie Smith as a rank hypocrite would be worthwhile for its own sake.

[mulched]

Go get her, NG. She should suffer for, I don't know...making Colorado look bad...not making a website that she was never asked to make...filing a lawsuit...I don't know, but there's got to be something she should be exposed for.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

She has been exposed as a gullible, worthless, aggressive bigot. She can’t be replaced fast enough.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

She swore under oath that, but for the Colorado law poised to be enforced against her, she would make wedding websites.

I checked last month, and the lying cunt still didn't offer wedding websites whatsoever.

She was a bigoted fraud from day 1.

[mulched]

The case has been in progress for a while. She's probably moved on to other opportunities.

For now, that means she won't be refusing any requests for gay wedding websites. So you should be happy.

[Krayt]

I think we can guess what Rachel Maddow was harping on all night long.

[MaddogEngineer]

She swore no such thing. That wasn't what the parties stipulated.

How can you have checked last month whether she was offering websites, yet not have read the litigation record to understand this?

[MaddogEngineer]

For people like you who mock the other side about not understanding how the law works, this is a pretty embarrassing thing to post. In this case, what such a precedent means.

Again, that Smith was not yet operating such a business, and might not ever, was not an obstacle to her lawsuit. You haven't discovered a magic bullet here to undo this result.

[Riva]

So the state should be able to compel speech because you think this plaintiff was lying? I'm sure you were adamantly opposed to Roe v Wade because Norma McCorvey was lying.

[not guilty]

Courts act on the record developed by litigants before them. The injunction entered here runs in favor of Lorie Smith and 303 Creative LLC. Whether you, I or anyone else not wearing a robe and wielding a gavel think Lorie Smith was lying is of no moment. That is why I said that the Defendants should monitor her conduct going forward. If she does not now offer wedding website design services, that is evidence that she lied to the courts about her intentions all along.

If the District Court finds that she lied, that would amount to fraud or misrepresentation, which is grounds for relief from a final judgment according to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3). A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order. That is why I specified 364 days from entry.

[Riva]

No that's evidence that you're an eff'ing imbecile who knows nothing about the practice of law. That she did or didn't offer such services within one year or ever is not evidence she was "lying" to the Court about her intentions at the time of the suit. In fact, identify one real case of such defendant monitoring and judicial sanction that ever occurred in the United States? You're a clown.

[Riva]

On reflection, I kinda regret the insults, maybe a little too harsh. But you're still wrong.

[mulched]

Dude's clearly got animus. If he was on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, all his decisions would get Cakeshopped.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Which fairy tale do you guys like better . . . the Easter Bunny delivering baskets, or Jesus riding from the dead? For me, the candy makes that one a no-brainer. Like religion in general.

Happy Easter, clingers! I hope everyone gets plenty of candy and enough judgment to recognize superstition as fiction.

[Bored Lawyer]

It will be quite interesting to see whether Lorie Smith and 303 Creative will now begin offering website design services to opposite sex couples. If not, that will indicate that this was a sham lawsuit from the outset.

Here's her website: https://303creative.com/

Among other services, she creates websites. It does not say that she does weddings or does not do them. I don't know why she has to offer wedding sites, or sites to opposite sex couples. She design websites, period. That might include weddings, or might be business sites. (Here's a shocker, the business market is more lucrative, so she focuses on that.)
Her site does have the following disclaimer:

As a Christian who believes that God gave me the creative gifts that are expressed through this business, I have always strived to honor Him in how I operate it. My primary objective is to design and create expressive content—script, graphics, websites, and other creative content—to convey the most compelling and effective message I can to promote my client’s purposes, goals, services, products, events, causes, or values. Because of my faith, however, I am selective about the messages that I create or promote – while I will serve anyone I am always careful to avoid communicating ideas or messages, or promoting events, products, services, or organizations, that are inconsistent with my religious beliefs.

There is a page touting her services as they relate to "events." Weddings are not mentioned there, but other events, both commercial and personal are.

[Randal]

If that had been her proposed text all along, Colorado wouldn’t have even bothered. She only crossed the line when she demanded language disparaging same-sex couples specifically. That’s what proved to all of us normies that she wasn’t in it for the business opportunities or even the godly messages, but for the bigotry and culture warring.

It’s also what the dissent focused on. It had no problem with her doing websites and declining work that conflicted with her values, or even with putting up a statement like the one above. Sotomayor just wondered, like the rest of us, why was it necessary for her to publicly disparage gays in the process???

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Why? Because she is an immature, hateful, delusional, worthless bigot.

[Sonja T]

You lose a lot of credibility when you resort to dishonest statements to advance your argument.

[Randal]

You lose a lot of credibility when you make general accusations of dishonesty. It's not much different from accusing people of heresy, except these days it's heresy agsinst MAGA instead of heresy against God.

At least say which thing you think is false. You won't though, because then I'll be able to mount a defense and make you look stupid. You don't want that.

[Sonja T]

You fail to recognize your own dishonesty.

There is nothing in the record disparaging same sex couples, only your and Sotomayers accusation and mischaracterization.

She is only stating that she will not perform a specific service. That is distinctly different from both your characterization and sotomayers characterization.

[Randal]

Saying “no gays allowed” is disparaging.

In the record, she sued in order to be able to say “no gay weddings allowed.”

I will not be able to create websites for same-sex marriages

But notice how her statement above doesn’t reference gays or same-sex marriages at all. It’s not necessary.

So why was it necessary for her to say “no gay weddings allowed” in order to run her Christian wedding website business? It wasn’t. It was just the closest thing she thought she could get away with to “no gays allowed,” i.e. disparaging.

[ReaderY]

I don’t understand this. 303 Creative argued that because of their religious beliefs they had a RIGHT to provide website design services for opposite-sex weddings but not same-sex weddings, and the Supreme Court upheld that right.

You obviously don’t like them and you obviously disagree with that decision. But because that was the decision, they CAN offer wedding design services to opposite-sex weddings but not same-sex weddings. It’s what the decision said they could do.

I don’t understand your statements about “fraud” etc. I don’t see how they ever represented that they intended to do anything else. It’s what their whole case was about.

Or have you too gotten yourself caught in the snare so many Americans seem to have gotten caught in, where you begin to believe that just because your political opponents advocate a position or do something you disagree with, they must be really bad people with really bad character, so they must have done something fraudulent somewhere?

[not guilty]

I wonder. Would Lorie Smith design a website celebrating the marriage of one man and 700 women plus 300 side pieces?

After all, that would be a biblical marriage, per I Kings 11:3.

Was the national anthem of Israel under King Solomon Help Me Make It Through the Night?

[mulched]

Hoo boy! You sure got her now. If you'd only put that in your amicus brief, I know the SC would have ruled differently.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No different ruling. But it would have demonstrated what a silly, delusional, bigoted, worthless loser she is.

[Riva]

Spare us your facile and ignorant attempts to attack Christianity. Solomon's conduct was not offered as a model to emulate. Stick with your facile and ignorant understanding of the law.

[EscherEnigma]

Polygamy is throughout the old testament. It's not a Christian practice because it had already been abandoned as a cultural practice --among Jews and the people they lived among-- before Christianity formed. Arguments that polygamy isn't "biblical" are entirely post-hoc rationalization.

[not guilty]

Please refresh my memory, Riva. Who was it that said, "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 6:1 RSV)

Self-styled "Christians" such as Lorie Smith and Joseph Kennedy call to mind Mahatma Gandhi's comment: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

[Riva]

You're only mocking yourself with your obnoxious anti-Christian bias. Not sure what your trying to prove by these childish attacks against a faith you know nothing about. Is your derangement limited to anti-Christian bigotry, or do you have similar ill fillings toward other faiths too?

[not guilty]

"You’re only mocking yourself with your obnoxious anti-Christian bias. Not sure what your [sic] trying to prove by these childish attacks against a faith you know nothing about."

Au contraire. I was reared among fundamentalist Christians. I know their dogma well, and I believe in many tenets of Christianity. I also realize -- based on the teachings of Jesus -- that self-righteousness and faux piety is despicable.

[Riva]

Openly professing one's religious belief is neither "self-righteousness" or evidence of "faux piety." And neither is expressing a viewpoint with which you happen to disagree. And, given your misunderstanding of scripture, you didn't learn your lessons well.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Were your parents superstitious losers, or are you solely a victim of adult-onset superstition? Why can’t you handle the reality-based world? Do you really believe that bullshit, or are you just saying so for acceptance among the clingers?

[not guilty]

From what I have read of the New Testament, too many fundamentalist "Christians" have far more in common with the Pharisees than with Jesus.

When I point that out, the reaction I often get is swift and predictable. I suppose that, as Southern folk wisdom teaches, the hit dog hollers.

[Riva]

If in fact you have read some part of the New Testament, you didn't understand what you read. May I suggest you pursue some adult Catechesis at your local Catholic Church.

[not guilty]

No, thank you. I shall not take religious instruction from the Roman Catholic Man-Boy Lust Association Church -- a thoroughly corrupt institution which has paid out billions of dollars because it was unwilling to keep its priests out of its parishioners' children, in this country and abroad.

That is unmitigated evil.

[Riva]

Putting aside that not all those allegations were truthful, it is true that some people do bad things. That’s called free will. I refer you to Solomon in that quote you referenced. That is not the institution of the Church. You really need that Catechesis.

[not guilty]

Follow the money. The payment of billions of dollars in damage awards and settlements effectively admits respondeat superior culpability for the sinful priests' actions. It was worth a pretty penny to avoid trial and public exposure of the sordid institutional culture.

For someone to voluntarily affiliate with RoCaMBLA reflects moral idiocy. Sure it's free will. It is also sheer evil.

[Riva]

Again, some people can choose to do bad things. Those people can even be Church officials. Solomon was a king. That has nothing to do with the body of the Church itself, check the Bible you say you’re familiar with and read about who established it. Legal theories of liability have no relevance and can never undermine the Church itself. You desperately need that Catechesis. It’s a good day to start in fact.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Catechesis . . . Is that a fancy word for the long-standing facilitation and concealment of sexual abuse of children by lying freeloaders striving to protect their property and colleagues?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

D you believe all silly, childish fairy tales are true, or just — for some fucked-up reason — the Christian ones?

Adult-onset superstition is a regrettable dysfunction afflicting substandard people.

[Spinach Chin]

Is it your view that "anything that happened in the Bible" is supported by Christian teachings?

[ReaderY]

This is straightforward. Christianity departed from the Old Testament position on this issue. This is something anyone with a grasp of Western religious history would realize. The fact you don’t realize this indicates just how ignorant you are.

You really ought to be less ignorant of ideas and historical movements that, whether you like them or not, influence your life,

[ConservativeProfessor]

Lorie Smith is a Christian. So for her what is normative is Jesus’ comments on marriage in Matthew 19:1-12, not what was permitted under an entirely different covenant.

But you’re even wrong about Solomon. He was married to each individual woman. It was not a case of a marriage of one man and 700 women, as you incorrectly depitct it, but rather, a case of 700 marriages of one man and one woman, with the same man in each of the 700 unions. For when Solomon died, the 700 women were not married to each other. All 700 marriages were immediately dissolved.

[EscherEnigma]

Call me when I'm as free to put up a "I won't serve Christian couples" sign as this woman is to put up a "I won't serve gay couples" sign.

Until then, this isn't about free speech, it's about special rights.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The clingers will get to ride this coaster for a while longer.

Then, the reckoning.

[David Nieporent]

Again: she can't say "I won't serve gay couples." She can say, "I won't make websites promoting same sex marriage." If a gay couple wants to start a website to promote their accounting business, she can't turn them away. (Unless she doesn't do websites for anyone's accounting business, obv.)

And if you have a speech-related business, you are free to turn down Christian couples based on the content of the speech but not the identity of the couple. (If you don't have a speech-related business, the decision doesn't apply to you at all.)

[Josh R]

It's possible she can turn down this website.

[not guilty]

Actually, I’m not so sure it would be lawful for Lorie Smith to turn down content such as that. She stipulated before the District Court that she is “willing to work with all people regardless of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender” and “will gladly create custom graphics and websites” for clients of any sexual orientation; she will not produce content that “contradicts biblical truth” regardless of who orders it.

There is nothing irreligious or anti-biblical about the Gay CPA content that Josh R. links to. Tax preparation actually furthers Christian values -- Jesus said to "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's." (Matthew 24:21 RSV) I suspect, however, that Ms. Smith would shit a brick if she were asked to produce such a design as that.

[Josh R]

She might not mind. But, she could claim that the website promotes the gay lifestyle and likely prevail.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I hope Lorie Smith does not have children.

[Randal]

I hope she does. They'll probably be normal, and she'll hate them for it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

We need fewer clingers, not more. And think of the children. No child deserves having an aggressively bigoted, gullible asshole like Lorie Smith as a parent.

[Krayt]

Giving money to Ceasar isn't a Christian value per se. It is the result of tricky frauds trying to get him into legal trouble.

Then the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away.

Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words.

They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”

But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.”

They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” And they were amazed at him.

I think Herodians are the race of the guy the scoundrel Han murdered.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What are you mumbling about?

[David Nieporent]

It’s possible she can turn down this website.

Impressive find on your part; I tried to pick the least gay-coded profession I could for that hypothetical.

[Eugene Volokh]

EscherEnigma: If you're in the web site design business, and you don't want to create web sites that convey Christian messages (e.g., celebrate Christian weddings, or praise Christian organizations, etc.), then under 303 Creative you have every right not to create them. Indeed, the majority expressly rejected Colorado's arguments against Smith in part because under those arguments, "The government could require ... 'an atheist muralist to accept a commission celebrating Evangelical zeal.'" The majority's position is thus that the atheist muralist has every right to discriminate based on religion in choosing which murals to paint (even if he generally serves all comers).

[Riva]

And I thought atheist muralists just spray painted their graffiti for free. It never occurred to me that someone actually hired them.

[Bored Lawyer]

IOW, you can reject the message, but not the client. She can't reject an atheist who wants a website for, say, a restaurant, just because the client is an atheist.

[AmosArch]

You are free to refuse to design Christian websites. Knock yourself out.

You are not free to refuse public accommodations to provide the exact same services you would provide to any other group although I think you should be.

[Bored Lawyer]

What constitutes "the exact same services" is part of what the contention was.
Let's say she has done websites for businesses. Like a florist, a used car lot and a restaurant. Then someone comes to her and wants her to do a website for a tour business -- specifically, fly to Las Vegas and spend the night with a prostitute. She refuses, as such as she considers such a business immoral and contrary to her faith.
Has she violated the public accommodation laws?

[mulched]

No. Next question.

[DaveM]

Geez, just take the L, people. Move on.

[Ed Grinberg]

The fact that people have just a little bit more freedom now really sticks in their craw, doesn’t it?

[Randal]

take the L

I agree with Dave for once but really it was Eugene who felt the need for another victory lap so in that sense maybe it’s fine to spit on him as he runs around the track.

But Ed is wrong. Reading the threads above, as well as the dissent, nobody thinks that a website designer who actually just wanted to make Christian wedding websites in peace could be forced to make ones for gay marriages.

We simply recognized that Lorie wasn’t that person. Her case was artificial and fraudulent, an obvious fact that was eagerly overlooked by justices looking to make a splash in the culture wars.

This case didn’t result in more freedom, Ed. It’s a bad case that stands only for the proposition that the justice system is open for business to charlatans with the sole goal of scoring highly publicized political points. (A fact that has become evident in plenty of recent cases, such as the Football Coach Performative Praying case.)

That it was all in service of bigotry is, of course, extra annoying.

[Lee Moore]

I beg to differ. Watching seven year old girls have major league hissy fits is lotsa fun, so long as one doesn't have to clear up the mess, and can walk away when it's time for lunch.