Graphic Artist Challenges State Law Forbidding Her From Declining Creation of Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Sites

creative-compressedDENVER, Co. — A graphic artist in Colorado has filed a preemptive lawsuit to challenge a state law that she says forbids her from turning down orders to create websites in favor of same-sex “marriage.”

Lorie Smith runs 303 Creative, where she creates custom websites for clients. Smith, who identifies as a Christian, believes that God has called her to “promote and celebrate His design for marriage by designing and creating custom wedding websites.” This would therefore not include designing websites pertaining to homosexual nuptials.

But Colorado law states that it is “unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.”

Businesses are also prohibited from publishing or posting any information that advises their intent to refuse such accommodation. Smith had planned on outlining on her website why she could only accept site creation orders pertaining to the union of a man and a woman..

Smith is consequently concerned that the Colorado civil rights law both criminalizes her speech and forces her, against her convictions, to accept site creation orders related to same-sex “marriage.”

“If Lorie and 303 Creative were to convey their desired messages and decline to convey objectionable messages, they would face costly and onerous investigations, fines of up to $500 for each violation, and oppressive mandates—such as staff re-education training—that can themselves compel objectionable speech,” her complaint, filed on Tuesday by the legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), outlines.

Smith is seeking a declaratory judgment that the Colorado civil rights law violates the free speech, free exercise and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution, as well as a preliminary and permanent injunction against its enforcement.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Every American, including artists, should be free to peacefully live and work according to their faith without fear of unjust punishment by the government,” remarked ADF Legal Counsel Samuel Green in a statement.

Smith
Smith

“Just because an artist creates expression that communicates one viewpoint doesn’t mean Colorado can require her to express all viewpoints,” he said. “It’s unlawful to force an artist to create against her will and intimidate her into silence just because the government disagrees with her beliefs.”

But Amanda Henderson, the executive director of the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, told the Denver Post that she doesn’t think Smith should be able to decline the custom site orders.

“Nobody should be turned away from a business or denied service simply because of who they are,” she remarked in a statement. “Allowing business owners to refuse service to customers whom they dislike, or disapprove, will open a can of worms and make it more difficult to enforce Colorado’s laws that ensure businesses are open to everyone.”

Smith says that she has received a number of hateful and vile messages following the filing of the suit.

“I am very sorry that some people are so intolerant of my beliefs—beliefs shared by many Jews, Muslims, Christians, and nonreligious people in this country and the throughout the world—as to harass you,” she has written on her business site. “If we disagree, we should be able to do so civilly. That is the mark of a healthy and free society.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Croquet_Player

    If Smith doesn’t wish to serve the general public, she has no business being in business.

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Yeah, if kosher delis won’t make ham sandwiches, they have no business being in business! /sarc

      • Michael C

        Nobody’s asking the kosher deli to make anything that isn’t on their menu. Gay customers should be permitted to order an item off of the menu at a kosher deli just like everyone else, don’t you think?

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          Sure, and gay customers can ask for things that Christian businesses offer.

          • Michael C

            We’ve had a number of conversations about this topic so I’m glad our laws are starting to make sense to you.

            If Lorie Smith’s business offers a particular product or service to straight people, she cannot refuse that same product or service to gay people just as if her business offered a particular product or service to Christians, she cannot refuse that same product or service to Jewish customers.

            It’s nice to see you’re starting to get it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Actually, I’ve been in agreement with Eugene Volokh, whose teachings seem to be beyond you, on this issue.

          • Michael C

            If you could direct me to the Post article that you’re referring me to, it would be very helpful. What was the title of the article you read?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I wasn’t referring to an article.

          • Michael C

            So I just did a bunch of reading and it appears that Eugene Volokh says the exact opposite of what you seem to think he says.

            Consider the following from an article titled No, bakeries don’t have to take orders for cakes that say ‘God Hates Gays’

            “Colorado law bans discrimination by a wide range of businesses, but only when the discrimination is based on “disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.” This means that a store may not specifically refuse to sell cakes to gays, or sell them to (say) Baptists. It may well mean that it may not specifically refuse to sell cakes for use in same-sex marriages, or in Baptist events. It may even mean that it may not specifically refuse to inscribe messages that identify buyers as gay (e.g., “John and Bill’s marriage”), or as Baptist (e.g., “Baptist Church Picnic”).”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Read the entire article. You’re wrong.

          • Michael C

            I read the article before quoting it. Eugene doesn’t say one thing in one part of the article then the exact opposite in another.

            I’ve quoted the guy you interjected into the conversation. If you think he said something different, you’re also welcome to quote him.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You should re-read what you quoted. 🙂

          • Michael C

            “It may well mean that it [the business] may not specifically refuse to sell cakes for use in same-sex marriages”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            “But nothing in the law bans discrimination based on ideology more
            broadly. A store can refuse to sell to someone because he’s a Nazi, or a
            Communist, or pro-life, or pro-choice, or pro-gay-rights, or
            anti-gay-rights. A store can likewise refuse to inscribe cakes with
            Nazi, Communist, pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, or
            anti-gay-rights messages, if it’s discriminating based on the ideology
            of the message, rather than the religiosity of the buyer.”

          • Michael C

            Um. Yeah (?)

            Volokh said that if a business sells wedding cakes, they cannot refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.

            …he then continues (in the quote you’ve provided) by saying that the business would not be required to make a cake that says “Support Gay Marriage.”

            I agree with Eugene Volokh. You, on the other hand, seem to disagree with him.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            What do you think symbols on wedding cakes are about?

          • Michael C

            What “symbols” are you talking about? If they’re “symbols” that the bakery would willingly put on a straight couple’s cake, they could not refuse to put them on a gay couple’s cake.

            Are you talking about those little bride & groom cake toppers? I’m pretty sure none of the discrimination cases have had anything to do with those little dolls (do people even still use those? I’ve been to a lot of wedding and I’ve never seen anyone use them).

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Please re-read Eugene’s statement.

          • Michael C

            Volokh said that a store can refuse to inscribe cakes with
            pro-gay-rights messages, if it’s discriminating based on the ideology
            of the message.

            I agree with this.

            He also said that a store that sells wedding cakes to straight people cannot refuse to sell wedding cakes to gay people.

            You seem to intentionally refuse to understand my country’s non-discrimination laws and you’re mistaken about what Eugene Volokh has written.

            Go ahead and have the last word.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Eugene is very clear on this topic. I don’t know why you can’t understand him.

      • Croquet_Player

        Deli owners may carry, or not carry, whatever products they like. But like all businesses open to the general public, they must serve the general public. I’ve seen this faulty “ham sandwich” analogy before, and it’s remarkably clueless. This woman owns a business that offers wedding websites. The law in Colorado protects people from discrimination. If she does not wish to make wedding websites for certain members of the public, for any reason, she can simply stop offering wedding websites to the public.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          Christian business owners are open to the general public. They have provided services to homosexuals all along. For example, Christian bakers have gladly made cakes for homosexuals. They do not sell cakes for gay weddings though, regardless of whether a straight or gay person is purchasing them. They will sell cakes for regular weddings, regardless of whether straight or gay people are purchasing them. So we see that the issue isn’t the sexual orientation of the person purchasing, but rather the product itself.

          • Croquet_Player

            I would love to see you try that ridiculous argument in court. I really would. If you sell wedding cakes to the general public, then you must serve the general public equally. You do not get to pick and choose your customers, and it doesn’t matter what your reasons are.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No one is picking and choosing customers. Business owners are picking and choosing their products.

          • Croquet_Player

            If they sell wedding cakes, they sell wedding cakes to the general public.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Exactly! Anyone – straight or gay – can buy a heterosexual wedding cake! You finally got it! Just like anyone – Jewish or not – can buy a kosher deli sandwich!

          • Croquet_Player

            Wedding cakes do not have sexual orientations. They are cakes, not people.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The purpose behind it is what makes the difference – if something is unclean to a religious person (like a ham sandwich is to a kosher deli owner) – then it must rightfully be refused. Would you make a cake for a pedo?

          • Croquet_Player

            If I was aware, or even if I merely suspected, that an adult was abusing a minor, I would immediately call the police and Child Protective Services. This is another completely false analogy.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Hey, who are you to judge?

          • Croquet_Player

            I’m capable of seeing the vast difference between legal consensual adult relationships and illegal sexual abuse of minors, which apparently you’re not, so I’m clearly in a far better position to judge than you. And the law is on my side here too.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Law once stated that homosexual unions were unlawful, so how useful are laws to your argument anyway? How about incestuous marriages? You down with that?

          • Croquet_Player

            Slavery used to be legal, and now it’s illegal. Things change. The issue of incestuous marriages is extremely complicated, with many variables. In a few cases I am not against it, in most cases I am against it. It depends upon the particular circumstances.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Exactly my point – the law itself can’t determine if something is moral, true or right. I’m not surprised that you’re down with incest. One you justify one depravity, why not justify them all?

          • Croquet_Player

            But that’s not at all what I said, is it? Don’t lie and misrepresent me. But speaking of depraved and dishonest behavior, you believe you can deprive American citizens of their rights. I’m so very delighted you no longer can.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You may not realize what you said, but indeed you did, CP. Re-read your own words.

          • Croquet_Player

            You re-read it. And then re-read your distortion of what I said, and ask yourself why you felt the need to lie.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Oh my. Ad hominem attacks. Can’t you stick to facts, CP?

          • Croquet_Player

            Why did you feel the need to lie? The fact is, you obviously blatantly misrepresented what I said. You lied. Is lying o.k. according to your morality? It’s not o.k. with me.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            CP, anyone can read your responses and mine. Have a good night.

          • Croquet_Player

            Goodnight, Guest the Liar.

          • Croquet_Player

            Oh, flagging remarks are we? You blatantly misrepresented what I said. You said something FALSE.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I didn’t say anything false. I merely reiterated what you’ve been saying all night. You may not have realized where your own “logical” conclusion took you, but there it went. You need to re-examine your own views and why you got there.

          • Croquet_Player

            Re-read your own words, and see how clearly they differ from mine.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t even realize that by your own logic, you justify pedophilia, incest, and a host of other atrocities. Those are your standards, not mine.

          • Croquet_Player

            So by clearly saying if I even suspected pedophilia I would call the police and child protective services, that means I “justify pedophilia”? By saying that in most cases of incest I do not approve, I justify all incest? I see what your “standards” are – you have no respect whatsoever for the truth, and you’ll simply say anything at all in a desperate attempt to be to be insulting and demeaning. Thank you for demonstrating so very clearly the extraordinary and deeply repellent lengths to which a classic zealot will go. You provide a textbook example of the disorder which more people should see and be aware of. I hope you seek some help, you certainly need it. Goodbye.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You are using the same logic (or lack thereof) to justify other perversions, perversions just as repugnant as pedophilia and incest. Your views aren’t based upon logic, reason, or science, but rather upon your religious belief of atheism and upon emotionalism, conjecture, and personal preference.

          • Croquet_Player

            But that not at all what I said, is it? Do not misrepresent me.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            By your own logic, you did. Re-read your own posts and see your reasoning.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            That’s ludicrous. There is no difference between a gay wedding cake and a straight wedding cake except who it’s for.

          • Croquet_Player

            Also, I’m always amused by the concept of a “gay wedding cake”. Cakes don’t have sexual orientations.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s ludicrous. There is no difference between a pedophile wedding cake and a straight wedding cake except who it’s for.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I feel like there’s a point you’re trying to make here, but I have no idea what it is.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I’m sure it did go way over your Ambulance chasing head. 🙂

          • Jenny Ondioline

            What is a pedophile wedding cake?
            What is a pedophile wedding, for that matter?

  • Lydia Church

    Guess again croquet player: “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” !
    Yes, she not only has the right, but that is what she must do.
    We must obey God over man when man’s laws contradict. Acts 5; 29.
    And that is what real Christians will do, no matter who doesn’t like it.

    Stay strong church, the storm is just up ahead!
    You answer to Jesus the Lord, not sinful man, etc.

    Yay for her!

    • Croquet_Player

      If you actually believe a cheap plastic sign trumps the Constitution, you need to go back to high school civics class. Businesses may legitimately turn away customers under limited circumstances, for example if someone is drunk, or refuses to follow safety regulations, like wearing a life vest on a boat. But public business which are open to the general public must do just that – serve the general public. If Smith does not want to serve the public, for any reason, it doesn’t matter why, she should not be in business. No one forced her to open a business, and under Colorado law, she may not discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. There is no Constitutional right to run a business and ignore laws.

      • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        The Constitution guarantees religious freedom.

        • Tangent002

          Not to businesses.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Businesses are run by people.

          • Tangent002

            Yes, but they are a separate legal entity.

          • uninvitedguest

            And?

        • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ David Cary Hart

          The Constitution guarantees “Free Exercise.” People are free to worship peanut butter if they like in any way that they choose. Denying service is not free exercise.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Worship is more than going to church. It’s about living in a way that honors God in every day activities. You are trying to squelch religious freedom.

          • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ David Cary Hart

            I am not trying to do anything other than to explain precedence. You might, for example, wish to review the Appeals Court decision when it denied a stay of the injunction against Kim Davis. Or you can review Scalia’s decision in Employment Div v. Smith.

            This is an issue of law. Therefore, precedence matters.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You might want to review that yourself since it doesn’t contradict what I’ve said. 🙂

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. There you go.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            What does the Civil Rights Act have to do with religious freedom? Try to stay on topic, Chase.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Yes, and God’s law takes precedence over human law whenever here is conflict!

          • Bezukhov

            Your God said I’m not to ‘make an image and worship it’. Yet I have an idol of Jupiter and worship it. My law says I can, your God’s law says I can’t. What are you going to do about it?

          • sandraleesmith46

            I’m not going to do anything about it; not my job. But Yhwh God WILL do something about it, and I rather suspect you won’ t like it, when He does.

          • Bezukhov

            Don’t you think the Government should do something to stop and punish me? That is why you vote. I doubt you would vote for someone who promises to leave me alone to worship as I please.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Then you’d be wrong, on both counts, up to the 2nd advent; after that, the new gov’t will indeed deal with you.

          • Bezukhov

            Didn’t you post this?
            Denying something that violates Yhwh God’s law is a “must do” thing! God’s law always supersedes human law!

            So you “must do” that which will deny me the opportunity of worshiping my idols, n’est-ce pas?

          • sandraleesmith46

            You’ve taken it somewhat of the context that conversation, as is customary with lib idolators. In this instance forcing you to stop Isn’t y job; that context had to do with me denying you forcing me to violate Yhwh’s law!

          • Bezukhov

            You allowing me to violate your God’s laws is as much of a sin as my violating them in the first place.

            If lib is inferring that I’m a “liberal” you’re wrong. I’m an Anarcho-Capitalist.

          • sandraleesmith46

            WRONG: it’s never been my job, as a believer, to force you to stop; that’s always Yhwh God’s job to deal with. MY job is to NOT JOIN you in your sinful behaviors!
            BTW, you can’t be an anarchist and a capitalist any more than you can be a leftist lib and a Christian.

          • Tom Gregorius Lauten

            Spoken like a true extremist…

          • sandraleesmith46

            No; just a believer.

          • uninvitedguest

            And you are pushing for a thepcracy where christians can legally discriminate

          • uninvitedguest

            Nope. You just want legal discrimination

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Is that what you think of the Constitution?

          • uninvitedguest

            I served this great nation in the Army in support of the constitution. Dont put thoughts or words in my mouth. Did you serve?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Here we go.

          • uninvitedguest

            Poor thing. Probably never contributed to society….hmmmmm

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Oh, the irony! 🙂

          • sandraleesmith46

            Denying something that violates Yhwh God’s law is a “must do” thing! God’s law always supersedes human law!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Then you should proudly accept whatever earthly punishment you get for breaking the law.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Sorry; but you’re the ones violating the Constitution and our God-given rights; we aren’t seeking to PUNISH you, just live our lives according to His will!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Are you saying that public accommodation laws violate the Constitution?

          • sandraleesmith46

            Matter of fact, yes, they do! When they are used to violate STATED, and God- given rights for faux, and man-made “rights”, that’s exactly what they do!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Well, the Supreme Court disagrees. And they’re the final arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Not ccording to the Cnstitution itself, they re NOT!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, according to the Constitution, they are.

            “In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” Art. III, Section 2, Paragraph 2.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Nope; the PEOPLE are the final arbiters, NOT SCOTUS!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Maybe you should read what I posted again.

          • sandraleesmith46

            Maybe you should read the whole Constitution, and what the Founders who wrote it had to say on the subject.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What part are you referring to that says the people’s of what is constitutional supersedes the Supreme Court’s?

          • sandraleesmith46

            Typical lib… “whole” means “entirety”.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, so what does “the entirety” of the Constitution say about the People’s role in interpreting it?

          • sandraleesmith46

            Read it and find out.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, so you have no argument. Got it. Thanks.

        • Croquet_Player

          And she may practice her faith as she likes. She has no constitutional right to break laws in how she operates her business. If she does not wish to make wedding sites for gay couples, fine, she can stop offering wedding sites.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That was the argument the Nazis used about the Jews. They said Jewish religion was getting in the way of Nazism, so they decided to exterminate. You really want to go there?

          • Croquet_Player

            Actually, the Nazis did the exact opposite. Instead of businesses being required to serve everyone, they permitted discrimination. If this woman does not wish to serve the general public – i.e. she wishes to discriminate against certain persons – for whatever reason, then she should alter her business model to comply with the law or find a different line of work.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The Nazis began by targeting Jewish businesses. That’s exactly what is happening to Christians today. This is the beginning of Kristallnacht and atheists like yourself are complicit in throwing the first stone.

          • Croquet_Player

            My we are a bit overly dramatic this morning, aren’t we? I imagine that business owners who wish to discriminate against gay people, for whatever reason, will find themselves in the position of racist business owners after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They had to change their business models. That was a good thing and society is better for it. I image you’ll somehow learn to cope, as they did.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You find history overly dramatic? Back to your safe space, snowflake!

          • Croquet_Player

            I find you to be overly dramatic. And with a very poor understanding of history. I think it’s you who needs a “safe space”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s all ya got? 🙂

          • uninvitedguest

            Melodramatic arent we? You should be fighting public accomodation laws which prevent your type of discrimination

          • uninvitedguest

            Irrelevant

        • uninvitedguest

          It doesnt guarantee the right of a business owner to discriminate

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You need Eugene Volokh to school you.

          • uninvitedguest

            Eugene isnt the final authority on this issue. I find that public accomodation laws are the law of the land…..not eugene.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Do you know who he is?

    • uninvitedguest

      She will just like the other two graphic artists who tried the same approach.

    • Tangent002

      Sorry, but the right to refuse service to anyone hasn’t been a real thing since the civil Rights Act of 1964. If you want to dial back the clock over 50 years, by my guest and good luck with that.

      • sandraleesmith46

        It’s FAR more real than your made-up, faux “right” to perversion!

    • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ David Cary Hart

      Scalia wrote the opinion in Employment Division v. Smith. There are no religious exemptions to otherwise valid laws. “My religion prohibits my paying taxes …” ADF has lost every round in every case — and they have been lawyers for many of these. They have yet to win so much as a motion and have even been rejected by the Supreme Court.

      If you cannot reconcile religion with your business then perhaps you shouldn’t be in business in the first place.

    • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

      Amen.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    It seems no end. America should stop forcing its people to do immoral works.

  • bowie1

    Do same sex couples want to hire someone who’s heart is not in it? I suppose she may have to go private and only go by word of mouth or go into speculative art and only produce works that reflect her own creative ideas. Not all artists work on commission so that may be a more necessary route to go – no commissioned work – period – at least from the general public.

    • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ David Cary Hart

      No they do not. She is free to post a sign that she disapproves of same-sex marriage (as long as that sign does not suggest that she will refuse service). Indeed, what this is really all about is the right to demonstrate disapproval. Segregation was propagated as Religious Freedom™ too. People should not have to shop around to find out who will take their money. No one should ever be forced to hear “we don’t serve your kind here.”

      Public accommodations have been a matter of public policy for more than 50 years. Everyone’s tax dollars support the roads that bring people to the business as well as the police and fire departments that protect the business. Therefore, everyone gets served.

      • bowie1

        I recall there was an article in which something similar was done where a marriage related poster on the wall was offensive to a lesbian couple and were not refused service, but cancelled their order anyway.

  • TheBottomline4This

    Aww, the ssm group keeps forcing others to comply when they don’t agree.
    It’s kind of a rape of those who don’t agree. A rape is against the person who doesn’t want to partake in what you want to force on them. it’s not much difference.
    (rape is carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a person)
    Those of us who don’t agree with your choice are not going to change our minds just because you force (rape) our choices.
    Grow up. Live your life and let those who disagree with you to live theirs, without threat from you. I think there may come a point when it will backfire on you. Not so much physically, but in other ways in your life. God is patient, but He is just also. Be careful what fights you pick.

    • Tangent002

      Did you even read the article? Smith has not been asked to produce a same-sex wedding custom site. This is a ‘preemptive’ law suit.

  • cadcoke5

    Some products require a creative heart to bring them into existance. It is in quite a different category than a mass-produced item that doesn’t require such a personal investement in the product. If a country wants to permit freedome of consious, then, it cannot at the same time, require people to submit their consious to things that require them to spit in the face of the God they worship.

    These pretend “anti-discrimination” laws are a very pure example of discrimination against artists who love God. They are clearly designed to put them out of business, and to supress their art.

  • Harry Oh!

    The elevation of perversion to the level of a fundamental value that forces people to comply or be punished will take on a new intensity if Cankles is elected. This is just the tip of the rainbow iceberg.

  • ComeOnPeople!

    America has hundreds of thousands of businesses and all those businesses were created by people not robots. People have strong beliefs, no beliefs and some are in-between. Therefore an example would be this… one walking into a Jewish deli and demanding a ham sandwich is either stupid or trying to force their beliefs that pigs are now made clean. When told they won’t serve that because its unclean they threaten to take them to court because they would not give them what they asked for and because they stated religious reasons. I know silly but it’s pretty much the same principle. In the past in this country when a person did not receive services because of what the business stood for that person would take their business elsewhere, they did not throw a tantrum or try to gain financially , they simply took their business elsewhere. America has produced entitled , immature and immoral people in the last 20 years. These so called tolerant ones won’t tolerate anyone who disagrees with them and instead of saying fine then I’ll take my business elsewhere, they throw themselves on the ground and demand ham at a business they knew full well would never serve them it.

    • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ David Cary Hart

      The ham sandwich is not on the Kosher deli’s menu. Ergo they have no obligation to produce one. Do try to understand the difference.

      • ComeOnPeople!

        It is a metaphor to prove a point. What point ? Just how ridicules it is to say that Christian businesses can separate who they are from the business they built upon who they are. We as Americans have enjoyed Christian businesses up until now. Now those who do not like what a business owner may believe wish to impose their beliefs upon them and remove their right to practice religion. PRACTICING religion is not hiding away in your home, it’s not throwing your beliefs out the window because now after all these years the courts makes a law that says you must cater to immorality , it’s not giving every man what he wants just because you are open for business. Freedom to PRACTICE religion in this country has always meant that no ruling party would infringe upon our right to do so. Just as with the ham sandwich example … a Christian does not serve up Homosexual marriage , just as detestable as ham is to a Jew … so to is the union of two of the same gender to many religions. Therefore to ask religious business owners to give you service in regard to homosexual marriage (A cake maker, a t-shirt maker, a florist, an artist…) is the same as asking a Jew to make you a ham sandwich in one of their deli’s. It is a silly metaphor but non the less a good one to help others see just how silly all of these law suites are.

    • This style ten and six

      No one can get a ham sandwich in a Jewish deli so everyone gets equal treatment. Why do people like you constantly raise this bogus point.

      • ComeOnPeople!

        Just as with the ham sandwich example … a Christian does not serve up Homosexual marriage , just as detestable as ham is to a Jew … so to is the union of two of the same gender to many religions. Therefore to ask religious business owners to give you service in regard to homosexual marriage (A cake maker, a t-shirt maker, a florist, an artist…) is the same as asking a Jew to make you a ham sandwich in one of their deli’s. It is a silly metaphor but non the less a good one to help others see just how silly all of these law suites are.

        • This style ten and six

          The true analogy would be to ask a business person who does not cater to weddings to provide that service. The business would have no obligation to do so.

          However, a business which caters weddings must provide that service to everyone. Once you allow exceptions where does it stop? No Irish, No mixed race, no Muslims?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Those who provide wedding services did so long before there was a corrupt law passed to legalize same sex unions.

          • This style ten and six

            I don’t see your point. They were in business before laws against mixed race marriages were annulled. Are you suggesting that they should still be able to deny service to a mixed race couple? (Of course there is only one human race)

            In fact no such law was passed. SCOTUS ruled that marriage was available to everyone under current law. You may think it corrupt but that is the law.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            If same sex marriages were recognized by law in the past then pray do tell me why they needed to fight for such rights within the past 10 to 5 years & only have them realized in a court within the past few years. Pray tell me why there were no law suits against wedding chapels , florists and cake decorators before who refused to participate. HMMMM think you may just be listening to the elites propaganda ran networks and not studying actual history.

          • This style ten and six

            Same sex marriage was not recognized in the US until 2015.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Tadahhhhh my point

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Public accommodation laws have nothing to do with whether gay marriage is legal or not.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Gay marriage is a perversion of the law being forced upon those who do not accept the perversions of our constitutions’ intent and meaning.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It’s forced upon you? Someone made you have a gay wedding?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            No someone force gay marriage onto the books contrary to the rule of law via the opinions of a few corrupt judges. Now anyone who had no problem holding to a standard of morality and spiritual belief in their businesses are being sued because they cannot change their moral and spiritual belief.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Public accommodation laws have nothing to do with gay marriage being legal.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Although I up voted you for your first and third paragraphs, your second one contains a slippery slope fallacy. Where “it stops” is where the law says it stops. We have defined our protected classes. National origin, race, and religion are all protected classes. But until someone passes a law saying otherwise, “you smell bad,” “you root for Green Bay,” and “Your name is Cletus” are all legal (if stupid) reasons to deny someone service.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Are you not familiar with the lunch counter sit-ins of the Civil Rights Movement?

      • Amos Moses

        then let them sit in front of the business with a sign …………….. right … no money in it for them ………

        • Ambulance Chaser

          What are you talking about?

      • ComeOnPeople!

        Civil rights? Yes. Being immoral and forcing that upon others is not a Civil right. Comparing women’s rights and those of color to homosexuality is not a valid comparison. I cannot chose to be a gender nor can I chose my color. Homosexuality in America and across the world has been shunned not against the person but against the act because civil societies believed it to be an immoral act.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Why are you moving the goalposts? You said

          “In the past in this country when a person did not receive services because of what the business stood for that person would take their business elsewhere, they did not throw a tantrum or try to gain financially , they simply took their business elsewhere.”

          And I proved that wrong.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            You tried to proved it wrong using civil rights which is in no way the same as what is happening today with gay marriage.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Again, moving the goalposts.

            Is it true or false that certain people who were denied service at restaurants opted to sit in place until they were served or forcibly removed, in protest? Simple question, yes or no. Doesn’t matter which people or why they were protesting.

            Just, did it happen?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            It is not wrong to refuse service to someone because of behavior. Just as a business owner can state ” No shoes, no shirt , NO SERVICE.” That business does not have to serve you if you refuse to were shoes because their stance is known on the matter and it is not against your race, gender or religion but merely against an action or act which they themselves deem intolerable. Should you choose to go barefoot in your home they could care less but their business is owned and operated by a person who believes that to go barefoot in there shop or restaurant is wrong and they will not serve you. This is not about not serving others based upon their RACE, GENDER or RELIGION but it is about an acts which some business owners deem immoral and do not wish to take part in and refuse service based upon those grounds.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            None of this answers my question.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Yup it sure do.

    • uninvitedguest

      When they went into business, they knew about public accommodation laws. No sympathy. This isnt 1950s Mississippi

      • ComeOnPeople!

        When they went into business there were no immoral laws stating they must become a part of another mans perversions .

        • uninvitedguest

          Nope. They were well aware of public accommodation laws as well as the civil rights act. They have no excuse for discriminating.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Civil rights were never about immoral acts . They were based upon race, gender or religion.

        • This style ten and six

          You can’t deny service to a person merely because you disagree with their life style. It may be perversion to you but it is quite normal for them. You can’t use religious biases to discriminate.

          What it come down to is whether the US is ruled by the Constitution or the bible.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            What it comes down to is we now have a corrupt government and court system which produces corrupt laws and a corrupt society. A society which thumbs it’s nose at righteous laws and gives a thumbs up to unrighteous laws will not continue to be free but will fall to tyranny .

          • This style ten and six

            Is upholding the constitution corrupt, is treating people equally corrupt?

          • ComeOnPeople!

            I see no equality in what is going on. I see perversions being pushed, propagated and accepted over those who refuse to accept a perverted form of the constitution. What has been understood since enactment is now being twisted to mean something totally contrary to it’s meaning.

          • This style ten and six

            Well I live in Canada where same sex marriage has been legal for over eleven years. We no longer think much about it. Except for the few fundamentalist homophobes of course.

            You guys will have to sort out your own problems.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            So what you are saying is that at first you Canadians fought it but then you became desensitized to it and gave up fighting for morals and freedom to believe what you choose to believe. You bowed down under the pressure to another system rather them stand up for what is right. Years and years of the whole of societies saying it was an immoral practice now replaced in just 11 years in Canada. Am I suppose to applaud your compliance to immorality? Sorry some cannot drop their long held beliefs so easily and conform to immoral laws so easily.

          • This style ten and six

            Frankly your opinion is of no interest to me. I, in common with the majority of Canadians, do not consider homosexuality to be immoral. It is just another sexuality. Same sex marriage is here to stay.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Obviously my opinion is of interest to you or you would not be posting . Also you cannot speak for the beliefs of other Canadians. I was born in Edmonton Alberta and so you have one of your so called majority which does not believe as you do. As to same sex marriage is here to stay … only until the Creator says enough is enough and purges this world… (that includes Canada) of any and everything that does not acknowledge the Creator and HIS design.

          • This style ten and six

            You folk live in a dream world.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Nope I actually am not dumbed down to the point of only believing the fake reality the media is feeding you.

          • This style ten and six

            You can understand my skepticism as you folk have been saying the same kind of thing for 2000 years. It hasn’t happened yet and I see no reason why it ever will.

            It will be our own efforts which destroy us as we continue to over populate the globe and drive up the global temperature.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Yup a propaganda puppet bought up believing just want they feed you. Enjoy because Yahweh has a time frame that no man knows yet HIS word is true.

          • This style ten and six

            You seem to have been taken in.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Yes I have… Taken in by another system , it’s called TRUTH. I study and test everything. I don’t believe anything fed to me via media or religion. And I refuse to sit behind a movie screen to be indoctrinated by evil men. I audit my life and test everything VIA the historical records and the Spirit of Yahweh. I study to show myself approved unto GOD. WHY? Because fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Believe what you are being fed if you wish. I chose to open my eyes and saw that it’s all a bunch of rotten meat wrapped up in a burrito shell. Peel away the shell of media and religion and you see what you have actually been eating. I thank my CREATOR for sending back the HOLY GHOST which leads and guides those who refuse lies … into ALL TRUTH.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Woot woot a media parrot. Sorry no the scriptures say that the seasons will remain until HIS return. So you can rest assured you will continue to enjoy Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall. As to HIS return HE has a set date that no man knows and for some of us who have family who live like devils, we are grateful that day has not yet happened.

          • This style ten and six

            Climate change is real, the bible is not.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Yep cause the weather keeps right on trucking season to season. Right now the climate changed to fall. I so love fall ! It comes every year and soon winter will follow oh yeah and then Spring and yes that hot old summer. ahaha

          • This style ten and six

            A cause for levity with you but I have children and grandchildren who will have to deal with it. You do know that 2016 is the warmest year on record.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Yup and we have had coldest winters on record also. Records have been broken often in our history since keeping record and they have also been the coolest summer ever or the warmest winter ever. It’s called life not global warming. Global warming was created to steal millions of dollars of taxes and other funds. It’s a crock and they have changed their pitch over and over when their lies didn’t match the weather.

          • ComeOnPeople!

            Awe yes and when one can dream … the sky is the limit but when one only is bound by media lies, traditions and doctrines of men and everything carnal , they forget how to dream and simple play follow the masses and do as you are told.

  • Michael C

    Non-discrimination laws are not new. I find it shocking how little some people seem to understand them.

    Lorie Smith would not permitted to refuse service to an interfaith couple even if her personally held religious beliefs are in opposition to interfaith relationships.

    Discrimination on the basis of religion has been illegal in all of the United States for over half a century.

    Lorie Smith would not permitted to refuse service to an interracial couple even if her personally held religious beliefs are in opposition to interracial relationships.

    Discrimination on the basis of race has been illegal in all of the United States for over half a century.

    Lorie Smith would not permitted to refuse service to a same-sex couple even if her personally held religious beliefs were in opposition to same-sex relationships.

    In Colorado, discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation has been prohibited since 2008.

  • Tangent002

    I think this ‘preemptive law suit’ is just a way for her to get free advertisement for her business. Web design is highly competitive.

    After visiting her site, it doesn’t look like custom wedding sites comprise a significant portion of her business in the first place. I see no examples in her portfolio.

    I’m not certain, but I don’t think the court can recognize any standing unless she has been somehow damaged by the execution of the law.

  • TheAcornDropped

    Can an atheist artist legally decline to make a work of art for a Christian customer stating “God created the world in 6 literal days”?

    Can a gay t-shirt designer legally decline to make a t-shirt for a Christian customer stating “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”?

    Can a Muslim sign-maker legally decline to make a sign for a Christian customer stating “Salvation is only through God’s Son, Jesus Christ”?

    Can a cross-dressing artist legally refuse to make a work of art for a Christian customer stating “God made you male or female, and no amount of makeup and surgery will change that”?

    I would say “yes” to all of the above. It’s illegal to refuse to serve a Christian based on their religion, but it’s not illegal to decline to do work which is against one’s beliefs.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      1. Although it’s a demonstrably incorrect statement, it’s one that is inextricably tied to the customer’s Christian beliefs, so most likely not. Although a liberal judge might be persuaded that “people who don’t understand geology” are not a protected class, and therfore refusing to make the cake doesn’t violate any laws, I doubt that would fly. It’s clearly a religious message so I’m going to say that the baker can’t refuse.

      2. The baker can refuse this. This isn’t simply a matter of being a Christian at this point, it’s making a policy statement.

      3. Doubtful. This is making a simple, fundamental statement about what it is to be a Christian. Refusing would probably be seen as refusing to serve someone based on their religion.

      4. Unquestionably. This is a policy statement, pure and simple. Adding “God” to it as a thin veneer of religiosity doesn’t suddenly turn it into a statement about being a Christian.

  • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

    Since the law says it is unlawful to deny service “to an individual” it arguably says nothing about an obligation to provide the exact service that every individual requests. No, I don’t make gay wedding cakes, I make wedding cakes. I will make you an appropriate wedding cake when you marry a woman, sir. I don’t make homoprobono sites. I have no skills in misrepresenting the truth about this matter, and I cannot sell you a service I do not offer. I will gladly make you a site with a message that you have no interest in: provided you pay I will make a pro-man-woman-marriage site for you, you filthy pervert, and I will not discriminate against you, and by the way, you should know that you’re going to hell.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      There is no such thing as a “gay wedding cake.” Only wedding cakes. And if you make them, you make them for everyone.

      • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

        If you go to a wedding and it’s not gay, then something is seriously wrong. A serious damper on the gaiety of a wedding is looming disaster.

  • Kevin Quillen

    maybe Christians should run their business like Sam’s club. To make a purchase you must be a member. You buy a membership for a few bucks which will be deducted from your purchase price and sent to a group that is fighting queer marriage. Let them fund their own demise.

    • Bob Johnson

      And then when the people “fighting the good fight” lose in court. The money will go directly to the FFRF.

      • Bob Johnson

        P.S. If the customer gets their money back with the first purchase, where is the revenue generated for fighting queer marriage. Seems like this is just a corporate sponsorship of a political issue – which is perfectly fine.

  • sandraleesmith46

    Why is it homosexuals, in all their flavors, can refuse Godly messages they don’t like, in that case??? This is nothing but a concerted attack against people of faith!