by oldedude on July 1, 2023 7:55 pm
"The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the owner of a wedding website in Colorado can refuse to provide service to LGBTQ couples because it violates her religious beliefs.
But an alleged request cited in the case appears to be made up.
The website owner, Lorie Smith, said she got a request from a gay couple — "Stewart and Mike" — but The New Republic tracked down Stewart, who says he never asked her to make him a website.
Stewart is married to a woman, The New Republic reported.
First, the Title of the decision is: 303 CREATIVE LLC, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. AUBREY ELENIS, ET AL.
Aubrey Elenis is a prominent Colorado attorney, an active member of the community, and a passionate defender of civil rights1. She was appointed Director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division in June 20161. Elenis is also a member of Gordon & Rees's employment practice group, where she counsels and defends clients against claims of employment discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, harassment, breach of contract, and other labor and employment disputes2. She is an attorney registered with Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel of the Colorado Supreme Court
The Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) is a Division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA). CCRD is charged with enforcement of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA).
Nothing you presumed, was true according to the decision. The decision is based clearly on the constitutionality of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination law and regulations according to the CADA Guidelines.
"But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong," Gorsuch continued.
"But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Because Colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is reversed," he concluded.
The high court's majority stated that "under Colorado’s logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic — no matter the message — if the topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected trait."
"Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty," the opinion states.
by oldedude on July 1, 2023 7:57 pm
Sorry, wrong thread. Disregard and please go the correct thread.