Justice Gorsuch Leaves CO Solicitor General
Stammering During Oral Arguments on Religious Liberty

It’s always a fight to keep our God-given rights!

Colorado is now run by evil people.

Homosexual Roberts will side with the Left

While the SC is engaged in determining the constitutionality of the law the government council are busy promoting the gay agenda. Quiz question of the day. Who is doing their actual job and who is violating this web designer’s rights by applying their woke agenda on others?

Do the websites feature a penis - a detail never reported by the media in the case of the cake maker? And wasn't it decided in that case that a creator (i.e., cake designer or web designer) cannot be forced to create something with which he disagrees? Big difference from refusing to sell an in-stock item because you don't agree with a customer's morals.

#1, that's because when someone self-identifies as one who wants to remove them, they continue to waste air. A couple centuries ago that wasn't the case.

There are plenty of bakers and web designers who would acceot their business And, surely there must be LBXYZ businesses the complainants could utilize for gay community support. This is clearly a case for establishing anti-Religious precedent and is unconstitutional government harassment. The CO Governor and Attorney General should be held liable for an attempt to deny Constitutional rights.Else it will continue to occur.

The attorney representing 303 Creative was excellent throughout the oral arguments. It was interesting that the justices asked her questions regarding whether the speech at issue had to be based on religious beliefs? Her answer was "No" (with addition precise, focused elaboration), This is refreshing because too many of the SC's free speech opinions suggest or imply that religious beliefs are entitled to more protection than other honest beliefs not based on religion. I reject any such distinction because religious individuals should not enjoy MORE FREE SPEECH than non-religious individuals. This case was about authorship of wedding announcements that are customized for each customer. The Plaintiff objected to being forced (by a Colorado statute) to write wedding announcements whereby the readers may conclude that the author was OK with same sex marriages. Her objection had nothing to do with anything other than same sex marriages.

Anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Period. If that is so abhorrent to the community, then consumers will vote with their wallets and feet and go elsewhere. The "offending" business gets punished by lost business if its behavior is so egregious..

Back at the turn of the century (gah, I didn't like the sound of that), I was approached by a guy who had purchased a three story building down in the warehouse section of Phx. He had done some major remodels to turn what once was the Az. Dept. of Agriculture into a One Stop Porno shop without the benefit of any permits. It was a great set-up for truckers. First floor was dirty books and toys along with "private' tv arcade, a bank of p.o boxes, a laundromat and restrooms. Second floor was a theater for straights and one for gays, the counting offices and surveillance and storage. Third floor was a lingerie bar with pool tables and near nekkid women. The goal was to get a 50 year old building up to code and within life safety requirements for a multi-use structure. My regular MP&E engineers would not even consider giving me a proposal for services. I was always up front with anybody regarding what this project would entail. We finally got the permits, but they made sure the owner paid dearly for improvements. I guess the whole thing boils down to the fact that people can't make you do what you would rather not do...you end up charging the client out the wazoo, getting an inferior result, or both.