Not a Gay Wedding Vendor? Hold Your Breath for a Supreme Court Ruling

yurakrasil /

In the past, wedding vendors had the ability to decide who they wanted to have as customers. Then, those who were having LGBT weddings found that some vendors had “religious objections” to providing a wedding cake for a gay wedding, selling a dress for a lesbian wedding, and so on.

Some states have actually created anti-discrimination acts, which prevent vendors from discriminating against LGBT customers.

Forget about what a person’s religion tells them is right – just do it.

The reality is, should anyone WANT to do business with a vendor that doesn’t support them? Think about it. Would you REALLY want to have a bakery bake you a cake if they were morally against who you are as a person? Of course not.

However, the liberal agenda is all about making someone do what they don’t want to do.

And this time, it’s headed to the Supreme Court for a ruling – and it all steps from a web design firm in Colorado not wanting to design and host a website for LGBT couples.

Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act places 303 Creative at odds with this law.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, which is 303 Creative v. Elenis.

Lorie Smith, the owner of 303 Creative, has stated that she’s not refusing to serve LGBT customers. Instead, she “cannot create websites that promote messages contrary to her faith, such as messages that condone violence or promote sexual immorality, abortion, or same-sex marriage.”

In the past, the Supreme Court has limited the government from essentially forcing a private business to publish an objectionable message. That means that a book publisher can’t be forced to print a book about a particular cause, or a t-shirt printer cannot be forced to make t-shirts that support or oppose a policy.

Smith believes that the same logic should be applied to her case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit has already ruled that Colorado could legally require Smith to require her to design and host sites for gay weddings. As reported by Reason, it would also “prohibit her from putting a message on her website stating that her religious beliefs prevent her from supporting gay marriage with her services.”

It seems that most of the issues of forcing vendors to become gay and LGBT-friendly vendors come from Colorado.

A previously reviewed case was Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. This took place in 2018 when a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

Rather than ruling that the bakery could be “compelled” to bake the cake, the Supreme Court instead ruled that the law hadn’t been neutrally applied because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed “clear and impermissible hostility to the religious views of the Lakewood bakery.

At this point, the Supreme Court will be ruling in regard to whether a public-accommodation law that would compel a vendor to speak or stay silent “violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”

Again, this whole thing seems a bit crazy. Whoever wants 303 Creative to create the website seems to be taking this a bit far. There have to be other web designers in Colorado that would be more than happy to accommodate the LGBT request…right?