Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Sidney R. Finkel's avatar

It was surprising to me, and I believe most people to learn that 303 was a Freedom of Speech 1st A case. Before looking at it I assumed it was a 1st A free exercise case. The idea that non-discrimination law was coercive speech is just so ridiculous that only a Supreme Court with animus towards the gay community/desire to promote a Christian state would rule that way. But the other situations cited in this post will not be decided on free speech, but on free exercise. And the pro discrimination forces will win. That is the future this Court is charting, free exercise rules, the establishment clause, well it is being repealed by this Court, isn't it.

Expand full comment
Kenneth T's avatar

Terrific article and very well written. I would also add that a legal scholar at Columbia discovered, via the Wayback Machine website, that Smith had a wedding design for a heterosexual couple posted on her company website in 2015 and then took it down before the case was filed. As I understand it, the key element of this case was that Colorado’s laws had silenced her into not creating any type of wedding designs b/c this would open the door for her having to refuse requests from prospective same sex couples.

If that is the case, why was this wedding design featured as part of her portfolio on her site? When ProPublica called Waggoner out on this she said it was pro bono work Lori did for her cousin. That’s irrelevant. What’s relevant is that any reasonable person would see this wedding design on her site and assume that is one of the design services she offers.

There was a terrific Washington Post article a while back that detailed the various cases they believed to be manufactured by the ADF. It’s clear to me that they like to bend and twist the truth to push their ideological agenda. They are filing cases at a breakneck speed, no matter how trivial and petty. They have an axe to grind, for sure.m

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts