https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/12/3 ... s-religionThe Supreme Court will once again turn its attention to LGBTQ rights and religion on Monday when it hears a case brought by a web designer who, for religious reasons, does not want to design wedding websites for same-sex couples.
In 303 Creative v. Elenis, designer Lorie Smith argues that a Colorado nondiscrimination law violates her free speech rights by preventing her from being upfront about her religious beliefs and forcing her to create websites that imply support for gay marriage.
“Colorado is censoring and compelling my speech,” she recently told The Associated Press. “Forcing me to communicate, celebrate and create for messages that go against my deeply held beliefs.”
For anyone who still harboured a hope that the Church had changed, this case shows they are still actively supporting discrimination against LGBQT.Smith and her supporters argue that a win for Colorado officials would allow policies like the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to trump other important protections, harming people of faith in the process. Business owners who don’t support same-sex marriage would have to choose between living out their beliefs and thriving in their careers, claims a brief from a group of religious organizations, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
A link to the briefing document mentioned above:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... Saints.pdf
The problem, as I see it, is that Lorie Smith has offered to provide a service to the general public, and it is within that sphere that discrimination has to be outlawed. If she is allowed to discriminate based on religious beliefs then America has not learned from the "Whites Only" era where discrimination based upon belief can now be seen to be horrific racism. Lorie Smith should addd a headline to her website saying "Straights Only" so as not to mislead the general public about the service she is offering. I mean, if she believes in being honest that is...Lorie Smith occupies, or should occupy, a special place in our public discourse—a genuine religious dissident. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 226 (1972) (“Even their idiosyncratic separateness exem- plifies the diversity we profess to admire and encourage.”). With malice toward no one, she is bravely defying strong popular opinion to remain true to her con- science. In that, she joins an honorable tradition of religious dissent—a tradition stretching back to the Greek tragedy of Antigone. That same tradition includes a biblical account of three men who would not bow to the king’s image. See Daniel 3:18 (KJV). Colorado does not threaten to hurl Smith into a “burning fiery furnace.” Id. But the State does seek to compel her and her business to produce messages that violate her conscience and to censor her religious speech. And that the Constitution forbids.
From the website designers own website:
https://303creative.com/contact/to my clients
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 you know, I try to treat everyone with respect and I wish they would do the same. Please contact me if you have concerns.
...said the person, with no hint of irony, who wants to discriminate against couples who believe in same sex marriages.
It will be interesting to see where this case ends up. But make no mistake, the Church is still actively supporting Prop 8 type initiatives, but is doing with less noise to avoid attracting unwanted attention.
