4 ms·

The case wasn't about the editorial content of the cake but rather the sexuality of the imagined customer.

• Natsu 3y ago
  That's quite different from what the PDF says: > Before the district court, Ms. Smith and the State stipulated to a number of facts: Ms. Smith is “willing to work with all people regard- less of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gen- der” and “will gladly create custom graphics and websites” for clients of any sexual orientation; she will not produce content that “contra- dicts biblical truth” regardless of who orders it; Ms. Smith’s belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman is a sincerely held conviction; Ms. Smith provides design services that are “expres- sive” and her “original, customized” creations “contribut[e] to the over- all message” her business conveys “through the websites” it creates; the wedding websites she plans to create “will be expressive in nature,” will be “customized and tailored” through close collaboration with in- dividual couples, and will “express Ms. Smith’s and 303 Creative’s message celebrating and promoting” her view of marriage; viewers of Ms. Smith’s websites “will know that the websites are her original art- work;” and “[t]here are numerous companies in the State of Colorado and across the nation that offer custom website design services.” The only opposition here is to selling a website with a message she opposes, i.e. she'd be happy to sell a website celebrating a straight marriage to a gay person, but not happy to sell a website celebrating a gay marriage to anyone. Now you can say that she's lying, but nothing in this ruling prevents them from suing her if it was really about the customer and not the message.