[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by oneclickplus

Exactly!! What if you ran a bakery (open to the public) that specializes in cupcakes ... or donuts and a prospective customer comes in asking for a birthday cake. Your normal business reply would be "we don't make cakes - try another baker". And no one would question that. Just because you are a baker and run a baking business and have the skills to bake a cake does not obligate you to bake a cake just because you are "open to the public".

Well, we have a web designer that bakes websites with moral themes. She does not bake gay websites, porn websites, websites depicting violence or websites that depict other objectionable material (as defined by HER religion). And, as far as I'm concerned, her religion should not be an issue. It's just her choice for any reason at all that she doesn't bake gay wedding websites.

No one asks Dunkin' Donuts to uphold the fact that their product line does not include cakes by insisting that they evidence their religious beliefs that cakes are objectionable. It's just their business decision. And I totally agree with the SC that her business decision stands.

Except her argument wasn't that she was being asked to make a cake. Her argument was that she wanted to create websites for weddings but the Colorado law said that if she wanted to run a public business creating websites for weddings then she could not discriminate against "those people" and would have to create a website for their wedding too. Even if the website looked exactly like her mock-up (she wasn't/isn't in that business yet) she objected so using it for a wedding for "those people."

If she only wanted to create websites for her friend's weddings or perhaps weddings in her church that would be one thing. She wanted to create wedding websites for everyone except "those people" and that is illegal discrimination.

Some of the arguments in the dissent are worth reading.