The lawsuit had two issues: could she decline to make websites for gay marriages, and could she state that intent on her website. Both of those would violate the CO law. (We know what her website would say, and the parties stipulated to what the statement was - the website was built, she just hadn't made it open to the public yet).
The lawsuit had two issues: could she decline to make websites for gay marriages, and could she state that intent on her website. Both of those would violate the CO law. (We know what her website would say, and the parties stipulated to what the statement was - the website was built, she just hadn't made it open to the public yet).
Could she say on her website "gays need not apply" no, that would violate the law. Saying "all my designs will express my Christian view of marriage" I don't see how. How does that differ from "all my jewelry is designed to express my Christian belief?" (or for that matter, Hindu belief) .
If Colorado laws prevent people from designing jewelry with Christian themes, perhaps that part should have been struck down. But not the active discrimination part, the "refuse to serve gays" type.
The lawsuit had two issues: could she decline to make websites for gay marriages, and could she state that intent on her website. Both of those would violate the CO law. (We know what her website would say, and the parties stipulated to what the statement was - the website was built, she just hadn't made it open to the public yet).
Could she say on her website "gays need not apply" no, that would violate the law. Saying "all my designs will express my Christian view of marriage" I don't see how. How does that differ from "all my jewelry is designed to express my Christian belief?" (or for that matter, Hindu belief) .
If Colorado laws prevent people from designing jewelry with Christian themes, perhaps that part should have been struck down. But not the active discrimination part, the "refuse to serve gays" type.