Post: Supreme Court sides with web designer who won’t do

Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage

Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo pressed House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on Sunday about the lack of headway in House Republicans’
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 29, 2024 9:23 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (1 comments) [23 views]

Former GOP congressman David Jolley: even among Republicans puppies have a high favorability rating
Pets by Curt_Anderson     April 29, 2024 9:38 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [3 views]

"Let me start off with two words:" I support Biden. I support Biden.
Politics by HatetheSwamp     April 29, 2024 7:36 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [26 views]

Another dire 2024 poll for Joe Biden: Trump widens his lead over the President to 6% with just six months left to Election Day
Politics by HatetheSwamp     April 29, 2024 3:49 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [18 views]

Anonymous comments regarding the Presidential Candidate Selector
President by Curt_Anderson     March 19, 2024 10:10 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (26 comments) [1319 views]

The silent Trump voter
Politics by HatetheSwamp     April 28, 2024 7:28 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (3 comments) [106 views]

Republicans: Do you know where your political donations are?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 24, 2024 6:12 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (13 comments) [456 views]

James Comer hopes for divine intervention to save him from embarrassing impeachment fiasco.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 24, 2024 7:05 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [144 views]

pb's Legal Goobers #s 2 & 3: The NY v Trump case is collapsing
Law by HatetheSwamp     April 26, 2024 3:43 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (6 comments) [56 views]

The Oval Office Oaf calls for "Four more years. Pause."
Entertainment by HatetheSwamp     April 24, 2024 2:56 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (6 comments) [112 views]

Love selectors, pages, etc.

Supreme Court sides with web designer who won’t do wedding websites for gays (and who else?)

By Curt_Anderson
June 30, 2023 9:55 pm
Category: Love

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

Today's ruling is being called an attack on LGBTQ rights. But doesn't today's ruling go beyond that? What about a newspaper publisher whose conscience is sincerely troubled by interracial or inter-religion marriage? Could they refuse to print certain "controversial" wedding announcements? Bigots of every stripe will want to cite this case as a precedent to practice their prejudices.

(SCOTUSblog)The court handed a major victory to business owners who oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons on Friday. A six-justice majority agreed that Colorado cannot enforce a state anti-discrimination law against a Christian website designer who does not want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples because doing so would violate her First Amendment right to free speech.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority, in a decision joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. He explained that Colorado cannot “force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance.” And he indicated that the court’s decision would provide similar protection to other business owners whose services involve speech, such as artists, speechwriters, and movie directors.

But in her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor – in an opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – called the decision “a sad day in the American constitutional law and in the lives of LGBTQ people.”

Cited and related links:

scotusblog.com

Comments Start Below

The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.

Comments on "Supreme Court sides with web designer who won’t do wedding websites for gays (and who else?)":

by HatetheSwamp on July 1, 2023 3:47 am

I dunno, Curt.

From a lengthy tweet by that gay Guy Curt never heard of, on the LGB Supreme Court decision:

"...I applaud the Court. I encourage people who are freaking out over today’s decision to READ IT…

...…experience tells me these views will displease factions of the Left & Right. So be it. Not only do I believe the newly-calibrated mix of precedent is right on the law & good for society — polling shows most Americans support this blend of outcomes, despite all the shouting.

…I believe nearly all Americans endorse ‘more perfect union’ striving. In my (general, broad strokes, not great for Twitter) view, that goal is furthered by expanding the acceptance & rights of LGBT people without forcibly crushing opposing views...

…Much has happened since. Today, SCOTUS struck a blow for the First Amendment rights of said dissenters. Years prior, it established SSM as a right (& I got married!), and the conservative justice who authored today’s ruling expanded LGBT protections in another case (Bostock)…"

Watch the Megyn Kelly video.

The Court exposed the Colorado law as the next thing to Naziism.

Why the woke hate freedom, especially free speech, so much baffles yet amuses me...us.

But, I think that's what it's coming down to. We love freedom, and supporters of the woke trans political agenda and trans ideology know that if freedom rings, we will win.
selectsmart.com
View Video

by oldedude on July 1, 2023 6:43 am
This is one of the reasons I moved. The state lost Billions of dollars every time they take the same ol' thing to SCOTUS, doing the same thing expecting different results. I think this is the "third?" maybe fourth time this issue has been taken to SCOTUS. Someone in denver needs to buy a clue.

It's a law in CO (and everywhere else that I can think of in the US), that a bar owner has a "right" to serve whoever they want. Businesses (esp. stores and restaurants) can limit the "customers" coming into the store. We see this in "restroom only accessible to paying customers" or limiting the number of students because the family business is losing too much money to shoplifters.

The flip side of this is that many stores "people friendly" signs with a rainbow flags all over the state. This is actually a draw for them. For folks that don't care either way will still go in, and many others will go in just for that. Who do they lose? A couple of folks here and there. So it's worth their energy to publicize it.

If a web designer told me they weren't going to do a site for me because I'm a white male veteran, I wouldn't take them to court. I start horrible reviews of their service, etc.

Because CO is (generally) the one pushing this, it seems to me it's either the agenda of those choosing to pick these companies or the state's too stupid to NOT to waste the money anymore.

by Curt_Anderson on July 1, 2023 9:13 am
“It's a law in CO (and everywhere else that I can think of in the US), that a bar owner has a "right" to serve whoever they want. Businesses (esp. stores and restaurants) can limit the "customers" coming into the store.”. —OD

That cannot be true in the broad sense. Sure, a tavern owner can refuse to serve drinks to an already inebriated person. But the tavern cannot have a policy of refusing service to African-Americans. Likewise airlines can keep particular individuals who became rowdy on a fight off of their airplanes. But it cannot exclude a demographic of people from flying.

by Indy! on July 1, 2023 9:45 am

Comical how the people who most often separate people into class and color cannot seem to grasp the laws based on separating people into class and color.

by Ponderer on July 1, 2023 1:44 pm

Curt and Indy!, 👍

by oldedude on July 1, 2023 8:07 pm
"The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the owner of a wedding website in Colorado can refuse to provide service to LGBTQ couples because it violates her religious beliefs.

But an alleged request cited in the case appears to be made up.

The website owner, Lorie Smith, said she got a request from a gay couple — "Stewart and Mike" — but The New Republic tracked down Stewart, who says he never asked her to make him a website.

Stewart is married to a woman, The New Republic reported.

First, the Title of the decision is: 303 CREATIVE LLC, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. AUBREY ELENIS, ET AL.

Aubrey Elenis is a prominent Colorado attorney, an active member of the community, and a passionate defender of civil rights1. She was appointed Director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division in June 20161. Elenis is also a member of Gordon & Rees's employment practice group, where she counsels and defends clients against claims of employment discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, harassment, breach of contract, and other labor and employment disputes2. She is an attorney registered with Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel of the Colorado Supreme Court

The Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) is a Division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA). CCRD is charged with enforcement of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA).

Nothing you presumed, was true according to the decision. The decision is based clearly on the constitutionality of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination law and regulations according to the CADA Guidelines and the business owner receiving clarification from CADA's Lawyer (Elenis).

"But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong," Gorsuch continued.

"But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Because Colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is reversed," he concluded.

The high court's majority stated that "under Colorado’s logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic — no matter the message — if the topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected trait."

"Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty," the opinion states.

While Ms. Smith has laid the groundwork for her new venture, she has yet to carry out her plans. She worries that, if she does so, Colorado will force her to express views with which she disagrees. Ms. Smith provides her website
and graphic services to customers regardless of their race, creed, sex, or sexual orientation. Id., at 184a. But she has never created expressions that contradict her own views for anyone—whether that means generating works that encourage violence, demean another person, or defy her religious beliefs by, say, promoting atheism. See ibid.; see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 19–20

ccrd.colorado.gov
foxnews.com

by Indy! on July 1, 2023 9:04 pm

As we found with the Voter Act, you guys don't want anything to do with tolerance, OD. Coercion is not the perfect answer, but it's better than allowing blatant discrimination and bigotry. And if you believe the Clowns have some higher principle or understanding of the law - you need look no further than the backasswards Clown ruling sourced below. If some bigot can decide she doesn't want her business serving the LGBT crowd - then certainly a business can also decide they don't want to do business with an apartheid state.

aclu.org

by oldedude on July 2, 2023 4:57 am
Coercion has zero to do with this. Coercion* and compelling are two very different issues. If I agree with this ruling or not is immaterial. I'm using the case and SCOTUS decision as the basis.

"The state" in this case steadfastly refused to change their "ruling" on the law. Remember, this just didn't pop up to SCOTUS.

In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 10th Circuit on the free speech issue, holding that under the compelled speech doctrine, the designer's owner, Lorie Smith, had a First Amendment free speech right to refuse to design wedding websites for same-sex couples.

The federal circuit court dismissed the 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech, and freedom of religion in this case. SCOTUS agreed there was evidence that Ms. Smith provides her website and graphic services to customers regardless of their race, creed, sex, or sexual orientation. Id., at 184a. But she has never created expressions that contradict her own views for anyone—whether that means generating works that encourage violence, demean another person, or defy her religious beliefs by, say, promoting atheism. See ibid.; see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 19–20

It's not strange SCOTUS would think different than ACLU. ACLU's 10 biggest donors are through sheeple causes. #1 is from "Act Blue," #3 is Planned Parenthood, and #9 is through the DNCC. They're doing exactly what their paid to do.

* A person is guilty of criminal coercion if, with purpose to unlawfully restrict another's freedom of action to his or her detriment, he or she threatens to:

(1) Commit any criminal offense; or
(2) Accuse anyone of a criminal offense; or

(3) Take or withhold action as an official, or cause an official to take or withhold action.

(b) Criminal coercion is classified as a misdemeanor.

So SCOTUS ruled that compelling speech (esp to an artist) compares to censorship by the state.
mtsu.edu
law.cornell.edu
opensecrets.org

by oldedude on July 2, 2023 4:57 am
Coercion has zero to do with this. Coercion* and compelling are two very different issues. If I agree with this ruling or not is immaterial. I'm using the case and SCOTUS decision as the basis.

"The state" in this case steadfastly refused to change their "ruling" on the law. Remember, this just didn't pop up to SCOTUS.

In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 10th Circuit on the free speech issue, holding that under the compelled speech doctrine, the designer's owner, Lorie Smith, had a First Amendment free speech right to refuse to design wedding websites for same-sex couples.

The federal circuit court dismissed the 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech, and freedom of religion in this case. SCOTUS agreed there was evidence that Ms. Smith provides her website and graphic services to customers regardless of their race, creed, sex, or sexual orientation. Id., at 184a. But she has never created expressions that contradict her own views for anyone—whether that means generating works that encourage violence, demean another person, or defy her religious beliefs by, say, promoting atheism. See ibid.; see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 19–20

It's not strange SCOTUS would think different than ACLU. ACLU's 10 biggest donors are through sheeple causes. #1 is from "Act Blue," #3 is Planned Parenthood, and #9 is through the DNCC. They're doing exactly what their paid to do.

* A person is guilty of criminal coercion if, with purpose to unlawfully restrict another's freedom of action to his or her detriment, he or she threatens to:

(1) Commit any criminal offense; or
(2) Accuse anyone of a criminal offense; or

(3) Take or withhold action as an official, or cause an official to take or withhold action.

(b) Criminal coercion is classified as a misdemeanor.

So SCOTUS ruled that compelling speech (esp to an artist) compares to censorship by the state.
mtsu.edu
law.cornell.edu
opensecrets.org

by HatetheSwamp on July 2, 2023 7:58 am

As we found with the Voter Act...

Are you referring to the Doddering Old Fart's "Jim Eagle" thing?

If Clouseau wanted to, he and Nancy and Chuck You could have fashioned legislation that would have lored a handful of GOPs to their side so the Former Trucker could have bragged on a bipartisan Election Act. He could have gotten tons.

Instead, he chose to get nuthin so he could gain an effin Talking Point...

...the old fool.

by Donna on July 2, 2023 8:01 am

The incident in question about "Stewart and Mike" requesting web design for a gay wedding website was completely made up, but the SC ruled on it anyhow. There was no "Stewart and Mike" who requested such a service from Ms. Smith.
I've never heard of anything like this happening. WTF? Ponderer brought this up on another topic thread.

See the article below.

rsn.org

by HatetheSwamp on July 2, 2023 8:44 am

Another progressive conspiracy theory. I don't believe a word of it.

Why can't you even cite a reliable source?

Show that article from, say, THE HILL?, I'll believe. But, from THE NEW REPUBLIC? Bahahahahahahahahahaha.

by Donna on July 2, 2023 9:20 am

It isn't fake news. Most of the US media are asleep at the wheel, and not only regarding this "case".

by Indy! on July 2, 2023 12:24 pm
Do you read your own words before hitting the POST button, OD?

"But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. "

Straight from the decision you posted as support for your position. So I guess now you've changed your mind and agree the Clown's decision is total bullshit like the rest of us (except pb).

by Indy! on July 2, 2023 12:27 pm

BTW, the answer to these kind of rulings are to boycott the businesses in question. See how well they do if their positions are made public and people understand they were involved in Clown decisions that restricted the rights of American citizens. They don't want to serve everybody? Make it so they don't serve anybody except the guy in the drive thru who wants fries with his Big Mac.

by Ponderer on July 2, 2023 1:02 pm

What I can't wait to see is all the businesses with signs and banners saying "LGBTQ+ AND EVERYONE WELCOME!" when no MAGA Republican owned businesses will even have the balls to put up a "NO LGBTQ+ ALLOWED" sign.

by oldedude on July 2, 2023 1:30 pm
"But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. "

Straight from the decision you posted as support for your position. So I guess now you've changed your mind and agree the Clown's decision is total bullshit like the rest of us (except pb).

The state was using coercion in this case. I agree with them on what they said. You're trying to turn it into something it isn't. The state wouldn't budge on demanding she violate her religious freedom and her right to free speech using coercion.

Suck it up buttercup.

by Indy! on July 2, 2023 3:28 pm

You need to reread my original post, Queenie.

by oldedude on July 2, 2023 4:56 pm
You mean #7 that I completely forgot about? That one? I still didn't re-read it.

by Donna on July 2, 2023 8:39 pm

Seems to me that Lorie Smith committed fraud and that Stewart and possibly Mike have grounds for a lawsuit.

by HatetheSwamp on July 3, 2023 4:21 am

It isn't fake news. Most of the US media are asleep at the wheel, and not only regarding this "case".

These are the words of conspiracy theorists. To even imagine, in the seven years that led up to the Supreme Court decision, no skilled attorney defending the Colorado law looked into this...is...effin...

...INSANE.

Again. From a retweet by that gay Guy Curt never heard of:

"This is the dumbest controversy imaginable.

1) The case in question was a pre-enforcement action so the referenced request wasn’t really necessary for the case.

2) Both sides (including Colorado) stipulated to the facts to the District Court. The SCOTUS opinion assumes those stipulations.

3) They don’t actually know that the guy they are talking to in these articles is the person that submitted the request via the website (after the complaint had already been filed and gotten media attention)"

oh, and Elvis is still living. I know. He lives in the apartment across the hall from us. Baha baha baha!

by oldedude on July 3, 2023 5:59 am
Lead- Haven't you posted this twice, maybe more?

Anyway, Donna- First there is no "Stewart and Mike" known to SCOTUS (see above). You are correct under CO statute. That law (and/or the way CO views and enforces it) has been struck down twice (meaning the law or the enforcement of the law is illegal and "Stewart and Mike" have not been wronged by law). Pretty much for the same reason. In addition to what Lead said above, I'd invite you to read what I've said on this and the other thread.

Smith stated and could show she accepted work from gay couples and singles. It was the "Wedding sites" she wouldn't do because of her moral beliefs that Biblical marriage is between a man and a woman. She didn't even care if a couple was gay, as long as she didn't do the wedding site.

by HatetheSwamp on July 3, 2023 6:37 am

OD,

That was the third time actually. You're the first to reply. Clearly, po and Donna have no interest in actual truth, merely their own side's propaganda.

Same old same old, eh!

by oldedude on July 3, 2023 6:43 am
That's what I was thinking. I thought I'd just mention it to maybe draw some attention to it. I've said three times, that "IF" they exist, they were not part of the SCOTUS decision.

(2nd attempt to post so if there's two, my bad)

by Donna on July 3, 2023 10:23 am

Well we'll see if Stewart and/or Mike sue Ms. Smith.

by oldedude on July 3, 2023 10:33 am
Okay, let us know how that works for you.

by Donna on July 3, 2023 10:35 am

Okay

by Ponderer on July 3, 2023 12:05 pm

"Today's democrats are also perfectly fine with a convicted career criminal in charge." -Indy!

That's simply stupid.

You have nothing to present to in any way support such a stupid assertion. It's just your opinion with nothing to base it on but your opinion. And I'm sorry, but it's stupid. It's a stupid opinion.

by oldedude on July 3, 2023 1:27 pm
Idunno....... pot/kettle. pot/kettle🙄

by oldedude on July 3, 2023 1:30 pm
Seems to me that Lorie Smith committed fraud and that Stewart and possibly Mike have grounds for a lawsuit.

So what's the fraud, what did they lose, and what do they want out of it? I'm interested.

by Ponderer on July 3, 2023 2:07 pm

Smith's lawyer said the request was received by her, but that it could have been a troll using Stewart's contact info. So if no malice can be proved, then there may not be grounds for a lawsuit.

by Donna on July 3, 2023 2:07 pm

That ^^^ was mine.

by HatetheSwamp on July 3, 2023 2:18 pm

"2) Both sides (including Colorado) stipulated to the facts to the District Court. The SCOTUS opinion assumes those stipulations." -That gay Guy Curt never heard of.

It's over.

by Curt_Anderson on July 3, 2023 2:41 pm
"Smith's lawyer said the request was received by her, but that it could have been a troll using Stewart's contact info. So if no malice can be proved, then there may not be grounds for a lawsuit." --Donna

As a result of Lorie Smith labeling him as gay man, Stewart could claim (without evidence) that he received homophobic harassing and threatening emails and phone calls, etc. That should be good enough for the Supreme Court.

by HatetheSwamp on July 4, 2023 3:57 am

"2) Both sides (including Colorado) stipulated to the facts to the District Court. The SCOTUS opinion assumes those stipulations." -That gay Guy Curt never heard of.

It's over.

by oldedude on July 4, 2023 5:15 am
How does this change the decision? If anything, it doubles down on the government forcing an artist to work that violates their right to their religion.

That's the core issue. Is the government forcing a contractor to take a job at the whim of the state?

Of course, we're getting this fight from the amoral agnostic "barracks lawyers" who believe the state should tell them what healthcare to get, what party to vote for, and where to live and what job to take.

China, Russia, and DPRK have the same laws. All art must be approved by the state. Violators are jailed, some never to be seen again.

by HatetheSwamp on July 4, 2023 6:10 am

How does this change the decision? If anything, it doubles down on the government forcing an artist to work that violates their right to their religion.

Bang on.

I think this will conspiracy theory is cute. Woke people can be such sissies.

And, actually, it's not merely violating one's religion. The Woke Mafia can't force anyone to violate CONSCIENCE. Period!

To this point that Trans Mafia has accomplished much of its agenda by bullying and brutalizing people who told a different truth. That's exactly what Colorado attempted on behalf of transgender people and trans-philes...all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has said uh uh to that.

And, I think that supporters of the trans political agenda and trans ideology understand. That's why they're going crazy.

by Indy! on July 4, 2023 8:45 am

Are we still calling this person an "artist"?

by oldedude on July 4, 2023 9:21 am
The bothersome to me is the wokesters honestly believe that any infringement on their rights, regardless of anyone else's is completely fine and justified.

And they wonder why they're getting pushback (that thing isle mocked me about) (x(push)= Y(pushback)) when they keep demanding their rights be exactly how they want it, and "screw" (I was about to pull a po and chose not to) everyone else. Even if that means violating the other's core values and constitutional rights. The wokesters start the fight with a gun, then get whiney and pissy when a gun's pulled on them. Those trying really hard to defend their core values, rights, conscience, and religious beliefs are somehow the bullies.

But I think that's the wokester way. They're ALWAYS the victim. Regardless of the situation.

by Donna on July 4, 2023 10:03 am

I wouldn't want to be forced by law to design a cake topping or a website for a MAGA group, but with that said, I can see a slippery slope here. How long before people are refused service because of their race, nationality, religion, or any other characteristic the business owner found objectionable? It seems to me that the fundamental issue here is whether it not the first amendment allows discrimination.

by oldedude on July 4, 2023 12:02 pm
That was a question with me also. I think Gorsuch laid out very specific, narrow view of this. Smith did do websites for all the special classes without issue. The wedding sites were the only issue (off the subject, there was a mayor that married his crocodile). It was the issue of wedding sites that were the problem. So she wasn't making gay couples "use the back door" as curt put it.

Again, CO has chosen to make an issue of this. She showed steadfastness in her religion, and wasn't disallowing anyone on her other website designs. Had she not accepted gays (or blacks, hispanics, Jews, etc) use her other sites, I think there would be a problem, and one that I would support a reversal of this.

If she was Muslim, she may not do websites for all non-Muslims, and since Muslims are not gay under penalty of death, that would also include them.

by HatetheSwamp on July 4, 2023 1:23 pm

It seems to me that the fundamental issue here is whether it not the first amendment allows discrimination.

The First Amendment covers a lot of ground. Religion, speech, press, and more. And, it is a definition of the liberties of individuals. I think, depending on how you choose to define discrimination, it's unavoidable that it allows discrimination.

by oldedude on July 4, 2023 1:39 pm
There have been religious exceptions since colonial times. There have been draft exceptions for Mennonites and Amish (as are Buddhists) for the draft, Mormons are exempted if they serve on their mission. That went as far as conscientious objectors, which do not need to hold any religious sect or belief. I think that's a pretty powerful argument for the first amendment.

by Indy! on July 5, 2023 3:29 pm
by Ponderer on July 3, 2023 12:05 pm

"Today's democrats are also perfectly fine with a convicted career criminal in charge." -Indy!

That's simply stupid.

You have nothing to present to in any way support such a stupid assertion. It's just your opinion with nothing to base it on but your opinion. And I'm sorry, but it's stupid. It's a stupid opinion.

Where did I say that? I did a search on this thread and it's not in here anywhere. I need the context, but I think we both know I'm correct. The Ds elected a plagiarist in 2020, tried to elect a con artist in 2016, elected a war criminal in 2012, an adulterer in 1992 & '96, a peanut farmer in '76...

Go To Top

Comment on: "Supreme Court sides with web designer who won’t do wedding websites for gays (and who else?)"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart^® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page