Talk:303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

Alito analogy
In the December 5th 2022 hearing, conservative Justice Samuel Alito likened LGBT couples to "children dressed in Ku Klux Klan outfits" whom a retailer would find repugnant.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-weighs-web-designers-refusal-work-sex-weddings-rcna59852 Eric Olson, Colorado's solicitor general, dismissed Alito's analogy. 2601:C4:C300:A210:10AF:FBA:9019:7FD (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats not what the article or even Alito's statement said. The justices were all giving examples of other cases the anti discrimination law would be invoked, and Alito offered the example of a black Santa have their photo taken with kids dressed in KKK outfits to see how the state lawyer would see that. I see nothing that says Alito likened LGBT to the children in that example.--M asem (t) 23:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't want to copy and paste the news article verbatim on the article page. What is your objection to my paraphrasing of the following,

"In responding to those hypothetical situations, conservative Justice Samuel Alito brought up his own, wondering whether a "Black Santa" who sits for photos with children over the holiday season could refuse to provide service to children wearing the white outfits characteristic of the Ku Klux Klan white supremacist group.

"Black Santa has to do that?" Alito asked.

Eric Olson, Colorado's solicitor general, said the "Black Santa" would not have to be in the photograph because Ku Klux Klan outfits are not protected under Colorado's antidiscrimination law."

2601:C4:C300:A210:10AF:FBA:9019:7FD (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Because at no point is Alito directly comparing LGBT couples to "children in KKK outfits". He's using a analogous example but the cannot be take to read that he is directly equating the roles. M asem (t) 00:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Alito was responding to a hypothetical that Justice Jackson had proposed, about whether a photography studio whose photography focused on recreating the 1950s Americana/nostalgia of movies like It's A Wonderful Life would be allowed to discriminate against potential Black customers. The full transcript is on CSPAN, and it looks like Alito is drawing a hypothetical comparison between a mall Santa who doesn't want to have his picture taken with Black children and a Black Santa that doesn't want to take pictures with a child in a KKK outfit. (Kagan then suggests that hypothetically, Black Santa would probably do so regardless of whether the child was Black or white). It's not a direct comparison to gay couples and children in KKK outfits, even if it's a silly hypothetical. Die Kunst Der Fuge (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Removal of statement from member of Congress
Why did you remove Congressman's statement at Equality Caucus Statement on 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis | LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus (house.gov) 24.99.88.116 (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Limiting Companies vs. Natural Persons
Is not the heart of this case, as well as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, what personal liability protection the people of Colorado can and should offer Limited Liability Companies?

If one looks into the cases, we have companies: 303 Creative LLC, and Masterpiece Cakeshop LTD.

We also have owners: Lorie Smith, and Jack Phillips.

Who is religiously opposed? The LLC's or the natural persons who own the companies?

Is not the fundamental flaw the lack of legal definition/separation? If for instance these companies were sole proprietorships, then how can we force a natural person to speak, or not speak, rest, or work after 6 days, to bear, or not bear arms? But LLC's are part of the Colorado State. Is it legal, or humane, for the State (to whatever degree) force, or gag a company's speech, allow or deny hours of operation, require or deny arms on company property?

If LLC's are sued, and bankrupt, the citizens of the state (Colorado) are left with the debt. To what extent should articles of association even be granted? How does Colorado benefit, or be burdened, by legal protections for LLC's of 1, or a few? Philfromwaterbury (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent reporting
Is this piece from the New Republic worthy of inclusion? It alleges that the complaint that kicked off this lawsuit was fake. Die Kunst Der Fuge (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It has been added along with the ADF's response. M asem (t) 13:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

FIRE
Please update to note that, while the aclu opposed the ruling, the foundation for individual rights and expression (FIRE) supported it. 91.15.133.111 (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * We'd need a third-party RS that mentions them. I see their website with a response, but we can't use that directly. M asem (t) 13:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we? I'm admittedly only somewhat familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, but I feel like I've seen "reaction" sections report directly on statements by noteworthy organisations, without the need for an intermediate source. And the section could certainly use a mention of FIRE's support; right now it's awfully one-sided. Oooooooseven (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Lorie lying in court filings
So Lorie in the court filings mentioned about how a "gay" man named Stewart requested services for her to make a website for his wedding as he would soon marry his Fiancé, Mike. However it was revealed that Stewart didn't contact her for a website for his wedding and has been married to his wife for 15 years. Stewart when interviewed by CNN said “I’ve never asked anybody to design a website for me, so it’s all very strange. I certainly didn’t contact her, and whatever the information in that request is, is fake.” and "I don't know a Mike"

should we include this in the page? Melofy (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It has not been revealed that she "lied," but rather that someone submitted a false request for services. No court relied upon the email for standing, though several commentators have latched onto it as though it affects whether the decision is correct.
 * (If this background from the proceedings in the District Court is included, it should also be noted both that the District Court ruled that it was purely speculative to infer that "Mike" and "Stewart" are of the same sex, and that the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court both decided that there was standing without reference to the email or any past request.)
 * Here is what the Court of Appeals said on standing. The Supreme Court endorsed that part of the opinion.
 * "Colorado asserts that, even if Appellants have shown an intent to violate CADA, Appellants have not shown a credible threat of prosecution. Specifically, Colorado questions whether Appellants will 'actually den[y] services based on a person's sexual orientation' and whether such a person will 'file[] a charge of discrimination.' Colorado's Br. at 27; see also id. at 33-35. According to Colorado, Appellants' fear of prosecution is not credible because it requires the court to speculate about the actions of Appellants' would-be customers. We disagree. Appellants have a credible fear of prosecution because Appellants' liability under CADA and Colorado's enforcement of CADA are both 'sufficiently imminent.' SBA List, 573 U.S. at 159. Appellants' potential liability is inherent in the manner they intend to operate-excluding customers who celebrate same-sex marriages. Thus, Appellants are rightfully wary of offering wedding-related services and may challenge CADA as chilling their speech. See id. at 163 ('Nothing in this Court's decisions require a plaintiff who wishes to challenge the constitutionality of a law to confess that he will in fact violate that law.'); also Walker, 450 F.3d at 1089 (pre-enforcement plaintiff need not show 'a present intention to engage in [proscribed] speech at a specific time in the future').  Contrary to Colorado's assertion, Appellants' fears do not 'rest[] on guesswork' or 'a highly attenuated chain of possibilities.' Colorado's Br. at 29. If anything, it is Colorado that invites this court to speculate. Assuming Appellants offer wedding-related services to the public as they say they will, there is no reason to then conclude that Appellants will fail to attract customers. Nor is there reason to conclude that only customers celebrating opposite-sex marriages will request Appellants' services. In short, we find nothing 'imaginary or speculative' about Appellants' apprehensions that they may violate CADA if they offer wedding-based services in the manner that they intend. SBA List, 573 U.S. at 165." SilverLocust (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you, i was confused with the reports of the made up statements and how it would affect the page Melofy (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Salon Commentary piece
I've recently removed material sourced to this commentary that put its claims in Wikipedia's voice. That source is a labeled opinion piece, which is not suitable for statements asserted as fact in Wikipedia's voice. The other cited source for that sentence (this CNN piece) doesn't support the assertion either, so I've removed the statement as WP:UNDUE and poorly sourced. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)