|Lorie Leann Smith circa 2017|
American Family Association and Alliance Defending Freedom have something in common. They are both anti-LGBTQ hate groups according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. I share the SPLC’s opinions in that regard.
According to American Family Association:
A web designer is continuing her challenge to Colorado’s public accommodation law, this time by asking a federal appeals court to defend her First Amendment right to share her personal beliefs on her own website.
This involves Lorie Smith, a web designer and owner of 303 Creative. For the record, 303 Creative is a limited liability company (LLC) formed in 2012 at 6812 W. Remington Place in Littleton, CO. Its registered owner is Lorie Leann Smith. Over eight years she has designed 47 websites or about one every two months. Genius is time consuming.
I first wrote about this dipshit in 2016.
AFA’s claim that his has something to do with her “First Amendment right to share her personal beliefs on her own website” is an outright lie. This is about discrimination against people she disapproves of.
In 2016, ADF filed suit on behalf of Ms. Smith as 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. Aubrey Elenis is the director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division. No one filed a complaint against Smith or 303 Creative. This was one of ADF’s pre-enforcement stunts. The suit expresses the customary religious batcrap:
regarding marriage that contradicts those beliefs, Lorie wants to use her talents and the
expressive platform she has in 303 Creative to celebrate and promote God’s design for marriage
as an institution between one man and one woman.
Lorie believes that God is calling her to promote and celebrate His design for marriage by
designing and creating custom wedding websites for weddings between one man and one woman
If I started a business to honor Moses I would incorporate as a not-for-profit organization. That is not the case with Ms. Smith.
beliefs about marriage on her website and in communications with prospective clients, including
why those beliefs prevent her from designing websites celebrating and promoting same-sex
Arrogance is a close cousin to the presumptive privilege. Designing websites is not a religious duty. Nor does doing so promote or celebrate anything. Smith’s customers do the celebrating.
Judge Marcia Smith Krieger, a George W. Bush appointee, wasn’t having any of it. In May, 2019 Judge Krieger denied a motion for summary judgment in favor of Smith. In September, 2019 she granted summary judgment in favor of Colorado.
ADF being ADF they have appealed to the 10th Circuit. Their hope is to ultimately get this case before the Supreme Court. The appeal begins with:
pornography, a gay designer to create a website promoting one-man, one woman marriage, or a Jewish PR professional to craft anti-Israel propaganda. Plaintiff-Appellant Lorie Smith seeks the same freedom here.
Five of ADF’s lawyers were required to offer that statement opening their brief. Five. The problems are quite obvious. Pornographers are not a protected class. A gay designer would have no problem creating a lawful website for, say, a church expressing the belief that — according to its religious tenets — marriage was only valid between one man and one woman. It’s just business.
I have two problems with the hypothetical “Jewish PR professional.” The first is the assumption that a Jew could not be critical of Israel. Conflating Israel with Judaism is a form of bigotry. The founder of American Family Association, Don Wildmon, is a rabid anti-Semite. He repeatedly used Christian Zionism to say that he is not an anti-Semite. The second problem is that anti-Israel propagandists are not a protected class.
The common sense analysis of that statement has no effect on American Family Association. Two of their fuckwits, Chris Woodward and Billy Davis, write:
Hence the court appeal filed by ADF begins:
The government should never …
They go on to write:
Smith’s work examples include an Easter service flyer, a church banner, and a poster advertising Jewish-related businesses.
The “Jewish-related business” was an event allowing bar and bat-mitzvah vendors an opportunity to hawk their goods and services.
That actually cuts against her cause. A conservative Christian believes that Jews are destined for Hell for not accepting Jesus Christ as god. She promoted an event which, in her opinion, promotes the sacrifice a 13-year-old to eternal damnation. Maybe it’s just me but that graphic is something less than artistic.
“…while I will serve anyone,” she writes, “I am always careful to avoid communicating ideas or messages, or promoting events, products, services, or organizations, that are inconsistent with my religious beliefs.”
“Lorie selectively accepts projects, not clients,” the ADF brief states.
There is a solution to Smith’s dilemma. She can go to work for a larger web design firm and condition her employment on not having to design certain types of websites. That is lawful providing that the firm does not defy Colorado’s nondiscrimination laws pertaining to public accommodations.
In other words, if someone cannot comply with the law then they are disqualified from operating a public accommodation.
ADF’s argument that she accepts projects not clients is an insult to the intelligence of the Tenth Circuit. It is meaningless and in defiance of well-established precedent. It was Justice Scalia who wrote: “A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews.” Discrimination against same-sex weddings is discrimination against gay people.
We will never get to know just how discriminatory Ms. Smith is. At best, she is a marginally successful designer who is now likely to be even less successful due to this litigation. Years from now if she is able to eke out a win at the Supreme Court she still loses. She has poisoned her own well. Lorie Leann Smith is simply not very intelligent.
I have said it before and I will say it again. I would design a “God Hates Fags” website for Westboro Baptist Church. Service is not approval.
Ms. Smith is willing to be manipulated by ADF for an opportunity to express her disapproval of marriage equality. She is mistakenly wed to the belief that her approval is sought, required and relevant. She is empowered by her ability to discriminate because she believes, perhaps, that she speaks for a deity.