Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #303creative
Most recents (6)
This morning, Oral Arguments were heard at the Supreme Court, where web design agency #303Creative is arguing countless businesses should have the right to refuse service to same-sex couples, & anyone whose identities they disagree with.
Here’s what you need to know. (1of6)
Here’s what you need to know. (1of6)
This case is about whether businesses generally open to the public may refuse to serve some customers based on personal objections to who they are, contrary to current civil rights law. (2of6)
If #SCOTUS rules in favor of web designer #303Creative it could provide a license to discriminate against #LGBTQ+ people. It likely would profoundly impact the civil liberties of not only #LGBTQ+ Americans, but ALL Americans. (3of6)
The Supreme Court's argument in #303Creative v. Elenis is about to begin.
#303 atty arguing that her client is being compelled to say messages contrary to her conscience. Same-sex marriage is against scripture
To force her to create these websites is akin to forcing students to recite the pledge (among other things)
What's up nerds!
@AngryBlackLady here live-tweeting #303Creative in which an evangelical Christian wants an advisory opinion about whether making a hypothetical wedding website for a hypothetical gay couple in the future violates her 1st Amendment rights.
@AngryBlackLady here live-tweeting #303Creative in which an evangelical Christian wants an advisory opinion about whether making a hypothetical wedding website for a hypothetical gay couple in the future violates her 1st Amendment rights.
Thomas: Is this case ripe?
Waggonner, who is arguing for Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of Lorie Smith/#303Creative tries to answer and fumbles around.
She's claiming Colorado is chilling her speech.
(No they're not.)
Waggonner, who is arguing for Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of Lorie Smith/#303Creative tries to answer and fumbles around.
She's claiming Colorado is chilling her speech.
(No they're not.)
Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor are making the point that the wedding website is the invitation of the customer, not the invitation of the wedding website designer. So why is the website the speech of the website designer?
So why is it 303 Creative's message?
(It's not.)
So why is it 303 Creative's message?
(It's not.)
This am, #SCOTUS will be hearing oral args in #303Creative v. Elenis
At issue is whether a website design co has a free speech right to discriminate against same-sex couples
I’ll be live-tweeting
But first let me, a First Amendment prof, provide some background
#SupremeCourt
At issue is whether a website design co has a free speech right to discriminate against same-sex couples
I’ll be live-tweeting
But first let me, a First Amendment prof, provide some background
#SupremeCourt
303 Creative, a website co, wants to expand into the wedding market.
However, it wants only heterosexual wedding clients, as it believes same-sex marriage conflicts with God’s will
Plus it wants to put a statement on the website explaining its refusal to serve same-sex couples
However, it wants only heterosexual wedding clients, as it believes same-sex marriage conflicts with God’s will
Plus it wants to put a statement on the website explaining its refusal to serve same-sex couples
this is wonderful going into #303CreativeVElenis oral arguments this morning where SCOTUS is going to listen to some whiner complain that her evangelical Christianity means she doesn’t have to make a wedding website for a same sex couple. 😒
~plot twist~ nobody, gay or straight, ever even asked this broad to make them a custom wedding website because her company doesn’t even make wedding websites.
She just wants to maybe get into the wedding website business in the future and when she does she wants to discriminate.
She just wants to maybe get into the wedding website business in the future and when she does she wants to discriminate.
Standing. Ripeness. Justiciable controversy.
Used to be a requirement.
#303Creative is a preenforcement action which is sometimes allowed but not when there’s no credible threat of enforcement which here there absolutely is not.
The SCOTUS is illegitimate.
Used to be a requirement.
#303Creative is a preenforcement action which is sometimes allowed but not when there’s no credible threat of enforcement which here there absolutely is not.
The SCOTUS is illegitimate.
On Monday, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case called #303Creative, an effort by @ADFLegal to overturn laws protecting LGBTQ people from discrimination.
I have a very important rule of thumb for you as you hear any of the discourse around this case... 🧵
I have a very important rule of thumb for you as you hear any of the discourse around this case... 🧵
Every single time you hear an argument in #303Creative being made about same-sex couples or same-sex marriage, substitute the words "interracial couples" or "interracial marriage" in your brain before you process how it makes you feel. Make sure your reactions correspond. 2/13
The Colorado nondiscrimination law being challenged in #303Creative doesn't say that race and color get Level 5 protection but sexual orientation only gets Level 3 protection.
They are listed right next to each other as getting the exact same protection under the law. 3/13
They are listed right next to each other as getting the exact same protection under the law. 3/13
