303 Creative LLC vs Elenis

#1

Forever151

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
4,447
Likes
2,336
#1
Well here we go . I’m not sure how true this is but it’s from a well respected LGBTQ tiktoker but apparently they plan on looking into 303 Creative LLC vs Elenis.This was used to prevent discrimination by businesses towards LGBTQ members
 
#4
#4
Well here we go . I’m not sure how true this is but it’s from a well respected LGBTQ tiktoker but apparently they plan on looking into 303 Creative LLC vs Elenis.This was used to prevent discrimination by businesses towards LGBTQ members

I don’t see the problem. I think everyone realized that was the wrong ruling from the beginning. Business owners are not your slaves
 
#5
#5
I don’t see the problem. I think everyone realized that was the wrong ruling from the beginning. Business owners are not your slaves
Strongly disagree . I believe this is once again rewinding time .
 
#11
#11
Your going to open a big can of worms . That’s all I’m going to say . Also it’s Public Business not private
Private means privately owned. Not owned by government.

From wiki:
Lorie Smith is a website designer, running her business as 303 Creative, LLC. registered in Colorado. Smith had been successful in developing websites for others and wanted to move into making wedding announcement websites, but as a practicing Christian, she knew ahead of time that it would be against her faith to make sites for non-heterosexual marriages, wanting to include a notice on her business website to alert users to this and willing to help such clients find other potential designers that could help them instead.[1]

Before implementing this, Smith discovered that such a notice would violate the Colorado anti-discrimination state laws that were amended in 2008, which prevents public businesses from discriminating against gay people as well as making statements to that effect. Smith sued Colorado in 2016
 
#12
#12
Your going to open a big can of worms . That’s all I’m going to say . Also it’s Public Business not private

She is a private business owner. Here is the question, why would you open up a can of worms? If a person wanted to open a business that only serviced say trans or gay people, that would be absolutely fine. So what’s wrong with this? She should be able to do what she wants with her business. Why do you have a problem with this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ButchPlz
#13
#13
She is a private business owner. Here is the question, why would you open up a can of worms? If a person wanted to open a business that only serviced say trans or gay people, that would be absolutely fine. So what’s wrong with this? She should be able to do what she wants with her business. Why do you have a problem with this?
Because I wouldn’t be fine with someone saying only trans or gay people can enter somewhere either ,
 
#14
#14
She is a private business owner. Here is the question, why would you open up a can of worms? If a person wanted to open a business that only serviced say trans or gay people, that would be absolutely fine. So what’s wrong with this? She should be able to do what she wants with her business. Why do you have a problem with this?
The actual court ruling was for public businesses . I think Private business can do what they want
 
#16
#16
Because I wouldn’t be fine with someone saying only trans or gay people can enter somewhere either ,

That’s the way it should be. Look at Hooters. They don’t employ male servers. And that’s fine. You ca clearly tell that you are young and don’t really understand how these things work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#17
#17
Strongly disagree . I believe this is once again rewinding time .
I have no problem with businesses making a decision like this... on an individual level. The problem that I have seen over the last 2+ years is when businesses collude with one another or if they are working in concert with the govt. But as far as this is concerned, the LGBTQ customers were not being locked out of having this service provided to them. There were I'm sure other avenues and businesses that could have filled their needs.
 
#18
#18
I have no problem with businesses making a decision like this... on an individual level. The problem that I have seen over the last 2+ years is when businesses collude with one another or if they are working in concert with the govt. But as far as this is concerned, the LGBTQ customers were not being locked out of having this service provided to them. There were I'm sure other avenues and businesses that could have filled their needs.
No problem except you want to execute those business workers you disagree with 😂
 
#21
#21
What some smart, enterprising baker/web designer/wedding planner should do is post they do not do work for Alphabet people and then, in a reluctant way, take all the Alphabet business they get. Jack rates up.

The lawsuit would be hilarious.
 
#24
#24
But the business and the experts have the right to control their own business. Yes or no?
If hospitals are taking government funds, which they all do, then they and their employees forfeit many of their rights.

I know you feel that way about those on welfare or taking government benefits, no?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#25
#25
If hospitals are taking government funds, which they all do, then they and their employees forfeit many of their rights.

I know you feel that way about those on welfare or taking government benefits, no?
Huh? We operate under CMS and JC guidelines and regulations but so what? We do exactly what we plan to do 95% of the time without any issues. I don’t know what you are getting at
 

VN Store



Back
Top