I decided to dig into this case, mostly so I could prove my BFF wrong. On the very first page it states that she had zero issues serving customers no matter what their sexual orientation. The only issue was that she wanted to start designing Wedding Websites and would not design an LGBTQ site because it would go against her beliefs. She was not discriminating. I told my BFF that the court was upholding the law as it is written to protect religious freedom. And as a side note there are zero federal laws protecting sexual orientation.
Before I provided that info to my BFF she stated that the Supreme Court was taking us back 100 years. Because all she had heard to that point was that the woman would not service anyone from the LGBTQ community. I am happy to report that my BFF has changed her tune now that she has the FACTS!
I decided to dig into this case, mostly so I could prove my BFF wrong. On the very first page it states that she had zero issues serving customers no matter what their sexual orientation. The only issue was that she wanted to start designing Wedding Websites and would not design an LGBTQ site because it would go against her beliefs. She was not discriminating. I told my BFF that the court was upholding the law as it is written to protect religious freedom. And as a side note there are zero federal laws protecting sexual orientation.
Before I provided that info to my BFF she stated that the Supreme Court was taking us back 100 years. Because all she had heard to that point was that the woman would not service anyone from the LGBTQ community. I am happy to report that my BFF has changed her tune now that she has the FACTS!