Lorie Smith: Last News

J. Kim Murphy Michael Imperioli is among many actors in Hollywood speaking out against the Supreme Court, with the “Sopranos” star making a statement against the group’s ruling in favor of a Christian web designer who sought legal protection to discriminate against same-sex marriages due to her religious beliefs. Imperioli shared a screenshot of a news story about the ruling on Instagram, with the headline “Supreme Court protects web designer who won’t do gay wedding websites,” along with a caption railing against the decision. “I’ve decided to forbid bigots and homophobes from watching ‘The Sopranos,’ ‘The White Lotus,’ ‘Goodfellas’ or any movie or TV show I’ve been in,” Imperioli wrote Saturday morning. “Thank you Supreme Court for allowing me to discriminate and exclude those who I don’t agree with and am opposed to. USA! USA!”

he wrote on Instagram. “America is becoming dumber by the minute.”In a 6-3 decision issued Friday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of artist Lorie Smith, who sued the state over its anti-discrimination law that prohibited businesses providing sales or other accommodations to the public from denying service based on a customer’s sexual orientation.Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, which said that, “In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance.” “But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong,” he continued.The Supreme Court handed down several rulings at the end of June, including ruling against President Biden’s student loan handout plan.In the 6-3 decision, the court held that federal law does not allow the secretary of education to cancel more than $430 billion in student loan debt. The high court also ruled against affirmative action on Thursday.“Or a benefit to a student whose herit­age or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university.

Michael Imperioli is taking a stance against the recent Supreme Court ruling in the United States earlier this week.

LGBTQ advocates and allies are lamenting the Supreme Court’s recent decision in favor of a website designer who sought an exemption from her state’s nondiscrimination law to allow her to refuse to create wedding websites for same-sex couples.Despite one of the alleged requests for service from a gay couple allegedly being fabricated or submitted under false pretenses, as reported by The New Republic, the high court ultimately decided in favor of Lorie Smith, the owner of 303 Creative, LLC, finding that Colorado’s law infringes on her free speech rights.The court further found that, because Smith creates “custom” websites that contain “expressive content,” she should have been granted a “free speech” exemption to the Coloraod Anti-Discrimination Act allowing her to not only refuse service to same-sex couples, but to post a notice that she will refuse to create websites celebrating same-sex marriages.Many allies of the LGBTQ community noted that while the decision is not as broad as to overturn nullify laws prohibiting LGBTQ discrimination, it does create a massive carve-out for businesses providing “custom-made” goods or services, allowing them to discriminate against prospective customers — in this particular case, LGBTQ individuals, but potentially members of other groups in the future — on free speech grounds. “The Supreme Court just gave businesses a license to discriminate,” Ben Olinsky, the senior vice president of Structural Reform and Governance at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said in a statement.

An evangelical Christian web designer can refuse services to same-sex wedding websites, the Supreme Court ruled Friday. Photo: Queerency

The Supreme Court ruled that a website designer could refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings, despite a Colorado non-discrimination law.

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, has echoes of another case that was decided a few years ago, Masterpiece Cakeshop v.

brief, which casts Smith’s refusal to serve same-sex couples as a matter of religious freedom and artistic expression protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Smith, the owner of the firm 303 Creative LLC, claims that she should be allowed to refuse to create websites for same-sex couples on the basis of her personal religious beliefs opposing homosexuality, and her refusal to communicate a message that implicitly supports same-sex marriage.Enlisting the help of the anti-LGBTQ legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, Smith sued the state of Colorado in 2016, demanding an exemption from the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses that open themselves up as places of public accommodation from discriminating against people based on sexual orientation.Smith claims she will do some work for LGBTQ clients, but creating wedding websites for those individuals would not only violate her religious beliefs but would violate her freedom of artistic expression, as each website she creates is a specially-tailored, one-of-a-kind product reflecting her own creativity.A federal district judge ruled against Smith in September 2019, finding that her proposal to post a statement outlining her objection to promoting same-sex weddings “proposes an unlawful act” because it would deny services to same-sex couples on the basis of their sexual orientation.

claims she will do some work for LGBTQ clients, but cannot create custom-made wedding websites. She further claims that the products she creates are a form of “artistic expression” that should be protected under the First Amendment, and therefore, she should be exempt from having to abide by Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act.Smith’s lawsuit was dismissed in May 2019, on the grounds that she had filed suit before the state had taken any action against her — or before she had even been asked to create a website for a same-sex couple — and thus, had no grounds to sue.