The fake case that the SC ruled on this week

[GMDino]

No thread on this one yet.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-gay-rights-lgbtq-website-385ec911ce0ca2f415966078eddb66da?taid=64a0aecf7bcbb300015c49f5&utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter

Quote:The man named in the Supreme Court’s gay rights ruling says he didn’t request a wedding website


[color=var(--color-primary-text)]1 of 4 | 
FILE - Lorie Smith, a Christian graphic artist and website designer in Colorado, appears outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, Dec. 5, 2022, after her case was heard by the Court. In a defeat for gay rights, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled Friday, June 30, 2023, Smith who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)
ASSOCIATED PRESS

[/color]

Read More

[color=var(--color-primary-text)]2 of 4 | 
FILE - Lorie Smith, a Christian graphic artist and website designer in Colorado, right, accompanied by her lawyer, Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom, second from left, speaks outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, Dec. 5, 2022, after her case was heard before the Supreme Court. In a defeat for gay rights, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled Friday, June 30, 2023, Smith who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)
ASSOCIATED PRESS



[color=var(--color-primary-text)]3 of 4 | 
FILE - Lorie Smith, a Christian graphic artist and website designer in Colorado, speaks to supporters outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, Dec. 5, 2022, after having her case heard by the Court. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has ruled a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples. The decision is a defeat for gay rights. The court ruled 6-3 on Friday, June 30, 2023, for designer Lorie Smith despite a Colorado law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender and other characteristics. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)
ASSOCIATED PRESS

[/color]

[color=var(--color-primary-text)]4 of 4 | 
FILE - Web designer Lorie Smith is shown in her office on Nov. 7, 2022, in the southwest part of Littleton, Colo. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has ruled a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples. The decision is a defeat for gay rights. The court ruled 6-3 on Friday, June 30, 2023, for designer Lorie Smith despite a Colorado law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender and other characteristics. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski, File)
ASSOCIATED PRESS

[/color]


[color=var(--color-byline-authors)]BY COLLEEN SLEVIN, JESSE BEDAYN AND MATTHEW BROWN[/color]
Published 7:18 PM EDT, June 30, 2023
Share
DENVER (AP) — A Colorado web designer who the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday could refuse to make wedding websites for gay couples cited a request from a man who says he never asked to work with her.

The request in dispute, from a person identified as “Stewart,” wasn’t the basis for the federal lawsuit filed preemptively seven years ago by web designer Lorie Smith, before she started making wedding websites. But as the case advanced, it was referenced by her attorneys when lawyers for the state of Colorado pressed Smith on whether she had sufficient grounds to sue.[/color]


The revelation distracts from Smith’s victory at a time when she might have been basking in her win, which is widely considered a setback for gay rights.


Smith named Stewart — and included a website service request from him, listing his phone number and email address in 2017 court documents. But Stewart told The Associated Press he never submitted the request and didn’t know his name was invoked in the lawsuit until he was contacted this week by a reporter from The New Republic, which first reported his denial.

“I was incredibly surprised given the fact that I’ve been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years,” said Stewart, who declined to give his last name for fear of harassment and threats. His contact information, but not his last name, were listed in court documents.

He added that he was a designer and “could design my own website if I need to” — and was concerned no one had checked into the validity of the request cited by Smith until recently.

Smith’s lawyer, Kristen Waggoner, said at a Friday news conference that the wedding request naming Stewart was submitted through Smith’s website and denied it was fabricated.

She suggested it could have been a troll making the request, something that’s happened with other clients she has represented. In 2018 her client Colorado baker Jack Phillips won a partial U.S. Supreme Court victory after refusing to make a gay couple’s wedding cake, citing his Christian faith.

“It’s undisputed that the request was received,” Waggoner said. “Whether that was a troll and not a genuine request, or it was someone who was looking for that, is really irrelevant to the case.”

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser on Friday called the lawsuit a “made up case” because Smith wasn’t offering wedding website services when the suit was filed.

Weiser didn’t know the specifics of Stewart’s denial, but said the nation’s high court should not have addressed the lawsuit’s merits “without any basis in reality.”

About a month after the case was filed in federal court challenging an anti-discrimination law in Colorado, lawyers for the state said Smith had not been harmed by the law as they moved to dismiss the case.

Her lawyers maintained Smith did not have to be punished for violating the law before challenging it. In February 2017 they said even though she did not need a request in order to pursue the case, she had received one.

“Any claim that Lorie will never receive a request to create a custom website celebrating a same-sex ceremony is no longer legitimate because Lorie has received such a request,” they said.

Smith’s Supreme Court filings briefly mentioned she received at least one request to create a website celebrating the wedding of a same-sex couple. There did not appear to be any reference to the issue in the court’s decision.

So I guess we can just make up scenarios and the SC to rule on them?

[GMDino]

Zero surprise that it was insurrection supporter Josh Hawley’s wife, Erin Hawley, who litigated the FAKE 303 Creative case in front of the Supreme Court. She’s as dishonest as her husband.

The Extreme Court used the totally made up case to illegitimately strip away LGBT+ rights. pic.twitter.com/dFyNbeQ2rl

— Kaivan Shroff (@KaivanShroff) July 2, 2023

 

[Leon]

the supreme court held to Gods law. if you gotta problem with that i dont know what to tell ya. aint no one gotta do anything that goes against God. try to force them and youll find out out this court is righteous. the days of forcing Christians to be sheep an stay quite are over. we are standing our ground and fighting back now. and the seculars hate it cause theyve had the power for way too long.

[*pally*]

(07-02-2023, 09:12 PM)Leon Wrote: the supreme court held to Gods law. if you gotta problem with that i dont know what to tell ya. aint no one gotta do anything that goes against God. try to force them and youll find out out this court is righteous. the days of forcing Christians to be sheep an stay quite are over. we are standing our ground and fighting back now. and the seculars hate it cause theyve had the power for way too long.

But this is a country of secular law not Christian law

[Leon]

(07-02-2023, 10:45 PM)pally Wrote: But this is a country of secular law not Christian law

you might wanna remember what this country was founded on

[*pally*]

(07-02-2023, 10:47 PM)Leon Wrote: you might wanna remember what this country was founded on

Show me in our Constitution where God or Christianity is mentioned even once? We are a country of secular laws.  The last thing the majority of Americans want is the Christian Taliban taking over

[Leon]

(07-02-2023, 10:57 PM)pally Wrote: Show me in our Constitution where God or Christianity is mentioned even once? We are a country of secular laws.  The last thing the majority of Americans want is the Christian Taliban taking over

the American people decided what they wanted the court to be. you might not like it but you need to accept it. 

[*pally*]

(07-02-2023, 11:07 PM)Leon Wrote: the American people decided what they wanted the court to be. you might not like it but you need to accept it. 

No we didn't....Mitch McConnell did.  

[Leon]

(07-02-2023, 11:24 PM)pally Wrote: No we didn't....Mitch McConnell did.  

the American people elected Donald Trump knowing he would appt conseritave judges, thats a big reason Trump won 

[BengalYankee]

[BigPapaKain]

(07-02-2023, 11:36 PM)Leon Wrote: the American people elected Donald Trump knowing he would appt conseritave judges, thats a big reason Trump won 

Trump lost the popular vote TWICE.

The people didn't vote for him.

[*pally*]

(07-02-2023, 11:36 PM)Leon Wrote: the American people elected Donald Trump knowing he would appt conseritave judges, thats a big reason Trump won 

Mitch McConnell blocked a vote on Obama’s nominee of Merrick Garland for almost a year claiming the 2016 election was already underway, even though there weren’t even official nominees yet, so they couldn’t vote to confirm.

Then in 2020 crammed through Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation less than 2 weeks before Election Day itself because of some new bulls*** excuse.

Trump. Got lucky…he got 3 justices because of Mitch McConnell not anything he did.

Besides, the PEOPLE elected for Hillary Clinton…the electoral college elected Trump

[Mickeypoo]

(07-03-2023, 08:28 AM)pally Wrote: Mitch McConnell blocked a vote on Obama’s nominee of Merrick Garland for almost a year claiming the 2016 election was already underway, even though there weren’t even official nominees yet,  so they couldn’t vote to confirm.

Then in 2020 crammed through Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation less than 2 weeks before Election Day itself because of some new bulls*** excuse.

Trump. Got lucky…he got 3 justices because of Mitch McConnell not anything he did.

Besides, the PEOPLE elected for Hillary Clinton…the electoral college elected Trump

America dodged a huge bullet with Hillary losing and getting 3 non far left activists who uphold the constitution appointed to the SCOTUS.    Phew!

It's funny the 3 far left activists actually were pretty mad that racial discrimination was ended.  Weird.  You'd think that would be an easy 9-0.

[*pally*]

(07-03-2023, 09:39 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: America dodged a huge bullet with Hillary losing and getting 3 non far left activists who uphold the constitution appointed to the SCOTUS.    Phew!

It's funny the 3 far left activists actually were pretty mad that racial discrimination was ended.  Weird.  You'd think that would be an easy 9-0.

If McConnell held a vote on the Garland nomination as he should have and then Hillary won the election, no one could have predicted what would have happened with the Court other than Ginsberg dying.  

[Dill]

(07-03-2023, 09:39 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: America dodged a huge bullet with Hillary losing and getting 3 non far left activists who uphold the constitution appointed to the SCOTUS.    Phew!

It's funny the 3 far left activists actually were pretty mad that racial discrimination was ended.  Weird.  You'd think that would be an easy 9-0.

Instead of Hilary we got a guy who mismanaged a pandemic, whose party

abused the nomination process to nominate three justices chosen for him by a right wing organization

which had been planning how to overturn Roe and AA for decades, 

and then attempted to stay in power via a coup.

If you are pro-democracy, that means you didn't dodge a bullet,

you caught one. 

[Dill]

(07-02-2023, 10:47 PM)Leon Wrote: you might wanna remember what this country was founded on

A secular Constitution? 

A theory of contractual, democratic government?

[Dill]

(07-02-2023, 11:38 AM)GMDino Wrote: No thread on this one yet.

So I guess we can just make up scenarios and the SC to rule on them?

Clarence Thomas, who hates "activist judges" warned us  

that Dobbs wasn't the end. 

This and AA has been struck down too. 

[GMDino]

(07-02-2023, 09:12 PM)Leon Wrote: the supreme court held to Gods law. if you gotta problem with that i dont know what to tell ya. aint no one gotta do anything that goes against God. try to force them and youll find out out this court is righteous. the days of forcing Christians to be sheep an stay quite are over. we are standing our ground and fighting back now. and the seculars hate it cause theyve had the power for way too long.

Tell me you're not a Christian without telling me you're not a Christian.

[Belsnickel]

So, I obviously have some issues with this case. I feel like it shouldn't have had standing to begin with as it was adjudicating a hypothetical. There was no injury that occurred and that has historically meant the courts would not take it up. I need to look a little further into this, but I really feel like that in-and-of-itself sets this case as an unusual one.

I also disagree with the ruling itself in the way it looked at expression. The majority of the court took an interesting view in saying that a product created for a person is the speech of the person that created it rather than the speech of the person who contracted the service. That is what the opinion boils down to and I just have a hard time with that. I think this case did ask some hard questions and when you listen to the oral arguments that occurred in this case you can tell that this was a question the justices wrestled with as well. This was a case where the political sympathies guided the opinion rather than the logic and law, but that is simply because there is no good logical or legal answer which is why they tried to write the opinion in a way that narrowed the decision so tightly.

The issue is that while the ruling itself is very narrow, the logic presented in the opinion can be applied to many other situations of discrimination. They would still need to be litigated for it to apply, but I am expecting cases of racial and religious discrimination to be brought and citing this case as their logic and it isn't a stretch. It is interesting that they decided to essentially ignore the religious angle in the case as well.

This really was just an odd case all around.

[Leon]

(07-03-2023, 11:08 AM)GMDino Wrote: Tell me you're not a Christian without telling me you're not a Christian.

says someone who is obvious dont know nothing about righteous anger , standing up to things that go against God. 

remember Jesus had righteous anger in the temple and the lame and blind came to him. they were cured. in our day there are many lame and blind but in differnet ways. believers must use righteous anger to stand up against things the go against God. and hopefully we can cure some of the sickness in the process by turning them to rightousness. 

dont accuse someone of not being Christian if you dont even understand righteous anger and why its important or why we need to turn folks to God before its to late