Gay Couple Cited by Christian Web Designer who Won Supreme Court Case may not Exist
The case is almost as bogus as the six “conservatives” on the Supreme Court.
Gay couple cited by Christian web designer who won Supreme Court case may not exist
A report in the New Republic raised questions about a 2016 inquiry that the plaintiff in a major Supreme Court case said she received for a same-sex wedding website.
Gay couple cited by Christian web designer who won Supreme Court case may not exist
A report in the New Republic raised questions about a 2016 inquiry that the plaintiff in a major Supreme Court case said she received for a same-sex wedding website.
July 3, 2023 (al Jizzerror Fake News) - It appears that the Rednecks on SCOTUS have decided to infringe on LGBTQ rights based on a fake case. The Christian web designer has never designed web pages for weddings and she did not receive a request from a gay man to create a page for his wedding. The case is almost as bogus as the six “conservatives” on the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court traditionally protected civil rights. The present members of SCOTUS are removing those protections.
Red Box Rules
We don't need no stinking rules.
Tags
Who is online
38 visitors
Actually the 'court of supreme beings' may only exist in their own minds. The court is illegitimate. It is just another political body legislating through the bench.
This should be good...
Whatever you do, don't do any research. Just believe this is relevant because some far left idiots think it is and rage about absolutely nothing. .
Who is "raging"?
Here's another source:
ALI VELSHI
Reporter discovers man named in 303 Creative case is not gay and did not request a wedding website
Michael Steele is joined by Melissa Gira Grant, writer for The New Republic and Neal Katyal, former Acting Solicitor General during the Obama administration who argued and won a major win for voting rights in the landmark Moore v. Harper case this week. Grant discusses her reporting that the man named in Supreme Court’s 303 Creative ruling didn’t actually request a wedding website and other bizarre details that raise questions about the case's legitimacy. “This was built on a fiction. It was based on an injury that has never happened,” Grant explains. Katyal discusses the harmful implications of arguing hypothetical cases. “It’s a tragedy that they didn't find this information before,” Katyal says. “There is a procedure to get this case stricken from the books…Otherwise, the Supreme Court can dragged into all sorts of controversies that aren't legal cases but just imaginary fights between people and that's not what the court is about.” July 2, 2023
if the fascists don't hear about it in the rwnj media, they don't believe it...
What in the name of Apollo are you taking about? Is that all you ever have? That? Goodness gracious.
In this case they made a decision on a case that doesn't exist except in the minds of SCOTUS.
Somebody fell for the clickbait.
The case filed before she had a business and the ''request'' now seems to be phony as the person that is said to have sent it has said it isn't him.
Standing was granted this case by the 10th Appellate Court and SCOTUS accepted it based on that court's acceptance of it. This is how I read it, anyway.
Here's still another source. Please troll another article.
The man named in the Supreme Court’s gay rights ruling says he didn’t request a wedding website
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.
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.
Actually, I now think for this case, the name of the so-called "couple" does not factor in, as the CADA (Colorado) law itself was charged with having standing (harm) in a pre-challenge procedure that went up to the courts. Now, the other named "defendant" may have a separate case for a misappropriation and filing of his name on a court proceeding for which he had took no interest or part.
There is this too. There is ample evidence that these 'robed folk' took a case by a plantiff that had a (web site) that not only did not have an offending gay person wanting a wedding planner but also the (web site) cited by the plantiff--- that too does not exist. Sounds to me that it is clear that this 'so called' highest court got punked. Roberts, you're The Chief Justice, maybe you ought to quit and see if you could handle a Papa John's pizza place. And take Alito and Barrett with you. Papa John's has delivery.