Update: SCOTUS rules in favor of Christian web designer over gay wedding services

[Communion]

303 Creative v. Elenis - The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court
https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court
 

Quote

The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its opinion in a case in which Stewart plays a minor role, a case that could be, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated by way of a question at oral argument in December, “the first time in the Court’s history … [that] a commercial business open to the public, serving the public, that it could refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.” It took just a few minutes to reach him. I assumed at least some reporters over the years had contacted him about his website inquiry to 303 Creative—his contact information wasn’t redacted in the filing. But my call, he said, was “the very first time I’ve heard of it.”

Yes, that was his name, phone number, email address, and website on the inquiry form. But he never sent this form, he said, and at the time it was sent, he was married to a woman. “If somebody’s pulled my information, as some kind of supporting information or documentation, somebody’s falsified that,” Stewart explained. (Stewart’s last name is not included in the filing, so we will be referring to him by his first name throughout this story.)

 

“I wouldn’t want anybody to … make me a wedding website?” he continued, sounding a bit puzzled but good-natured about the whole thing. “I’m married, I have a child—I’m not really sure where that came from? But somebody’s using false information in a Supreme Court filing document.”

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Communion

[Aston Martin]

The fact that the decisions for this case and student loans were both pushed to be released at the last ******* second tells me all I need to know. I ******* hate it here 

[Sugden]

what does this mean? im not american so i dont get it

[Vermillion]

Right after they exempted military schools from their affirmative action ruling in their footnotes  

 

They're not even trying to hide....anything. I have to laugh because I'm tired to cry at this point  

 

I can't process the shamelessness because it's so transformative. No wonder their approval in some polling is at 30%. It should be zero.

[Leppie]

So glad I don't live in USA

[Communion]

1 hour ago, Sugden said:

what does this mean? im not american so i dont get it

> Woman sued the civil rights division of Colorado, claiming laws outlawing the discrimination of services to gay people and declarations of such violated her first amendment rights, because she wanted to post on her website a notice that she did not design websites for gay weddings, claiming that her faith views marriage as between only a man and a woman. (other evidence in the case show the woman, Lorie Smith, never promoting herself as a Christian graphic designer on her website until she filed the lawsuit )

 

> State courts dismissed the case multiple times, saying she had no standing because her fear of one day being asked by a gay person for a website for their wedding did not constitute a form of harm.

 

> In the appeals since, she's miraculously filed a request she's received from what was allegedly a gay couple wanting a website for their wedding, along with her to design some invitations.

 

> The information of the man in the filing who allegedly made the request is... straight.

 

> The SCOTUS siding with the plaintiff could result in new legal pathways for businesses in public accommodations to get away with Jim Crow-style declarations of discrimination.

 

Quote

It’s important to note that Smith has not yet taken a discriminatory act that she is defending from accountability. Instead, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis is a case that was constructed and brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) — an organization the Southern Poverty Law Center identifies as an anti-LGBTQ+ hate group — specifically to challenge Colorado’s protections. ADF has filed a myriad of “pre-enforcement” cases like this, working with business owners who want to discriminate in order to weaken (if not overturn) nondiscrimination laws. For example, they manufactured similar attacks on LGBTQ+ protections in Minnesota with a wedding video production company and in Arizona with a calligraphy company. In both cases, like 303 Creative, the business owners wanted to profit off selling a wedding-related service but only to different-sex couples in violation of local laws.

 

The inherent argument in all these cases is that because the product is an “expressive” work (a custom website, video, invitation, etc.), then it should be considered speech. If the law requires the artist to create that speech to “celebrate” a wedding they oppose, then it’s compelled speech, they argue, that violates their right to free speech and thus the law is unconstitutional. 

https://www.afj.org/article/this-supreme-court-lgbtq-rights-case-could-lead-us-back-to-jim-crow/

Edited June 30, 2023 by Communion

[Communion]

1 hour ago, Aston Martin said:

The fact that the decisions for this case and student loans were both pushed to be released at the last ******* second tells me all I need to know. I ******* hate it here 

I've seen some people try to do prediction wizardry but a lot of it is above my head on being able to decipher what the order of cases, and particularly who would write the opinion, would mean for the actual result. 

 

Maybe @Espresso has more insight.

 

 

[Aston Martin]

1 hour ago, Communion said:

I've seen some people try to do prediction wizardry but a lot of it is above my head on being able to decipher what the order of cases, and particularly who would write the opinion, would mean for the actual result. 

 

Maybe @Espresso has more insight.

 

 

Okay so doing a cursory Google search, Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion on a case that protected LGBTQ rights (the ruling said that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act covers sexual orientation and gender identity). Granted he is probably the most conservative of the Trump appointees (it's between him and ACB at least), but I guess him writing the majority opinion of this case is a better sign than any of the other Republican justices? If Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, or Roberts were confirmed to be writing the majority opinion (or end up writing it), it's over. I'm still not optimistic, but it's worth mentioning. 

 

Roberts writing the opinion of the student loans case gives me a sliver of optimism because it seems like ACB is more likely to side with the liberal justices (in this particular case anyways) based on what I've read and Roberts seems like he'd be the most likely to also side with the liberal justices with this particular case as well. 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Aston Martin

[Vermillion]

9 hours ago, Aston Martin said:

Okay so doing a cursory Google search, Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion on a case that protected LGBTQ rights (the ruling said that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act covers sexual orientation and gender identity). Granted he is probably the most conservative of the Trump appointees (it's between him and ACB at least), but I guess him writing the majority opinion of this case is a better sign than any of the other Republican justices? If Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, or Roberts were confirmed to be writing the majority opinion (or end up writing it), it's over. I'm still not optimistic, but it's worth mentioning. 

 

Roberts writing the opinion of the student loans case gives me a sliver of optimism because it seems like ACB is more likely to side with the liberal justices (in this particular case anyways) based on what I've read and Roberts seems like he'd be the most likely to also side with the liberal justices with this particular case as well. 

@Communion Yeah I have nothing to add to this. Too much is made by SCOTUS followers of extrapolating Gorsuch's Native American defenses possibly to other cases when that hasn't held water.  

[Sannie]

Jesus Christ, the court has been all over the place over the past few weeks so I really do not know what to expect. Alito and Thomas will obvious vote against both of these, but what will Kav and Barrett do? You would think Barrett would vote against gay marriage, but at the same time she might want to try and shoot down the "partisan hack" accusations by not voting against something we all know she does not support.

 

I do not have any hope for student loan relief, though.

[Communion]

 

 

[Communion]

Ddd sorry sis! @Espresso! Feel free to thread the student debt decisions once posted. 

[Sannie]

 What makes this ruling so egregious is that it was a completely made up issue. Everything about it was a lie.

The Conservative terrorist arm of SCOTUS did not even both to understand the case at all.

[Vermillion]

1 minute ago, Communion said:

Ddd sorry sis! @Espresso! Feel free to thread the student debt decisions once posted. 

No this is better, they need your context earlier. I'm so tired

 

[Vermillion]

 

[FameFatale]

1 minute ago, Sannie said:

 What makes this ruling so egregious is that it was a completely made up issue. Everything about it was a lie.

The Conservative terrorist arm of SCOTUS did not even both to understand the case at all.

I read yesterday's decision regarding affirmative action was brought forward by a college student who wasn't even from the US, he is from Canada  

[Vermillion]

2 minutes ago, FameFatale said:

I read yesterday's decision regarding affirmative action was brought forward by a college student who wasn't even from the US, he is from Canada  

The woman on that case is worse - she blamed a black student and is was later revealed that student was actually more qualified in every aspect by a mile, including grades and extracurriculars. 

[Domination]

I’m fearful for the precedent this sets but I’m not entirely against it, to be honest, at least in theory. If a business were to deny services to any other protected group of people, I would go out of my way to avoid using their services and advise others to do the same.

[Raspberries]

Yesterday: Colleges are not allowed to "discriminate" based on race

 

Today: Christians ARE allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation 

 

What a joke. We should be throwing phones at these justices, not Bebe Rexha 

[FameFatale]

1 minute ago, Raspberries said:

Yesterday: Colleges are not allowed to "discriminate" based on race

 

Today: Christians ARE allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation 

 

What a joke. We should be throwing phones at these justices, not Bebe Rexha 

I keep saying it's a door step to un-doing Obergefell v Hodges. 

[Vermillion]

1 minute ago, Domination said:

I’m fearful for the precedent this sets but I’m not entirely against it, to be honest, at least in theory. If a business were to deny services to any other protected group of people, I would go out of my way to avoid using their services and advise others to do the same.

The majority says they want this decision to be limited in scope but know that it won't in practice and it will invite plenty of other lawsuits outside of the wedding industry. Sotomayor inferenced this in her dissent. 

 

Given that, the argument you're making isn't tenable for gay people with limited resources in rural areas of red states, especially. 

[Vermillion]

Just now, FameFatale said:

I keep saying it's a door step to un-doing Obergefell v Hodges. 

Which Congress did a backstop to and Roberts knows their branch is polling at 30% and isn't interested in overstepping the legislative.

 

Now, that may mean jack **** because Alito and Thomas don't give any ****s.

[Rep2000]

This court is so determined to make America going as backward as possible. And all it took for this to happen is one presidency.

[Raspberries]

3 minutes ago, Espresso said:

Which Congress did a backstop to and Roberts knows their branch is polling at 30% and isn't interested in overstepping the legislative.

 

Now, that may mean jack **** because Alito and Thomas don't give any ****s.

Let's hope Thomas dies and goes to hell soon

[Domination]

5 minutes ago, Espresso said:

The majority says they want this decision to be limited in scope but know that it won't in practice and it will invite plenty of other lawsuits outside of the wedding industry. Sotomayor inferenced this in her dissent. 

 

Given that, the argument you're making isn't tenable for gay people with limited resources in rural areas of red states, especially. 

I agree and I’m aware.