Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

The Conservative Justices on the Supreme Court Hold the Record as the World's Most Expensive Whores...
Crime by Ponderer     February 29, 2024 10:35 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (13 comments) [133 views]


James Comer is not sure an impeachment of Biden is warranted
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 1, 2024 4:25 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [18 views]


James Comer has been big on promises, short on delivery. MAGA is feeling let down.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 1, 2024 1:28 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (5 comments) [58 views]


So, Curt, can you still say that there's "NO EVIDENCE" that Joe was involved in the Crime Family?
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 1, 2024 6:33 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (15 comments) [109 views]


Oversight and Judiciary Committees Release Hunter Biden Transcript
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 5:51 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (13 comments) [94 views]


Is Trump going broke? Is he bringing the GOP down with him?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 28, 2024 5:46 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [108 views]


RFK Jr. Backs Sen. Rand Paul to Succeed McConnell...
Politics by HatetheSwamp     March 1, 2024 6:15 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [9 views]


Rep. Lauren Boebert's son Tyler allegedly made a sex tape with co-defendant
Crime by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 11:24 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (9 comments) [155 views]


Holy FrigginFreakinEFFIN Cow! Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump immunity claim!
Crime by HatetheSwamp     February 28, 2024 2:54 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (15 comments) [108 views]


9 Surprising Findings From Joe Biden's Physical
Medical by HatetheSwamp     February 29, 2024 9:51 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [20 views]


Law selectors, pages, etc.
Recent SC ruling removing protections for LGBTQ folk is ripe for overturning
By Ponderer
July 2, 2023 9:13 am
Category: Law

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)


Or at least be reheard. This is just some damned fine reporting.


Cited and related links:

  1. yahoo.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Recent SC ruling removing protections for LGBTQ folk is ripe for overturning":

  1. by Ponderer on July 2, 2023 9:13 am

    The Bizarre — and Hypothetical — Case That Sparked the Supreme Court's Regressive LGBTQ+ Discrimination Ruling

    On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to allow a Christian web designer to refuse her services to LGBTQ+ people, a historic decision that walks back hard-fought human rights battles and paves the way for businesses to legally discriminate based on a person's sexual orientation or gender identity.

    The case that spawned the decision, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, was brought by Lorie Smith, a website designer who owns 303 Creative and wanted to challenge a Colorado law prohibiting businesses from discriminating against LGBTQ+ customers.

    And while Smith's case echoes the 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case — in which the Supreme Court sided 7-2 with a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple — the web designer's argument was at first merely hypothetical, in that she didn't actually have any would-be customers who are gay.

    Here's more about Smith, and what made the precedent-setting case so unique.


    Smith's Case Was Hypothetical

    Smith's lawsuit was built largely around a hypothetical scenario, in that she had not actually designed any wedding websites or tried to turn away same-sex couples when she sued.

    Still, Smith filed suit in Colorado in an attempt to block the enforcement of its anti-discrimination law, arguing that when she does begin designing wedding websites, she should not be forced to design them for LGBTQ+ clients, because creating messaging that she disapproves of would oppose her religious beliefs and potentially violate her right to free speech.

    Smith brought the case to the U.S. District Court in Colorado in 2016, represented by the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom. Because she had not yet been confronted with a gay couple requesting her services — or broken the anti-discrimination law — the state sought to dismiss her case.

    Months later, Smith's legal team said that she had, in fact, received an inquiry to design a gay couple's wedding website after the suit was filed. Smith submitted a sworn statement about the inquiry, along with a copy of the "same-sex wedding request," as evidence.

    She still lost the case. And the appeal. Then the Supreme Court agreed to hear her out.


    The Gay Couple Cited as an Example in Smith's Case Reportedly Did Not Exist

    Included in filings for the 303 Creative case is an alleged request that came from a man seeking help with a gay wedding website. But as The New Republic reported on Thursday, the man identified in the request says he never filed it.

    The New Republic cites court filings from Smith showing that a man named Stewart contacted her in September 2016 about his wedding to Mike, which he said was taking place “early next year.” He added that the couple “would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website.”

    But this week — when The New Republic got ahold of the Stewart whose name, email address, and cell phone number were included on that "same-sex marriage request" — the man told the outlet he did not send the form, and that he was married to a woman at the time it was allegedly sent.

    “If somebody’s pulled my information, as some kind of supporting information or documentation, somebody’s falsified that,” Stewart told the outlet. “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."

    As The New Republic notes, it's unclear whether the inquiry from “Stewart” included in the initial court filing was ever verified.


    Smith Was Represented by a Christian Legal Group Known to Target LGBTQ+ Rights

    Smith has been represented by attorneys for the Christian rights group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which lobbies to expand Christian practices within public schools and in government, and to outlaw abortion.

    As The Guardian reports, the group has spent millions of dollars in an attempt to curtail LGBTQ+ rights, and has been involved in many cases across the U.S. that deal directly with transgender rights. The group was also tangentially involved in a series of "He Gets Us" ads that aired during the Super Bowl and depicted a modern view of Jesus in an apparent attempt to market his teachings to Millennials and Gen Zers.

    ADF's attempts to strip rights from the LGBTQ+ community come amid a wave of 2023 bills specifically targeting queer and transgender people.


  2. by Donna on July 2, 2023 9:17 am

    So this is where we are now? You don't even have to have a real case to have your complaint decided on by the supreme court?


  3. by Ponderer on July 2, 2023 9:18 am

    So apparently, a made up, fictitious, and hypothetical case was heard before the Supreme Court.

    I am no law expert. As has been pointed out many times. But I would guess that plaintiffs are required to have actually suffered from some sort of harm by nonfictional persons to have what I believe is called "standing"...?


    The way you Fascist MAGA Republicans operate puts the Mafia to shame. Our entire justice system to you is just something you can twist and bend and distort into whatever you want in order to get your way. The desires of the majority of the country be damned.





  4. by Ponderer on July 2, 2023 9:31 am

    By the way, the supposed gay man requesting the marriage website from Smith in Colorado and who never requested anything from her and is actually straight and already married..... lives in San Francisco, and is a web designer himself.

    This thing stinks to literal High Heaven.



  5. by Curt_Anderson on July 2, 2023 9:36 am
    The decision won’t be overturned by this or another SCOTUS anytime soon. But maybe some disappointed lefty Democratic voters will realize how their vote impacts who is appointed to the courts.

    Alito’s and Thomas’ unseemly gift taking along with their decisions will motivate Democrats like the Dobbs decision did.


  6. by Ponderer on July 2, 2023 9:46 am

    You're right, Curt. The Colorado DA is going to see what's possible to at least get this reheard since it was based on an apparently organized fraud.

    File it under: EXAMPLES WHY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY MUST NEVER BE ALLOWED TO HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE AGAIN


    Geez. The file cabinet is getting too full to put anything in anymore. I'll start a new drawer in a new cabinet and spread it all out between them a bit....




  7. by Curt_Anderson on July 2, 2023 9:55 am
    I’d like to know why the losing side didn’t argue that the plaintiff made up her case out of whole cloth. Why wasn’t this made public long before?


  8. by Ponderer on July 2, 2023 10:11 am

    It took a real good reporter to get to the bottom of it. But wouldn't you think that there needed to be signed documents declaring that what they were basing their case on was true? There's got to be some sort of legal fraud having happened her.

    I mean, they made up a case and lied about it before the Supreme Court! It should have never gotten that far being entirely hypothetical.


    There simply had to be a lot of inside help that allowed this travesty of justice to be presented before the Supreme Court.


  9. by oldedude on July 2, 2023 10:30 am
    po- Smith's Case Was Hypothetical Yes. In an effort (esp. in colorado where the same law has been tested and found wrongfully used in another case, with other SCOTUS, Smith asked the "state" to get a reading on a law before she entered business. Just for this reason. The bakery won in SCOTUS with the state using the same law and the same reasoning.

    The Gay Couple Cited as an Example in Smith's Case Reportedly Did Not Exist That's what hypothetical means.

    By the way, the supposed gay man requesting the marriage website from Smith in Colorado and who never requested anything from her and is actually straight and already married..... lives in San Francisco, and is a web designer himself. It's hypothetical. The information you got was wrong. I'd be careful using them again.

    Smith Was Represented by a Christian Legal Group Known to Target LGBTQ+ RightsBold And anti-gun people use antigun lawyers to plead their case, and pro-gun folks use pro-gun lawyers to plead theirs.

    You're right, Curt. The Colorado DA is going to see what's possible to at least get this reheard since it was based on an apparently organized fraud. A DA can't petition SCOTUS.

    Donna- So this is where we are now? You don't even have to have a real case to have your complaint decided on by the supreme court? SCOTUS is about if the state law coincides with federal law and the constitution. In this case SCOTUS (like the last SCOTUS) feels the rights of free speech and ability to believe in your own religion (not of the requestor, but of the artist). Is paramount.

    Honestly, CO needs to figure this one out. They've lost twice with the same law and the same person defending it.

    "I’d like to know why the losing side didn’t argue that the plaintiff made up her case out of whole cloth. Why wasn’t this made public long before?"
    It was clear she was asking for guidance from the state and the state didn't budge from it's view. Maybe they thought they could win this time, I dunno. SCOTUS actually sees lots of cases like this. I've seen it with gun laws. That's how Newsome got overturned so quick. One of the gun rights' groups started up the chain and it ended up in SCOTUS. It's also how the Student loan payback got looked at before anyone got paid.



  10. by Ponderer on July 2, 2023 10:58 am

    "It's hypothetical. The information you got was wrong." -olde dude

    od, they used a real person as their hypothetical. They made up information about a real person who knew nothing about what they were doing. They fraudulently said that he approached her to make a wedding web site, when he did no such thing. You're telling me that there's nothing wrong with that?

    If I knew your name and address and gave it to some radical "legal" organization, they are free to make up a case using you as their example and say all manner of untrue things about you to fabricate a case with, while you knew nothing at all about any of it, that'd be okay to you?

    No harm, no foul?



  11. by Ponderer on July 2, 2023 11:00 am

    "A DA can't petition SCOTUS." -olde dude

    That's why I said he's looking into what he can do.


  12. by Ponderer on July 2, 2023 11:24 am


    "Smith brought the case to the U.S. District Court in Colorado in 2016, represented by the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom. Because she had not yet been confronted with a gay couple requesting her services — or broken the anti-discrimination law — the state sought to dismiss her case.

    Months later, Smith's legal team said that she had, in fact, received an inquiry to design a gay couple's wedding website after the suit was filed. Smith submitted a sworn statement about the inquiry, along with a copy of the 'same-sex wedding request,' as evidence.
    -from the article


    They knowingly presented fraudulent documents to a court, olde dude. That's not illegal?


    "[Oh! So they actually needed a gay person to request that she make the website...? And she never had one...? Well hell then, we'll just make up a gay person who did! We'll pick out a real person's name and their email address and information and then just say that this fictional character we made up requested a wedding site. That way it will look just like an actual case involving an actual gay person.]" -The Propagandist Alliance Fraudulently Defending What Radical Bigoted Conservatives Say Is Freedom


    Fuckingassholes. Happy to wipe their asses with the Constitution or the legal system or anything else that gets in their way. Fuckingbastards.









  13. by Ponderer on July 2, 2023 11:27 am

    "Smith submitted a sworn statement about the inquiry, along with a copy of the 'same-sex wedding request,' as evidence." -The article

    Your heroine committed perjury, olde dude. She broke the law. That doesn't matter a damn to you???



  14. by oldedude on July 2, 2023 11:38 am
    where did you get your information? same source.. I'm calling BS


  15. by Curt_Anderson on July 2, 2023 11:59 am
    OD,
    It’s apparently not BS. See the AP report below.

    The conservative National Review admits it may be a fake but claims that if came from a “troll” or a real person is immaterial, claiming it would be illegal for Lorie Smith to verify if it were a real legitimate request. That will be welcome news to those perpetuating Nigerian prince hoaxes.
    apnews.com
    nationalreview.com


  16. by oldedude on July 2, 2023 12:04 pm
    I just got my information from SCOTUS. On what they were presented. Those are the facts they were presented with. I gave you the cite and the sentence in bold regarding if there were real people. SCOTUS was told there weren't.

    Someone is feeding you lies and you're buying off on them. Hook. Line. and Sinker.


  17. by oldedude on July 2, 2023 12:04 pm
    I just got my information from SCOTUS. On what they were presented. Those are the facts they were presented with. I gave you the cite and the sentence in bold regarding if there were real people. SCOTUS was told there weren't.

    Someone is feeding you lies and you're buying off on them. Hook. Line. and Sinker.


  18. by Ponderer on July 2, 2023 12:08 pm

    I'm hearing the same story covered the same way by other

    So you don't believe the reporter who uncovered this story? You think they're s lying about it all? The guy who is named in the case told her something completely different than what she reported him saying? He actually corroborated what the case said about him asking for a gay wedding website?

    So you think that reporters consider their careers disposable??? You think they're going to report such an easily debunkable falsehood and you think they are still gonna have an easy time getting another journalism job?


    And another thing, od. Do you know of any other hypothetical case based on made up information ever taken up by the Supreme Court in its entire history?



  19. by Indy! on July 2, 2023 12:14 pm

    Curt: The decision won’t be overturned by this or another SCOTUS anytime soon. But maybe some disappointed lefty Democratic voters will realize how their vote impacts who is appointed to the courts.

    I don't know if this is some veiled shot at myself and people like me, but I'll explain it again just in case.

    Part 1: "Ds" are not Ds
    First off, the term "lefty Democratic voters" does not apply. The disaffected left are (for the most part) not Democrats at all. Here is the 2021 breakdown of voters...

    Ds: 29%
    Rs: 27%
    Is: 42% (About 33% of Is vote for one party or the other)

    Easy to see who the biggest group is - disaffected Americans. And a good portion of those Ds and Rs aren't really Ds or Rs. Florida law says I have to be registered as D or R to vote in the primaries. So I have D beside my name, but I have not considered myself a D since 2004. So that's your first problem - if Democrats want to win - they need to present a platform that brings in voters outside their hard right ideology.

    Part 2: Elected Ds are not "left"
    I've explained this before on the board - how voters had less to do with the Supreme Clown situation than the actual Ds in power...

    1. Obama gave up his Clown pic. That's 1.
    2. RBG stayed long past the time she should have retired. That's 2 Clowns.

    Just switch those two around and we have a 5-4 liberal Court.
    3. The DNC was bought by Hillary Clinton and she rigged the 2016 election from every angle imaginable. The People did not want Hillary. That's 2 more Clowns.

    Part 3: Biden could try to expand the Court.
    Especially in the wake of it being proven that all the Clowns on the right lied about Roe when they were being considered. Biden's not even talking about it. Why? Because he's a right winger. Which is why the true left doesn't care or vote for Ds.

    So it all comes full circle. You want a liberal, progressive Court? Start nominating liberal, progressive candidates instead of Rs in D clothing (see pic below).



  20. by Ponderer on July 2, 2023 12:25 pm

    There are occasions when it isn't all about you, Indy!.


  21. by Indy! on July 2, 2023 12:31 pm

    If only I were that powerful, Pondy. You would have full rights and protections. You think I'm the problem - I KNOW that you and people like Curt are the problem. The Ds had plenty of opportunities to make this a different country - time and time again they have CHOSEN not to do anything different. If you want to continue to fool yourself into believing a far right party is going to help leftists - then you are going to be disappointed every time. I'm done fooling myself. I wish you and the others would come to your senses too because we need your help to get a viable progressive party started to counteract the red/blue's deconstruction of everything we THOUGHT America stood for.


  22. by Ponderer on July 2, 2023 12:57 pm

    "You think I'm the problem" -Indy!

    Nowhere, at any time, have I ever suggested anything like that. Did you not vote in the '16 election and I blamed you and non-voters for being responsible.


    "I KNOW that you and people like Curt are the problem." -Indy!

    Right. Because we won't vote for...... um... Who again...? From what third party is it...? Because instead, we voted for Hillary to keep Trump out of the White House...?


  23. by oldedude on July 2, 2023 1:51 pm
    And another thing, od. Do you know of any other hypothetical case based on made up information ever taken up by the Supreme Court in its entire history?

    I already talked about this, but in your hersteria you didn't read it.

    This is VERY common. Most of the constitutional issues with gun control have been fought this way.

    A PRIME EXAMPLE- pedojoe's student loan forgiveness program.

    Several EO's from Trump (I didn't count, but there were more than a few).

    None of these have actual people that are affected. YET. SCOTUS rules only on how a law is applied.
    They don't have the ability to tell a court to release anyone, but they DO have the right to tell them their law violates;
    1. their own state constitution that does not violate the Federal laws and constitution.
    2. Federal laws and the constitution
    3. The laws involved were misused and are therefore voided.

    In this case, SCOTUS can call the violation of the federal law. Unfortunately, they can't tell CO to either unfuck their law, or unfuck the way they read it. This is twice with two different sets of justices that have disagreed with this same CO law that hasn't been changed. And it's only been challenged twice. The state lost both times. They first need to unfuck themselves.

    After the first flurry of these types of cases, everyone else figured it out. CO apparently doesn't care.


  24. by Indy! on July 2, 2023 2:13 pm

    Nowhere, at any time, have I ever suggested anything like that. Did you not vote in the '16 election and I blamed you and non-voters for being responsible.

    Sarcasm? If not, what did you mean by the previous statement "it isn't all about you, Indy?" I don't remember if I was on the board during the 2016 elections - but I've been upfront about voting for Gary Johnson because he had the best chance of getting 5% and he supported two ideas I believe in greatly and the "progressive lefty" Ds did not... Legalizing marijuana 100% and cutting the "defense" budget in half.


    Right. Because we won't vote for...... um... Who again...? From what third party is it...? Because instead, we voted for Hillary to keep Trump out of the White House...?

    And how did that work out for you and Curt? And although I appreciate your belief in the power of my vote, if I had voted for Hillary she only would have lost the state of Florida by 112,910 votes and Trump still would have been president. Again - it's not about me - it's about changing the direction of the country. The definition of insanity applies when it comes to voting D. So who's the crazy one?


  25. by Curt_Anderson on July 2, 2023 2:16 pm
    OD,
    I read your claim that SCOTUS sees "a lot" of hypothetical claims like this supposed wedding website designer's issue with same-sex marriage. I doubt it.

    I don't know or remember all the cases you alluded to, but you seem to be mistaken. The six conservative states that objected to Biden's loan forgiveness plan made the case that they would be harmed, thus they have standing. The same was true of the affirmative action case: Asian students made the case they were harmed by missing out on Ivy League schools. They demonstrated they had standing.

    The web designer fabricated the example of her supposed harm. Btw, I've seen wedding websites. The pages are not unique expressions of the web designer. They are really created by the couple, not the web designer. There are a variety of styles and formats to select from, and the couple inputs their names, dates, locations, photos and other details.


  26. by oldedude on July 2, 2023 2:24 pm
    I read your claim that SCOTUS sees "a lot" of hypothetical claims like this supposed wedding website designer's issue with same-sex marriage. I doubt it.

    This one has standing also. If not, the court would have rejected it that would have been it to answer your question. ALL cases SCOTUS choses to hear have been looked at for that among a plethora of other things.

    So if Indy creates a piece of art to an entity's liking, it's not his creation? You're wrong, and that's been supported by decades of litigation. Including songs, paintings, and all other artwork.


  27. by HatetheSwamp on July 2, 2023 2:43 pm

    The Bizarre — and Hypothetical — Case That Sparked the Supreme Court's Regressive LGBTQ+ Discrimination Ruling

    Retweeted by that gay Guy Curt never heard of:

    "This is the dumbest controversy imaginable.

    1) The case in question was a pre-enforcement action so the referenced request wasn’t really necessary for the case.

    2) Both sides (including Colorado) stipulated to the facts to the District Court. The SCOTUS opinion assumes those stipulations.

    3) They don’t actually know that the guy they are talking to in these articles is the person that submitted the request via the website (after the complaint had already been filed and gotten media attention)"

    Baha baha baha bahahahahahahahahahaha hahaha!


  28. by Curt_Anderson on July 2, 2023 2:50 pm
    OD,
    It's not the Supreme Court's job to investigate the veracity of claim by a plaintiff. I think her case was a phony and she fooled the justices.

    Standing is important. Just ask the Federalist Society.

    "Standing is the requirement that someone has suffered real and remediable harm as a result of someone else’s conduct before they can bring a lawsuit. The media frequently refers to it as a “technicality” or describes it as a “punt” when the Court dismisses a case for lack of standing. But standing is not a technicality. It’s one of the most important issues a federal court decides in a case, and it’s essential that courts—especially the Supreme Court—get it right.

    Of course, the Federalist Society may now be singing a different tune. Just like they formerly railed against "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench". But that was then.

    I am a better example and analogy to the wedding web designer than Indy!. He does create unique expressions of commercial art. I don't consider your posts to be my creation. You use my forms as do the hundreds of thousand of visitors who have created posts, selectors and flowcharts on this site. Incidentally, my pages including this one have disclaimers. Lorie Smith supposedly has a website business called "303 creative wedding website design". If her site actually exists, I cannot find it.
    fedsoc.org


  29. by Indy! on July 2, 2023 3:16 pm

    I would disagree with that, Curt. You are not selling a creative product to me - you are selling advertisers an audience. That is not a creative endeavor - it's a marketing endeavor.

    Also, nobody has used the term "commercial art" in 40 years.


  30. by Curt_Anderson on July 2, 2023 3:37 pm
    Indy, practically all art made since recorded history is commercial art . That includes sculptors of statues of ancient emperors, the Michelangelos who produced art for the Pope, portrait artists of the wealthy and any artist who created art hoping to sell it to patron or client.

    The cave painting artists of Lascaux and the like are among the few exceptions of non-commercial artists.

    Since I didn't say I was selling a creative product to you, I won't respond to that. But I agree with your point about this being a marketing endeavor. Likewise, a wedding website would be marketing endeavor which would only be commercially viable if it utilized forms that user-created pages much like this site.



  31. by oldedude on July 2, 2023 3:59 pm
    It's not the Supreme Court's job to investigate the veracity of claim by a plaintiff. I think her case was a phony and she fooled the justices.
    That's your opinion. I think there's humor that you think you know their jobs better than they do. The question is "does the execution of this law violate the constitution or the laws of the US? And if so, which ones, and what takes precedence. The decision is the First Amendment (right to worship as you please, and the right of free speech equally) takes precedence over the other issues.

    Lorie Smith supposedly has a website business called "303 creative wedding website design". If her site actually exists, I cannot find it.

    Had you read the brief, even what I quoted, and what I've said twice before (and referenced)
    The high court's majority stated that "under Colorado’s logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic — no matter the message — if the topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected trait."

    "Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty," the opinion states.

    While Ms. Smith has laid the groundwork for her new venture, she has yet to carry out her plans. She worries that, if she does so, Colorado will force her to express views with which she disagrees. Ms. Smith provides her website
    and graphic services to customers regardless of their race, creed, sex, or sexual orientation. Id., at 184a. But she has never created expressions that contradict her own views for anyone—whether that means generating works that encourage violence, demean another person, or defy her religious beliefs by, say, promoting atheism. See ibid.; see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 19–20


    supremecourt.gov


  32. by Curt_Anderson on July 2, 2023 4:56 pm
    "While Ms. Smith has laid the groundwork for her new venture, she has yet to carry out her plans. She worries that, if she does so, Colorado will force her to express views with which she disagrees. Ms. Smith provides her website
    and graphic services to customers regardless of their race, creed, sex, or sexual orientation. Id., at 184a. But she has never created expressions that contradict her own views for anyone—whether that means generating works that encourage violence, demean another person, or defy her religious beliefs by, say, promoting atheism. See ibid.; see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 19–20" ---OD quoting SCOTUS


    I see some problems with the above.

    Like this line: "Ms. Smith provides her website and graphic services to customers regardless of their...sexual orientation". If that were true, why hell did she take it to the Supreme Court?

    "While Ms. Smith has laid the groundwork for her new venture, she has yet to carry out her plans." Unlike a brick & mortar story, a person can register a domain name and have a website online for about the cost of tank of gas. Are we supposed to believe that she was waiting for her first customers before she went live with her site? How did the mysterious "Stewart and Mike" who supposedly offended her religious sensibilities even know of her services?


  33. by Indy! on July 2, 2023 6:26 pm

    Thanks for the gratuitous history lesson, Curt - but the point still stands. Nobody (outside of you) uses the term "commercial art" anymore unless they are writing a script for something taking place in the 1970s.


  34. by oldedude on July 2, 2023 7:41 pm
    Like this line: "Ms. Smith provides her website and graphic services to customers regardless of their...sexual orientation". If that were true, why hell did she take it to the Supreme Court?

    Like I've posted Four times now and you had it right there to read. It's her religious restrictions on gay marriage. Would she work with a gay couple that wants a website? Sure. Just not a marriage site. The state could not refute this, after they brought it up in trial and Smith proved beyond a reasonable doubt this was the truth.

    Ms. Smith provides her website and graphic services to customers regardless of their race, creed, sex, or sexual orientation. Id., at 184a.

    But she has never created expressions that contradict her own views for anyone—whether that means generating works that encourage violence, demean another person, or defy her religious beliefs by, say, promoting atheism. See ibid.; see also Tr. of Oral Arg.


  35. by Curt_Anderson on July 2, 2023 8:08 pm
    OD,
    Interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are legal in the US. Would you support her claim to a right not to make a wedding (or a marriage anniversary) page for Clarence and Ginny Thomas and all other interracial couples?

    That she apparently is willing to provide some but not all services to gay people is a little like a restaurant that will sell food to Black customers but they have to enter through the backdoor, keep out of sight and use the outhouse.


  36. by oldedude on July 3, 2023 5:10 am
    Since you keep arguing this point which both indy and I agree (which is somewhat of a miracle).

    IF she is FORCED to violate her religious beliefs, then she is REQUIRED under the law to provide all services to her website design. This, ACCORDING TO THE DOCUMENTS YOU REFERENCED include sites of hatred, that encourage violence, demean another person, or defy her religious beliefs by, say, promoting atheism. That's what the law says. It seems you can't tell the difference between having morals or not. As long as it suits you.

    You are yet again, arguing your "feelings" and forgetting you need to be arguing the law. Two entirely different things. Anything she creates is only under the "approval" of the state. So YOU would have to do a website supporting snuff videos, or neo-Nazi groups, or if the local trumpster organization requested it. Not if you wanted to or agreed to, but mandatory under the law. And if you didn't, you would be prosecuted under the law. You would have zero say in what contracts you took or didn't take.


  37. by HatetheSwamp on July 3, 2023 5:15 am

    So apparently, a made up, fictitious, and hypothetical case was heard before the Supreme Court.

    For someone who claims to know so much about what's constitutional, you don't know much.

    As that gay Guy Curt never heard of retweeted:

    "2) Both sides (including Colorado) stipulated to the facts to the District Court. The SCOTUS opinion assumes those stipulations." It's a done deal, po.

    And, as I noted to Donna. THE NEW REPUBLIC? C'mon man. Gimme a break and, while you're at it, save the Queen, man!

    If you wanted to quote legitimate authority, why not cite THE WEEKLY WORLD NEWS? Baha baha.


  38. by oldedude on July 3, 2023 5:38 am
    That's why I left the citations in the Gorsich paper. It actually states the background and support for the decision based on not only what was presented to them, but also the prior levels from the original case through the appeals process. It has far more depth than I originally thought.


Go To Top

Comment on: "Recent SC ruling removing protections for LGBTQ folk is ripe for overturning"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page