Homophobic wedding website designers can discriminate too

[Velar Fricative]

My wording, obviously. Gift link

[gretchenindisguise]

From Sotomayor:
"Around the country, there has been a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities," the dissent read. "New forms of inclusion have been met with reactionary exclusion. This is heartbreaking. Sadly, it is also familiar. When the civil rights and women’s rights movements sought equality in public life, some public establishments refused. Some even claimed, based on sincere religious beliefs, constitutional rights to discriminate. The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims."

[StrawberryBlondie]

I read the other day that the web designer made up the potential customers she wanted to deny business to. As in, they were real people but never inquired about her creating anything for them.

I feel like that should've been news.

[gretchenindisguise]

Jun 30, 2023 9:21:34 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

I read the other day that the web designer made up the potential customers she wanted to deny business to. As in, they were real people but never inquired about her creating anything for them.

I feel like that should've been news.

Yes. She's never actually had the chance to discriminate - but just in case the opportunity ever presented itself, she wanted to make sure she could. 

I hate them all. 

[Velar Fricative]

Yup, she has never actually made a website. And the article about how she made up potential customers is this one: newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

[wildrice]

Fuck all these people. The court, the bigoted plaintiff, and anyone who will celebrate this.

Also super bummed about the student loan forgiveness. This weeks is a real blow to people in this country who are struggling just to live here.

[aurora]

Jun 30, 2023 9:39:10 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Yup, she has never actually made a website. And the article about how she made up potential customers is this one: newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

I was reading this earlier. I'm not familiar with New Republic but it's wild that they say the man who supposedly reached out to her about the site had no idea the court case was (supposedly) about him - nobody had contacted him about it since the original was filed.

My only glimmer of hope here is that the web designer gets hot for lying in her filing (assuming they can prove she made it all up).

Obviously that doesn't make up for the real damage she has done.

[goldengirlz]

Jun 30, 2023 9:28:43 GMT -5 gretchenindisguise said:

Jun 30, 2023 9:21:34 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

I read the other day that the web designer made up the potential customers she wanted to deny business to. As in, they were real people but never inquired about her creating anything for them.

I feel like that should've been news.

Yes. She's never actually had the chance to discriminate - but just in case the opportunity ever presented itself, she wanted to make sure she could. 

I hate them all. 

Yeah, I’m wondering, how did she even have standing to sue? I thought you had to show harm.

[Pom]

Bigots are sure having a banner week with the Supreme Court justices they bought and paid for. It was “generous” they didn’t give them every win as if to say see, but we could have made it all even worse. Oh Yeah? Fuck you. Your legacy is carved deep.

[pixy0stix]

Jun 30, 2023 14:01:43 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

Jun 30, 2023 9:28:43 GMT -5 gretchenindisguise said:

Yes. She's never actually had the chance to discriminate - but just in case the opportunity ever presented itself, she wanted to make sure she could. 

I hate them all. 

Yeah, I’m wondering, how did she even have standing to sue? I thought you had to show harm.

The original Colorado lawsuit was against a Colorado law, the "Colorado Anti-discrimination Act", that she said would have infringed upon her first Amendment right to be a bigot... errr... compel her to create websites for "marriages she does not endorse" per the language of the complaint. The "harm" here is forcing her to do something she didn't want to do.

[goldengirlz]

Jun 30, 2023 15:54:11 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Jun 30, 2023 14:01:43 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

Yeah, I’m wondering, how did she even have standing to sue? I thought you had to show harm.

The original Colorado lawsuit was against a Colorado law, the "Colorado Anti-discrimination Act", that she said would have infringed upon her first Amendment right to be a bigot... errr... compel her to create websites for "marriages she does not endorse" per the language of the complaint. The "harm" here is forcing her to do something she didn't want to do.

Even still. I didn’t think hypothetical harm qualified for standing. But I guess that was the question with student debt relief too, whether the states even had standing.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jun 30, 2023 18:13:38 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

Jun 30, 2023 15:54:11 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

The original Colorado lawsuit was against a Colorado law, the "Colorado Anti-discrimination Act", that she said would have infringed upon her first Amendment right to be a bigot... errr... compel her to create websites for "marriages she does not endorse" per the language of the complaint. The "harm" here is forcing her to do something she didn't want to do.

Even still. I didn’t think hypothetical harm qualified for standing. But I guess that was the question with student debt relief too, whether the states even had standing.

Apparently standing is more vibes right now than a requirement.

[wanderingback]

Jun 30, 2023 14:01:43 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

Jun 30, 2023 9:28:43 GMT -5 gretchenindisguise said:

Yes. She's never actually had the chance to discriminate - but just in case the opportunity ever presented itself, she wanted to make sure she could. 

I hate them all. 

Yeah, I’m wondering, how did she even have standing to sue? I thought you had to show harm.

Well we’re living in the wild Wild West. That’s what lawyers are saying about the mifepristone cause that it doesn’t even have merit in the first place cause the shitty group that brought the case wasn’t even harmed. The law is just all made up anyway.

[mpm]

I read that she had actually received an inquiry about making a website. It’s still a pre-enforcement challenge because no one had actually tried to enforce this law against her but that does make it a less hypothetical situation. It later turned out that it was likely a fake inquiry. For purposes of summary judgment in the lower court, the fact that she had received an inquiry wasn’t challenged. I am very interested in more investigation into whether she or her attorneys knew it was a fake inquiry when they brought suit.

Discussed here:
www.thedailybeast.com/303-creative-v-elenis-gay-couple-cited-in-major-scotus-case-may-not-exist

newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

[meganew]

Jul 1, 2023 6:19:21 GMT -5 mpm said:

I read that she had actually received an inquiry about making a website. It’s still a pre-enforcement challenge because no one had actually tried to enforce this law against her but that does make it a less hypothetical situation. It later turned out that it was likely a fake inquiry. For purposes of summary judgment in the lower court, the fact that she had received an inquiry wasn’t challenged. I am very interested in more investigation into whether she or her attorneys knew it was a fake inquiry when they brought suit.

Discussed here:
www.thedailybeast.com/303-creative-v-elenis-gay-couple-cited-in-major-scotus-case-may-not-exist

newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

How did it get this far without anyone contacting the person who supposedly made the original inquiry- I don’t understand that part. My H is a designer and knows the Stewart that the inquiry supposedly came from, and he didn’t know his name was attached to this until this week. Wtf. Like where did this woman get his info from, because he’s never heard of her before now.

[maudefindlay]

So does this mean businesses can openly discriminate against lgbtq+, black persons of color, Jewish, Muslims, Asians, etc? It sure seems to open the door for it.

[imimahoney]

I just can't believe they even heard this case. What a shit show. Fuck them for this

[goldengirlz]

Jul 1, 2023 5:58:14 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

Jun 30, 2023 14:01:43 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

Yeah, I’m wondering, how did she even have standing to sue? I thought you had to show harm.

Well we’re living in the wild Wild West. That’s what lawyers are saying about the mifepristone cause that it doesn’t even have merit in the first place cause the shitty group that brought the case wasn’t even harmed. The law is just all made up anyway.

You’re right. It’s all fake to suit an agenda (and ironic, because the Republicans were the ones always shrieking about “activist judges.”) Like could I please sue every gun owner because I could hypothetically get shot? It’s such bullshit.

[katespade]

Jul 1, 2023 11:23:32 GMT -5 maudefindlay said:

So does this mean businesses can openly discriminate against lgbtq+, black persons of color, Jewish, Muslims, Asians, etc? It sure seems to open the door for it.

My understanding is that it is specific to products that involve some level of artistic design. So, it wouldn’t apply to being physically present in a store, but would apply to something like a tattoo artist’s right to refuse to create/apply a design that goes against their beliefs.

I may be wrong, but that was my takeaway from my research so far.

[mpm]

Jul 1, 2023 8:21:45 GMT -5 meganew said:

Jul 1, 2023 6:19:21 GMT -5 mpm said:

I read that she had actually received an inquiry about making a website. It’s still a pre-enforcement challenge because no one had actually tried to enforce this law against her but that does make it a less hypothetical situation. It later turned out that it was likely a fake inquiry. For purposes of summary judgment in the lower court, the fact that she had received an inquiry wasn’t challenged. I am very interested in more investigation into whether she or her attorneys knew it was a fake inquiry when they brought suit.

Discussed here:
www.thedailybeast.com/303-creative-v-elenis-gay-couple-cited-in-major-scotus-case-may-not-exist

newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

How did it get this far without anyone contacting the person who supposedly made the original inquiry- I don’t understand that part. My H is a designer and knows the Stewart that the inquiry supposedly came from, and he didn’t know his name was attached to this until this week. Wtf. Like where did this woman get his info from, because he’s never heard of her before now.

The way this case got to the Supreme Court was after a series of appeals from a motion for summary judgment. The standard for this motion basically requires the moving party to tell the court that any facts that are in dispute, ie whether this was an inquiry from a real person or not, are immaterial to how they’re asking the court to apply the law. There was a sworn affidavit attached to a lower court pleading that an inquiry was received. So whether it was an inquiry from a real person or not is immaterial because when she received an inquiry to do something that she felt went against her strongly held religious beliefs she had to decide in that moment without further investigation into the substance of that request whether to say yes or no, and no would have violated the law.

[maudefindlay]

katespade thank you for explaining that. It's all so hateful and harmful.

[TR]

Jul 1, 2023 14:08:43 GMT -5 mpm said:

Jul 1, 2023 8:21:45 GMT -5 meganew said:

How did it get this far without anyone contacting the person who supposedly made the original inquiry- I don’t understand that part. My H is a designer and knows the Stewart that the inquiry supposedly came from, and he didn’t know his name was attached to this until this week. Wtf. Like where did this woman get his info from, because he’s never heard of her before now.

The way this case got to the Supreme Court was after a series of appeals from a motion for summary judgment. The standard for this motion basically requires the moving party to tell the court that any facts that are in dispute, ie whether this was an inquiry from a real person or not, are immaterial to how they’re asking the court to apply the law. There was a sworn affidavit attached to a lower court pleading that an inquiry was received. So whether it was an inquiry from a real person or not is immaterial because when she received an inquiry to do something that she felt went against her strongly held religious beliefs she had to decide in that moment without further investigation into the substance of that request whether to say yes or no, and no would have violated the law.

It feels like it should matter if SHE made up the inquiry. And that’s how the articles read to me. Not that a random other person made a fake inquiry. That SHE claims she got this inquiry, but in fact, made it up.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jul 1, 2023 13:31:14 GMT -5 katespade said:

Jul 1, 2023 11:23:32 GMT -5 maudefindlay said:

So does this mean businesses can openly discriminate against lgbtq+, black persons of color, Jewish, Muslims, Asians, etc? It sure seems to open the door for it.

My understanding is that it is specific to products that involve some level of artistic design. So, it wouldn’t apply to being physically present in a store, but would apply to something like a tattoo artist’s right to refuse to create/apply a design that goes against their beliefs.

I may be wrong, but that was my takeaway from my research so far.

You're right, but I wouldn't be surprised if people try to take it further.

[chickadee77]

I know this is the wrong answer, but I wanna open a business that won't touch cis-hets.

Goes both ways, yeah?

[My guess is, no.]

[livinitup]

Jul 1, 2023 21:48:58 GMT -5 chickadee77 said:

I know this is the wrong answer, but I wanna open a business that won't touch cis-hets.

Goes both ways, yeah?

[My guess is, no.]

Sure. That’s not a protected class anyway. And now it’s just open season.

[aurora]

Jul 1, 2023 17:26:42 GMT -5 TR said:

Jul 1, 2023 14:08:43 GMT -5 mpm said:

The way this case got to the Supreme Court was after a series of appeals from a motion for summary judgment. The standard for this motion basically requires the moving party to tell the court that any facts that are in dispute, ie whether this was an inquiry from a real person or not, are immaterial to how they’re asking the court to apply the law. There was a sworn affidavit attached to a lower court pleading that an inquiry was received. So whether it was an inquiry from a real person or not is immaterial because when she received an inquiry to do something that she felt went against her strongly held religious beliefs she had to decide in that moment without further investigation into the substance of that request whether to say yes or no, and no would have violated the law.

It feels like it should matter if SHE made up the inquiry. And that’s how the articles read to me. Not that a random other person made a fake inquiry. That SHE claims she got this inquiry, but in fact, made it up.

This is also how I read it. If she lied about getting an inquiry (in a sworn affidavit), wouldn't that be a problem?

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jul 2, 2023 10:23:34 GMT -5 aurora said:

Jul 1, 2023 17:26:42 GMT -5 TR said:

It feels like it should matter if SHE made up the inquiry. And that’s how the articles read to me. Not that a random other person made a fake inquiry. That SHE claims she got this inquiry, but in fact, made it up.

This is also how I read it. If she lied about getting an inquiry (in a sworn affidavit), wouldn't that be a problem?

Yes.

But only if it was made an issue. My guess is nobody considered it might be fake.

[krystee]

It kills me that “Christians” supposedly believe that Jesus DIED for that LGBTQ+ customer via a brutal crucifixion, but they won’t make a fucking web site for them.

[livinitup]

Jul 2, 2023 11:53:44 GMT -5 krystee said:

It kills me that “Christians” supposedly believe that Jesus DIED for that LGBTQ+ customer via a brutal crucifixion, but they won’t make a fucking web site for them.

I think they’ve moved past “what would Jesus do” a looooooonnng time ago.

[katfco]

Jul 2, 2023 11:53:44 GMT -5 krystee said:

It kills me that “Christians” supposedly believe that Jesus DIED for that LGBTQ+ customer via a brutal crucifixion, but they won’t make a fucking web site for them.

That's because they believe Jesus died to forgive them for being LGBTQ+, provided they don't actually act on those feelings.