SCOTUS sided with Christian Web Designer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court is intended to protect rights not limit them. Here, rights have been limited under the guise that other rights are being protected. It’s absurd.

Also, there was reportedly no live controversy at the time. And that’s what people are talking about with regard to standing. There are complex reasons that are very important as to why there needs to be an actual person who actually believes they are being discriminated against before they can take legal action. (verse a purported fear that it could happen in the future.)

For the purposes of discussion, even excluding the “ political” make up of the court, this decision could’ve been very different, and made much more sense if there was actually a gay couple who was trying to force this purportedly devout Christian woman to create a “marriage” website for them. (Even then, it’s a stretch to claim that a website designer’s freedom of expression or speech is being impaired because she would move a couple of templates around.)

The point is most likely if she had said, “I’m a devout Christian and I don’t want to design a website for you”, a real gay couple would likely say “you’re a jerk” and “I’m gonna find someone else.”

It just feels like the whole intention of this case was to take advantage of the current make up of the court.

Exactly. The whole thing was manufactured and orchestrated. There was never any actual injured party, there was no gay couple, there was no demand to create a website, the state never compelled the designer to do anything. The whole thing was a lie. And I believe the reason it ended up in SCOTUS is because the lower courts tossed the lie, so they kept appealing it to higher courts until they landed it in a SCOTUS that was favorable to them. It's incredibly sleazy to manipulate the system like this, and further adds to the illegitimacy of this SCOTUS majority. It's a complete sham. And at risk of "constitutional crisis" and while not directly advocating for it, I do think state and local jurisdictions, as well as other branches of government would be well in their rights to just start ignoring these Supreme Court rulings until some form of oversight, judicial review and legitimacy is restored to the court if they chose to do so.

AZ attorney general has said she’s going to ignore it. Love that.

As for standing, I don’t even think she needed a fake gay person. She presented it she herself was the injured party who would be fined or jailed or whatever if she set up her site the way she (probably falsely and total BS) wanted to according to her plan. So it wasn’t some person suing her; I think she essentially sued Colorado to get an injunction against enforcing its law against her so that she could freely open her site up without fear of being punished. That’s different entirely from being sued for failing to provide a services.

Again total BS but that’s what the case was.

That still isn't proper standing.

The law doesn’t require you to “break the law” in order to challenge a statute. There is a law on the Colorado books that would have put her at risk of punishment. Whether you like it or not, she was allowed to challenge it before putting herself in “harm’s way.” I don’t think anyone believes this lady’s BS but that’s the way it goes. I guarantee she’ll make some kind of dumb statement that she’s decided not to make the websites at all after this!

I hope she gets sued into the ground for fraud. You can’t just invent nonsense about a real person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court is intended to protect rights not limit them. Here, rights have been limited under the guise that other rights are being protected. It’s absurd.

Also, there was reportedly no live controversy at the time. And that’s what people are talking about with regard to standing. There are complex reasons that are very important as to why there needs to be an actual person who actually believes they are being discriminated against before they can take legal action. (verse a purported fear that it could happen in the future.)

For the purposes of discussion, even excluding the “ political” make up of the court, this decision could’ve been very different, and made much more sense if there was actually a gay couple who was trying to force this purportedly devout Christian woman to create a “marriage” website for them. (Even then, it’s a stretch to claim that a website designer’s freedom of expression or speech is being impaired because she would move a couple of templates around.)

The point is most likely if she had said, “I’m a devout Christian and I don’t want to design a website for you”, a real gay couple would likely say “you’re a jerk” and “I’m gonna find someone else.”

It just feels like the whole intention of this case was to take advantage of the current make up of the court.

Exactly. The whole thing was manufactured and orchestrated. There was never any actual injured party, there was no gay couple, there was no demand to create a website, the state never compelled the designer to do anything. The whole thing was a lie. And I believe the reason it ended up in SCOTUS is because the lower courts tossed the lie, so they kept appealing it to higher courts until they landed it in a SCOTUS that was favorable to them. It's incredibly sleazy to manipulate the system like this, and further adds to the illegitimacy of this SCOTUS majority. It's a complete sham. And at risk of "constitutional crisis" and while not directly advocating for it, I do think state and local jurisdictions, as well as other branches of government would be well in their rights to just start ignoring these Supreme Court rulings until some form of oversight, judicial review and legitimacy is restored to the court if they chose to do so.

AZ attorney general has said she’s going to ignore it. Love that.

As for standing, I don’t even think she needed a fake gay person. She presented it she herself was the injured party who would be fined or jailed or whatever if she set up her site the way she (probably falsely and total BS) wanted to according to her plan. So it wasn’t some person suing her; I think she essentially sued Colorado to get an injunction against enforcing its law against her so that she could freely open her site up without fear of being punished. That’s different entirely from being sued for failing to provide a services.

Again total BS but that’s what the case was.

That still isn't proper standing.

The law doesn’t require you to “break the law” in order to challenge a statute. There is a law on the Colorado books that would have put her at risk of punishment. Whether you like it or not, she was allowed to challenge it before putting herself in “harm’s way.” I don’t think anyone believes this lady’s BS but that’s the way it goes. I guarantee she’ll make some kind of dumb statement that she’s decided not to make the websites at all after this!

That's batshit insane. By this logic, I should be able to sue Amtrak because I *might* get hit by a train some day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court is intended to protect rights not limit them. Here, rights have been limited under the guise that other rights are being protected. It’s absurd.

Also, there was reportedly no live controversy at the time. And that’s what people are talking about with regard to standing. There are complex reasons that are very important as to why there needs to be an actual person who actually believes they are being discriminated against before they can take legal action. (verse a purported fear that it could happen in the future.)

For the purposes of discussion, even excluding the “ political” make up of the court, this decision could’ve been very different, and made much more sense if there was actually a gay couple who was trying to force this purportedly devout Christian woman to create a “marriage” website for them. (Even then, it’s a stretch to claim that a website designer’s freedom of expression or speech is being impaired because she would move a couple of templates around.)

The point is most likely if she had said, “I’m a devout Christian and I don’t want to design a website for you”, a real gay couple would likely say “you’re a jerk” and “I’m gonna find someone else.”

It just feels like the whole intention of this case was to take advantage of the current make up of the court.

Exactly. The whole thing was manufactured and orchestrated. There was never any actual injured party, there was no gay couple, there was no demand to create a website, the state never compelled the designer to do anything. The whole thing was a lie. And I believe the reason it ended up in SCOTUS is because the lower courts tossed the lie, so they kept appealing it to higher courts until they landed it in a SCOTUS that was favorable to them. It's incredibly sleazy to manipulate the system like this, and further adds to the illegitimacy of this SCOTUS majority. It's a complete sham. And at risk of "constitutional crisis" and while not directly advocating for it, I do think state and local jurisdictions, as well as other branches of government would be well in their rights to just start ignoring these Supreme Court rulings until some form of oversight, judicial review and legitimacy is restored to the court if they chose to do so.

AZ attorney general has said she’s going to ignore it. Love that.

As for standing, I don’t even think she needed a fake gay person. She presented it she herself was the injured party who would be fined or jailed or whatever if she set up her site the way she (probably falsely and total BS) wanted to according to her plan. So it wasn’t some person suing her; I think she essentially sued Colorado to get an injunction against enforcing its law against her so that she could freely open her site up without fear of being punished. That’s different entirely from being sued for failing to provide a services.

Again total BS but that’s what the case was.

That still isn't proper standing.

The law doesn’t require you to “break the law” in order to challenge a statute. There is a law on the Colorado books that would have put her at risk of punishment. Whether you like it or not, she was allowed to challenge it before putting herself in “harm’s way.” I don’t think anyone believes this lady’s BS but that’s the way it goes. I guarantee she’ll make some kind of dumb statement that she’s decided not to make the websites at all after this!

Well isn't allegedly making false statements (about an alleged customer who later says he doesn't know her) something that goes to her credibility? IE: credibility that she is going to start the business.

Or is the court saying standing exists if someone might start a business?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Good god.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not surprising. It's what the GOP wanted. Fortunately, the rest of us now don't have to serve anyone we don't what to serve because of their political affiliation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not surprising. It's what the GOP wanted. Fortunately, the rest of us now don't have to serve anyone we don't what to serve because of their political affiliation.

Yep. Next up is sandwich makers at lunch counters saying that their sandwiches are works of art and they can refuse to serve LGBT people.

[Anonymous]

So you think a muslim cake decorater should be required to decorate a cake saying “Jesus is our Lord”? A trans graphic designer should be required to design a sign that says “children cannot consent to puberty blockers”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you think a muslim cake decorater should be required to decorate a cake saying “Jesus is our Lord”? A trans graphic designer should be required to design a sign that says “children cannot consent to puberty blockers”?

Good questions. People that don't work in those fields should file lawsuits that say this could happen some day if they go into cake baking or graphic design. No need for standing, a defendant, any sort of injured party, or any rights being lost. We should just spam the courts with lawsuits involving fictitious occupations like cake baking from people that never baked a cake and just claim they may have to do something.

[Anonymous]

It seems like people want two societies. One for RWNJ and one for everyone else.


Part of living in a society is to accept other people have a belief system that my run counter to your own. It used to be that if you found it objectionable you would discreetly back out of the commitment without involving a court. Ms Fictitious Scenario’s court case opened the floodgates to legally, openly hostile behavior. This doesn’t make for a great society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems like people want two societies. One for RWNJ and one for everyone else.


Part of living in a society is to accept other people have a belief system that my run counter to your own. It used to be that if you found it objectionable you would discreetly back out of the commitment without involving a court. Ms Fictitious Scenario’s court case opened the floodgates to legally, openly hostile behavior. This doesn’t make for a great society.

Agree 100%. This is exactly why this Christian web designer is simply classless. More interested in the PR than her actual business. My suspicion is that she will have lost more business than gained here. If I lived in CO, I certainly would not use her for anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you think a muslim cake decorater should be required to decorate a cake saying “Jesus is our Lord”? A trans graphic designer should be required to design a sign that says “children cannot consent to puberty blockers”?

If you want to run a business, you can't refuse to serve certain customers. If you can't serve the customers, don't open the business.

I am sure you can make it clear that you don't like making cakes about Jesus and you won't get very many customers asking for it...they will go to the get the Jesus cakes from the baker that wants to make them for the most part.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you think a muslim cake decorater should be required to decorate a cake saying “Jesus is our Lord”? A trans graphic designer should be required to design a sign that says “children cannot consent to puberty blockers”?

If you want to run a business, you can't refuse to serve certain customers. If you can't serve the customers, don't open the business.

I am sure you can make it clear that you don't like making cakes about Jesus and you won't get very many customers asking for it...they will go to the get the Jesus cakes from the baker that wants to make them for the most part.

But what about the customers you will get? This is about forcing people you disagree with to speak a message they do not want to speak.
You speak of a cake about Jesus, but what if they wanted a cake about Mohammed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like people want two societies. One for RWNJ and one for everyone else.


Part of living in a society is to accept other people have a belief system that my run counter to your own. It used to be that if you found it objectionable you would discreetly back out of the commitment without involving a court. Ms Fictitious Scenario’s court case opened the floodgates to legally, openly hostile behavior. This doesn’t make for a great society.

Agree 100%. This is exactly why this Christian web designer is simply classless. More interested in the PR than her actual business. My suspicion is that she will have lost more business than gained here. If I lived in CO, I certainly would not use her for anything.

Maybe the Daily Stormer could use a new web designer.