Atheism

1976 readers

2 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

Nerf@lemmy.ml

spaceghoti@lemmy.one

Supreme Court limits LGBTQ protections with ruling in favor of Christian web designer | CNN Politics (www.cnn.com)

submitted 1 year ago by displaced_city_mouse@midwest.social to c/atheism@lemmy.ml

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

And just like that, SCOTUS affirms that someone's deeply held beliefs are more valid and in need of protection than someone else's reality.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] DevCat@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And they probably lied to even get the case in front of a judge. This should have been thrown out as the web designer lacked standing, she was never injured.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/29/supreme-court-lgbtq-document-veracity-colorado

The suit centers on Lorie Smith, a website designer who does not want to provide her services for gay weddings because of her religious objections.

In 2016, she says, a gay man named Stewart requested her services for help with his upcoming wedding. “We are getting married early next year and would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website,” reads a message he apparently sent her through her website.

In court filings, her lawyers produced a copy of the inquiry.

But Stewart, who requested his last name be withheld for privacy, said in an interview with the Guardian that he never sent the message, even though it correctly lists his email address and telephone number. He has also been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years, he said. The news was first reported by the New Republic.

In fact, until he received a call this week from a reporter from the magazine, Stewart said he had no idea he was somehow tied up in a case that had made it to the supreme court.

“I can confirm I did not contact 303 Creative about a website,” he said. “It’s fraudulent insomuch as someone is pretending to be me and looking to marry someone called Mike. That’s not me.

“What’s most concerning to me is that this is kind of like the one main piece of evidence that’s been part of this case for the last six-plus years and it’s false,” he added. “Nobody’s checked it. Anybody can pick up the phone, write an email, send a text, to verify whether that was correct information.”

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Oh it's definitely a lie.

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.

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples

And this came out before they released their decision. So they knew it was a lie.

[–] ifyoudontknowlearn@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Yep, this court of yours :-), is allowing or manufacturing itself, reasons for cases to be taken up. I have been listening to the We Dissent podcast (https://pca.st/podcast/970b8dd0-a941-013a-d8b6-0acc26574db2) it is pretty outrageous the contortions they are willing to perform to allow shit cases to come to then so they can rule the way they want.