Gay couple cited by Christian web designer who won Supreme Court case may not exist

[RayGravesGhost]

Not only did this case not have legitimate standing but no one ever harmed the plaintiff in the first place... 😲

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gay-coup...preme-court-case-may-not-exist-164940986.html
Gay couple cited by Christian web designer who won Supreme Court case may not exist
A report in the New Republic raised questions about a 2016 inquiry that the plaintiff in a major Supreme Court case said she received for a same-sex wedding website.
Christopher Wilson·Senior Writer
Fri, June 30, 2023 at 12:49 PM EDT

The same-sex couple whose request for a wedding website was cited in a major case resulting in a Supreme Court decision that undercut LGBTQ rights may not actually exist.

On Friday morning, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines that Lorie Smith, a Colorado graphic designer who wanted to create wedding websites, could choose not to make them for same-sex couples despite a state law that protected against discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender and other characteristics. Smith, a Christian who does not make wedding websites but said she would like to, said the Colorado law violated her First Amendment rights. In a major win for the religious right, the court’s conservative justices all agreed.

However, according to a Thursday story in the New Republic, the only inquiry Smith has ever received about potentially creating a wedding website for a gay couple apparently came from a man who says he never sent it.

According to Smith and her legal team, the Christian group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a man identified as Stewart requested a wedding website in September 2016 for his upcoming marriage to someone named Mike. When reporter Melissa Gira Grant used the contact information provided by the plaintiffs in court documents to contact him, there was immediate confusion.


Grant reached a man named Stewart, who confirmed that the contact information used in the filing was his but said he was straight and married to a woman, not to a man named Mike.

“If somebody’s pulled my information, as some kind of supporting information or documentation, somebody’s falsified that,” Stewart told the outlet, adding, “I wouldn’t want anybody to ... make me a wedding website? 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.”

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Is ray ray actually arguing that the ruling doesn't count cause.....the defendant doesn't exist?????

 

[Mdfgator]

Would not surprise me the thumpers love to virtue signal, nobody can virtue signal like a thumper…. Not even a flag flying patriot…

 

[RayGravesGhost]

Is ray ray actually arguing that the ruling doesn't count cause.....the defendant doesn't exist?????

Exactly dumb dumb...that fact was actually acknowledge in the lower court preceedings

So someone should as whether or not this designer had standing at all because she was never asked to produce a gay wedding site and therefore she was never harmed

Her legal team actually admitted to that fact in court and argued the suit should go forward because they could foresee when that request would arise in the future.

That is not how the legal system in America works....on speculated future possible harm that hasn't occurred yet



https://www.staradvertiser.com/2023...-designer-in-supreme-court-case-doesnt-exist/
Gay couple cited by web designer in Supreme Court case doesn’t exist
By Associated Press June 30, 2023

DENVER >> A Colorado web designer who the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today could refuse to make wedding websites for gay couples cited a request from a man who says he never asked to work with her.

The request in dispute, from a person identified as “Stewart,” wasn’t the basis for the federal lawsuit filed preemptively seven years ago by web designer Lorie Smith, before she started making wedding websites. But as the case advanced, it was referenced by her attorneys when lawyers for the state of Colorado pressed Smith on whether she had sufficient grounds to sue.

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.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser today called the lawsuit a “made up case” because Smith wasn’t offering wedding website services when the suit was filed.

Weiser didn’t know the specifics of Stewart’s denial, but said the nation’s high court should not have addressed the lawsuit’s merits “without any basis in reality.”

About a month after the case was filed in federal court challenging an anti-discrimination law in Colorado, lawyers for the state said Smith had not been harmed by the law as they moved to dismiss the case.

Her lawyers maintained Smith did not have to be punished for violating the law before challenging it. In February 2017 they said even though she did not need a request in order to pursue the case, she had received one.

 

[RayGravesGhost]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fraud-justice-anti-lgbtq-decision-095933237.html
Fraud "justice": Anti-LGBTQ decision based on a fake case showcases the Supreme Court's illegitimacy
Amanda Marcotte
Mon, July 3, 2023 at 5:59 AM EDT·9 min read

 

[RayGravesGhost]

As usual malone is 100% wrong


https://www.yahoo.com/news/legal-scholars-scotus-cant-forced-194543349.html
Legal scholars: SCOTUS can't be forced to reconsider "made-up" case — but lawyers can be punished
Areeba Shah
Mon, July 3, 2023 at 3:45 PM EDT·5 min read


Legal scholars pushed back on former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal's claim that the Supreme Court may be compelled to reexamine a recent case after evidence surfaced that the claim at the heart of the case may have been fabricated.

In the federal lawsuit filed preemptively seven years ago by Lorie Smith, the graphic artist cited a request from a man who says he never asked to work with her, according to the Associated Press. But Smith cited a man named Stewart in 2017 court documents including a website service request from him, which detailed his phone number and email address.

When Melissa Gira Grant, a writer for The New Republic, contacted Stewart, he said that no such thing had happened. Stewart told the outlet that he was not gay, has been married to a woman for 15 years and is a web designer himself.

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of the Christian web designer in Littleton, Colo., who argued that free speech protections allowed her to reject designing wedding websites for same-sex couples.

Katyal suggested that the Supreme Court should revisit the ruling given the evidence.

"The Supreme Court has a procedure to seek a rehearing, so to say, 'Hey Supreme Court, there's a new fact that emerged and we need you to revisit your ruling,' so that's possible. The Supreme Court can also on its own ask for a briefing on this new question on whether this case is made up," Katyal told MSNBC.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Exactly dumb dumb...that fact was actually acknowledge in the lower court preceedings

The lower court acknowledged that there was no defendant?

Then there's no case.

Do you actually read what you type?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

BTW ray ray is in favor of gay bakers being forced to make a cake that says "homosexuality is a sin".

Ray ray, why do you hate gays?

 

[Mdfgator]

why would anyone be so deliberately mean to another human being? do we really want this in the modern USA??? thankfully, most of these people will be burning someplace in a decade or so..... Praise Jesus.

 

[RayGravesGhost]

The lower court acknowledged that there was no defendant?

Then there's no case.

Do you actually read what you type?

You should actually read the articles I post...your answer is clearly explained

Start with the link title and go from there for knowledge

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

You should actually read the articles I post...your answer is clearly explained

Start with the link title and go from there for knowledge

So there was no defendant?

Then there's no case.

Spoiler alert: You can't have a case without a defendant.

They had a case. Boy you really are desperate to see that gay bakers be forced to make a cake that says 'homosexuality is a sin'.

Why do you hate gays?

 

[RayGravesGhost]

So there was no defendant?

You need to learn how to read 🤣

Then there's no case.

Spoiler alert: You can't have a case without a defendant.

You do realize you're the only person that thinks the SCOTUS said there was no defendant

They had a case. Boy you really are desperate to see that gay bakers be forced to make a cake that says 'homosexuality is a sin'.

Why do you hate gays?

I'm desperate? I haven't even responded to your stuipd question... 🤣

I think malone is about to wet his pants again 😂

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

You need to learn how to read 🤣

So there WAS a defendant?

So you are confused? Ok, situation normal.

You do realize you're the only person that thinks the SCOTUS said there was no defendant

I never made any comment on what SCOTUS did or did not say. I think they are smart enough not to take you seriously, then who isn't?

I'm desperate? I haven't even responded to your stuipd question... 🤣

I think malone is about to wet his pants again 😂

Simple question, why are you in favor of forcing gay bakers to make a cake saying their lifestyle is a sinful one?

 

[RayGravesGhost]

So there WAS a defendant?

So you are confused? Ok, situation normal.

No 🤣 its YOU that's confused that's why you're the one asking questions constantly because you don't understand the article 😂

I never made any comment on what SCOTUS did or did not say. I think they are smart enough not to take you seriously, then who isn't?

You didn't say this..."Spoiler alert: You can't have a case without a defendant."

poor malone tries soooo hard to fight his inherent stupidity

Simple question, why are you in favor of forcing gay bakers to make a cake saying their lifestyle is a sinful one?

I'm not in favor of anyone being forced to do anything...you have a choice follow the law or suffer the consequence

If the cake is a big enough issue for the bakers they should be prepared to suffer the consequences until they can get the law changed

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

If the cake is a big enough issue for the bakers they should be prepared to suffer the consequences until they can get the law changed

Cool. SCOTUS ruled on the case, the plantiff won, step down, next case!

 

[RayGravesGhost]

malone can't read... 🤣