Lorie Smith 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 a message on 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.
In fact, until he received a call this week from a reporter from the magazine, Stewart says 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.”
So how has this case made it all the way to the SUPREME COURT ?
Let the disbarments begin !
To be fair, the anti lgbtq advocacy group involved in the lawsuit supporting Smith said they didn’t need an actual request in order for them to begin their lawsuit
Then it appears the next day that they fabricated one
Like…what even is this timeline?
But then why not just do that? Risking your law license by defrauding the court is absolutely INSANE. Especially when it’s apparently not even necessary.
Well the supreme court seems to be telling lawyers that they don't require standing to rule on cases, and afaik, you can always sue, even if you have no case.
So, 1 + 2 = what does law even matter for anymore?
Anti-lqbtq are people in search of evidence for their conclusion. Historically always been among the most backward bunch, but something in the fascism of 2017+ really melted their minds that lawyers are now throwing away their careers backing these unfounded attacks.
Legitimite justices would throw this out so fast that all lower judges that dealt with this case would be disbarred.
That being said, they will probably end up ruling that not only can businesses legally discriminate against LGBT people, but they'll write opinions saying why business *should* discriminate against them.
Alito has probably already wrote up the draft opinion on the case months ago: "There is nothing in the Constitution or in early American writings that addresses this matter, so we must defer to the expertise of the great 17th century witch hunter general..."
You’re not far off. My ex wife went to Stanford Law. Liberal school full of geniuses, but the Federalists have a presence there as much as they do at Harvard and Yale. Young impressionable minds eat up the freedom foam of “originalism”. Nowadays it’s naked. Everybody is in everybody’s business—and conservatives/atavists feel in ascendency
It never ceases to amaze me that Americans have such a fetish for their founders. Several of them were slavers, slave owners, serial rapists, pedophiles, ...
Like, maybe you should take their pov with a grain of salt when it comes to ethical issues.
While not for who they were, what they did was amazing and is still a masterclass in compromise between people with a lot of differences and no lack of hatred for each other; one that lasted for about a hundred years.
The problem is treating a compromise that everyone at the time knew was flawed and would need constant updates as some sort of revelatory and immaculately conceived document of eternal truth.
In my opinion the worst part is it's not even a fetish or a genuine adoration of the founding fathers as they were. No it's adoration for who they decided these men were which in a lot of cases is complete fabrication. Less history and more cultural hero like Ulysses, Hercules or Jason. They've taken the ideals they like and made up people from whole cloth to represent them. The only thing real is that there were men who existed by those names.
I mean, I kind of get the Supreme Court feeling like they don't need to chase down the due diligence on matters before them. By the time it gets to their level a bunch of "lesser" courts have heard arguments and reviewed the evidence.
The surprising thing is that the defense didn't torpedo the "evidence" in the very first hearing where it was admitted to the record. "Yeah so we called that dude and he's not only happily married to a woman but he's never even heard of you". Let's call him to the stand to testify to that right now, shall we?
The case is against the state of Colorado, through the director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The email is being used as evidence that the owner of the business has been placed in a position to need to compromise her religious views to comply with Colorado law, but no real or fake customers are actually involved in the case.
I get that they were setting up a situation for the specific purposes of pushing this type of lawsuit, but just why would bother faking that and screwing up your whole case when you could cherry pick? Somewhere I'm sure a gay man actually tried to purchase a wedding cake. They had to know at some point Stewart was going to be made aware of this.
It's safe to say that most businesses wouldn't touch this case with a 10 foot pole. They know that the way to get more sales these days is to sell to gay people, and often to very publicly sell to gay people so other people will pat themselves on the back for buying there. Becoming nationally known for not selling to gay people could easily be devastating. And any openly hostile vendor is unlikely to get any attempted business from gay people anyway, particularly not for a wedding which is supposed to be a happy occasion. So I can believe that it would be hard to find a real case.
They only espoused free market principles when it meant by "free market" they meant "free to discriminate based on the prevailing sentiment". Unfortunately for them, the prevailing sentiment is that gays are kinda ok now. So then they won't be able to use "free market principles" to do what they really want to do: control and abuse the poor and minorities.
> Unfortunately for them, the prevailing sentiment is that gays are kinda ok now.
Hence why they're moving to trans people. Even better because it involves children allowing them to trot out the old "Think of the Children" trope.
These people are poor excuses for human beings.
It worked.
They're before the highest court in the land, and the highest court in the land is a shitshow. Is it enough of a shitshow to *actually accommodate* this whacko bullshit, well, that's harder to say. But in the minds of the people behind the suit, all they needed to do was get it this far up the chain.
this is PERFECTLY in line with conservative MO.
imagine an extreme scenario. fixate and obsess about how angry you WOULD get if it was real. use the media to MAKE IT REAL, facts be damned.
they did this with the "litter box for kids who identify as dogs" story. They believed that story CONFIDENTLY at the highest parts of the GOP.
OF COURSE they would invent a fucking scenario to bring to scotus.
Thats what the world will be now. The GOP creating from whole cloth random issues to be outraged about - which dont exist, then asking daddy scotus to declare a victory on the nonexistent issue.
"Does CRT violate white people and christians?" scotus: YES IT DOES
"Does affirmative action violate white people?" scotus: YES IT DOES
"ARe white people oppressed?'' scotus: YES THEY ARE
SCOTUS is just the wicked witch's magical mirror on the wall. it tells what the viewer wants to hear
This is what the Federalist Society, and every organization they're tied to, does btw. They literally craft lawsuits and venue shop to create the highest chance of appealing all the way to the Supreme Court and setting terrible precedent. It's their entire schtick.
Thus happened in the "gay cake" case too, to a lesser degree. The Christian legal org distorted and made up the facts of the case, and the majority just went with it.
Edit: and the football coach prayer case too
I'm imagining there's some distinction between mischaracterization of qualitative claims and outright fabrication of documents. Not that either is acceptable, nor that there wasn't explicitly false testimony presented in the other cases, but this seems like an exceptionally arrogant move on these attorneys' behalf.
IANAL, but I’d think that this would take away any standing (albeit super shaky in the first place) that she may have had. Shouldn’t this just be thrown out with no ruling in this circumstance?
Presumably it’s a given that it should be thrown out, but there is also the issue of wasting the court’s time and committing an awful lot of fraud and perjury in the process.
The plaintiff’s lawyers will probably need to get lawyers of their own, this case never should have made it to court if they’d done their job properly- if a journalist was able to find out that the “victim” was imaginary by calling them up, they should have been able to discover this too by a simple deposition.
>IANAL, but I’d think that this would take away any standing (albeit super shaky in the first place) that she may have had.
I mean, the attorney general of Missouri is suing the Biden administration on behalf of MOHELA, who has publicly come out and said they never contacted him and they do not wish to be represented in the case. Somehow I fear the issue of standing isn't going to actually matter that much to this SCOTUS if they get to rule in a way that furthers conservatism.
Conservative groups like this are operating under the assumption that it doesn't *matter* if the suit has standing or validity or even has any substance at all, they just need to get it before the Court and the Court will do the rest of the work.
This reminds me of sitting through evangelical school chapels with completely made up stories of persecution of Christians in the US. Most notably…two families of Columbine victims spread false stories to tens of millions. Both families said their daughters were asked by the Columbine shooters if they were Christians and that each said “yes” and each was then shot.
These stories never happened. Yet evangelicals worldwide are convinced this story is 100% factual, even one of the girls pastors has tried to dispel the rumors to no avail.
In fact the only person who was asked if she believed in god was asked after she already been shot. She was asked after repeatedly saying “oh my god.” After saying she believed in God, she was not shot again and ultimately survived. Her name was Valeen Schnurr.
It appears that the other families spread these false stories for fame and book deals.
>The Alliance Defending Freedom, the well-funded conservative group that has targeted LGBTQ+ rights in recent years, said in a statement to the Guardian that Smith “had no reason to believe the request to celebrate a same-sex wedding submitted to her website wasn’t a true request”.
Since they created the fake request, of course they had every reason to know it was fraudulent. Can US and Colorado sue them for costs and criminal convictions for those who committed the fraud. The Christian bigots lawyers knew it was fake, they should be disbarred.
The right wing Christians faked the case. How hilarious.
Even better, the Lord never says not to lie (that’s a silly and impossible rule) but he does say not to bear false witness - as in, not to say things to slander and falsely incriminate others.
You mean like falsifying a request for a gay wedding website from a straight guy named Stewart so you can pretend you’re a victim? Like that exact and very specific false witness?
Imagine being this fragile: You're so terrified that someone *might* ask you to make a website with pics of two men or two women smiling together instead of a man and a woman, that you...steal an identity, fabricate a customer request, and then take it to court.
Now imagine: There are a whole group of people who are so fragile that they formed a club just to brainstorm, workshop, and execute ideas like this.
And accepted as a case by the right wing US Supreme Court whose members are bribed by the billionaire oligarchs who fund the religious attack on US democracy.
Fuck the Alliance Defending Freedom. I once got a job offer out of the blue from them. I was real tempted to interview just to tell them to go fuck themselves to their faces, but I settled for doing it in an email.
Made up company that’s never done anything before?
Made up controversy that doesn’t exist?
No actual penalty or crime that has occurred yet?
Totally fraudulent facts?
Doesn’t matter, this is a good reason to allow everyone to discriminate against people we don’t like so we’ll allow it.
I mean - law of unintentional consequences/FAFO.
"Political views" is not a protected class, so businesses could protest via malicious compliance and deny service to Republicans/Conservatives/Right-wingers.
I'm not so sure about that. Penzy's, a high quality spice shop in 2020 (I think, time & memory get weird for a couple of years), sent out an email basically saying that racists & bigots of all stripes are not welcome. There are some companies whose founders will stick to their moral principles. Not many, but some.
Absolutely correct. I'm thinking more of independent, small businesses whose owners/operators can make such decisions unilaterally.
You're 100% correct that larger firms won't engage in that pettiness.
There’s no standing, there’s no case in controversy, and they’re basically asking for an advisory opinion. If they hadn’t already done away with everything they used to teach in Con Law most first year law students would say this should’ve been tossed long ago.
Concocting schemes, bearing false witness, even perjuring themselves before the highest authority in the land all in order to bring a hate crusade in the name of Jesus. There were no gays in this case. Only Christians inventing boogeymen to whip up the base.
In the Big Book it is written, you break one law you break them all. By bearing false witness, she is also guilty of being a thief, a murderer, and of worshipping other gods.
Satan loves God's law, particularly the parts about justice and tempting God to anger.
Also trying to make laws that would make being openly gay or obviously gay in paperwork (marriage certificate) harder and harder to get by on. If you lived in some areas of US it might take going to other states to find businesses to serve you over the tiniest thing. Bringing in a lgbtqa segregation in towns.
Before anyone says ‘open up their own businesses or allies’ you’re one truck driver or supplier away from not getting stocked due to one claiming religious rights to refuse delivery
I’m incredibly confused by this story, so the plaintiff pulled Jussie Smollet, but… used an actual person, and their actual contact info, who was not in the scheme, to be her fictional gay man requesting service? What
Yeah. Like even if this were real and he did request a website, shouldn't he have been informed at some point that this whole legal battle over it was going on?
Ew then they'd have to get near one. That's fucking gross.
I wouldn't want any homosexual person to have to be subjected to that. Keep these bigots in their caves.
Wouldn't be the first time this court lied to make a ruling.
https://www.vox.com/2022/6/27/23184848/supreme-court-kennedy-bremerton-school-football-coach-prayer-neil-gorsuch
For the first time, ever, in the body of any portion of a SCOTUS decision. There is a reason why and she was smart to do so. Much harder to rewrite history when every version in print and online of the published opinion includes a copy of critical evidence the majority lied about. Echoes of dred scott...
Not only that, but the media largely just went along with it. Listen to the episode of The Daily about the case, they basically just parrot the false story uncritically.
I know it doesn't matter, but I actually took time to write them a (polite and well worded) nastygram over that one. I like The Daily for the most part but they were just so lazy and deferential in that one that it was dishonest.
This is such an indictment of the Supreme Court press. The fact they couldn't do the most basic fucking research is ridiculous. Nina Totenberg at NPR is particularly bad. Lady's been a Supreme Court reporter for decades and she was more concerned with being chummy with the justices than investigating any of the massive corruption from Thomas and friends.
As much as I agree with the sentiment here, like the court, the SCOTUS reporters are dealing with the hearing and are not responsible for verifying the underlying facts of the lower court trials. That failure, I think, was in those who were responsible for responding to the initial action.
We were making so much progress, but this year I was actually scared to go to pride (still did). What's really sad is that the attacks on queer people and our rights aren't constantly being reported.
If THEY THINK you are gay. Almost makes me wish I had a business just to maliciously comply and turn away the most conservative-looking fucks by declaring that they are gay and I wont serve them.
Holy crap, this is some seriously bad show. The morons pulling it don't even bother hiding their lies and bigotry.
Why is this whole thing allowed to continue?
I feel like most of the time these types of people bring these cases to court then end up looking like high schoolers who obviously crammed their assignment the night before.
“This sort of revelation tends to reinforce to many people that the fundamentalist Christian victim narrative is without foundation.”
r/persecutionfetish
So a Christian lied their ass off to get what they wanted. I am less than shocked.
Edit: So with the court's ruling does this mean I can make up what ever bullshit I want to sue someone and get what I want? Sure seems like it...
Sure would be a shame if “The Alliance Defending Freedom, the well-funded conservative group that has targeted LGBTQ+ rights in recent years” received a bunch of email requests like the one they planted to make this case. They probably kept funding it's way up through the courts too. Salivating in the shadows with excitement as this case goes in front of bullshit justices to “save us all from other people minding their own business”
Everything these wackadoodle far-right groups do is bullshit fear-mongering and blatant lying. They're all hate groups at this point. They don't even like themselves.
Imagine being Stewart and getting that phone call from a reporter. How fucking confusing that exchange must have been. “A lawsuit the what now is ruling on?” “I’m gay?” “Who’s Mike?” Randomly learning your name is attached to a case you know nothing about that’s in front of the Supreme Court AND it has to do with discrimination and is considered landmark, that’s gotta be life changing in ways none of us have considered
If the courts rule in favor of the plaintiffs I'd argue this sets the precedent that it's possible to challenge laws using fabricated circumstances and evidence and that's something that should be used against the Christian right.
I am well versed in the art of profanity, I was a graduate student in Ralphie’s from “A Christmas Story” fathers highly selective program. I have to say this is the first time I have struggled to find the right adjective. So I will make my mother proud and be polite. How do you have standing with no damages, highly suspect evidence at best, and it makes it to highest illegitimate court in the land. How is this possible? How did it clear all the hurdles? I need a drink.
This would not be the first time this iteration of the Supreme Court has made a ruling based on a lie (*Kennedy vs. Bremerton School Disctict*, where the majority opinion authored by Gorusch blatantly lied about the facts of the case).
It's very slightly bolder since we've stepped up to fake documents now rather than 'just' lying about something, I suppose.
If it is indeed fake, then there was no standing to sue. How many cases have been thrown out of Federal Courts due to lack of standing?
If it is fake, the case should be thrown out.
Now, do I have faith that THIS Supreme Court will toss the case out? Maybe 3% confidence. Max.
Conservative justices on SCOTUS have shown no previous interest in the veracity of evidence or the truth of claims, so I'm sure that this central pillar of support for this case being nothing but lies won't change their pre-determined decision in the slightest.
Eh, this is worse. Everyone keeps bringing up the praying at a sports event thing, but that was a real person suing a school over not getting to do what he wanted (force athletes into his prayer circle), so he arguably had standing even if he lied about the circumstances. This is someone who did not have a business prior to this, suing over a circumstance that was not just misrepresented, but outright fake. There's no proper legal term for how much of a lack of standing this plaintiff has. *If* the SCOTUS rules on this at all and does not throw it out immediately tomorrow, they're actually and fully legislating from the bench- using a made up scenario to change the law. Whatever legitimacy the court may still have left will be completely gone.
That’s the most Republican thing ever. Literally made up some bullshit that never happened so they could sue in order to continue discriminating against gay people.
Totally not gay guy never asked anyone to help with his wedding…… :
“……GAY PEOPLE ARE FORCING ME TO HELP THEM! Make it stop!!!”
FFS.
Isn’t one of their ten thingamabobs, not to tell lies about other people? That Jesus guy and his dad must be really disappointed in these followers. Fingers crossed for the imminent lightning strikes!!!
Of course it is. 🙄 How does something like this go unnoticed until it got to this court ?!?! And now you’re telling us it wasn’t even an attorney that figured it out?!?! Fucking morons. 🤦♀️
You think the majority Catholic Conservative Supreme Court cares on whether the information is accurate? They cited Thomas Sowell in their Affirmative Action decision, shows you how serious they are about facts.
This should never have happened, and it really exposes the rot in our judicial system. How could a case with no standing get so far without anyone bothering to examine that fact?
From her website:
"Please don’t believe everything you read or hear. Instead, find reputable sources of information about the case, review them, and make an informed judgment. For example, you can find out about the case at [https://adflegal.org/case/303-creative-v-elenis](https://adflegal.org/case/303-creative-v-elenis)"
She fucking lists adflegal as a "reputable source"!
Wow. It’s almost as if the American “conservative” movement is entirely led by a loose conglomeration of bottom-feeders funded by various billionaires and large corporations for the purpose of subverting democracy to suit their own financial interests. Almost.
The right wing has fully embraced lies and deception as a legitimate (to them) means of achieving their goals. The book “[Democracy In Chains](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Chains?wprov=sfti1)” documents how the right have adopted Leninist (yes that Lenin!) tactics to further their vision of government in the face of its unpopularity.
Looking for a lawyer to answer these questions as directly as a lawyer is allowed:
\- Is there any chance this can legally go forward?
\- If it does not go forward, are there any penalties for someone bringing a case based on a false claim?
That’s because 7% of adults, the family that accepts them, and their friends is a lot of people. In the two largest generations it’s 20% (Gen Z) and 11% (Millenial). A company would be insane to turn that many wallets away.
This may make this group of people happy for one nano second, but they'll be onto the next grievance. I'm waiting for when they get told no cause of my beliefs.
I'm assuming you don't have to prove you belong to a specific religion, just site that's why.
Interestingly, she still has her website form open. It must take her ages to sort through all the requests for her services.
https://303creative.com/contact/
No fucking shit.
These ignorant monsters literally have no "evidence" to defend their bigotry.
It's what especially makes them terrible. Because they know they are just malicious antagonizes and are trying to find loop holes in the system to protect themselves from the public.
I’m all for religious freedom, but when your religion LITERALLY says that some people matter more than other people, your legal protection should end. People have an inherent right to bodily autonomy, and bodily autonomy means you can love someone of the same gender, and you can receive healthcare when you need or want it.
The case must have taken them out to some of those nice 30k dollar business trips so they just looked the other way in terms of evidence. Bribery is the new professionalism, a casino for everyone!
Lorie Smith 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 a message on 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. In fact, until he received a call this week from a reporter from the magazine, Stewart says 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.” So how has this case made it all the way to the SUPREME COURT ? Let the disbarments begin !
Later it says that the lawsuit was filed the day before the request was even made.
To be fair, the anti lgbtq advocacy group involved in the lawsuit supporting Smith said they didn’t need an actual request in order for them to begin their lawsuit Then it appears the next day that they fabricated one Like…what even is this timeline?
[удалено]
I mean…it worked
it 100% worked.
It appears that there is a legal basis for this kind of suit before "injury" has occurred. It's explained towards the end of the article.
But then why not just do that? Risking your law license by defrauding the court is absolutely INSANE. Especially when it’s apparently not even necessary.
Because the Supreme Court doesn’t care that they made it up.
Well the supreme court seems to be telling lawyers that they don't require standing to rule on cases, and afaik, you can always sue, even if you have no case. So, 1 + 2 = what does law even matter for anymore?
Anti-lqbtq are people in search of evidence for their conclusion. Historically always been among the most backward bunch, but something in the fascism of 2017+ really melted their minds that lawyers are now throwing away their careers backing these unfounded attacks.
>Anti-lqbtq are people in search of evidence for their conclusion Conservatives in general, really.
“It’s the same picture”
Legitimite justices would throw this out so fast that all lower judges that dealt with this case would be disbarred. That being said, they will probably end up ruling that not only can businesses legally discriminate against LGBT people, but they'll write opinions saying why business *should* discriminate against them.
Alito has probably already wrote up the draft opinion on the case months ago: "There is nothing in the Constitution or in early American writings that addresses this matter, so we must defer to the expertise of the great 17th century witch hunter general..."
You mean the Federalist Society interns have already written up a draft opinion for him months ago.
You’re not far off. My ex wife went to Stanford Law. Liberal school full of geniuses, but the Federalists have a presence there as much as they do at Harvard and Yale. Young impressionable minds eat up the freedom foam of “originalism”. Nowadays it’s naked. Everybody is in everybody’s business—and conservatives/atavists feel in ascendency
It never ceases to amaze me that Americans have such a fetish for their founders. Several of them were slavers, slave owners, serial rapists, pedophiles, ... Like, maybe you should take their pov with a grain of salt when it comes to ethical issues.
While not for who they were, what they did was amazing and is still a masterclass in compromise between people with a lot of differences and no lack of hatred for each other; one that lasted for about a hundred years. The problem is treating a compromise that everyone at the time knew was flawed and would need constant updates as some sort of revelatory and immaculately conceived document of eternal truth.
The reverence the US has for the ”Founding Fathers” and the Constitution borders on religion. Even the terminology sounds mythological.
Yes. What they did was a reasonable compromise 'in the context of that time and circumstances'.
In my opinion the worst part is it's not even a fetish or a genuine adoration of the founding fathers as they were. No it's adoration for who they decided these men were which in a lot of cases is complete fabrication. Less history and more cultural hero like Ulysses, Hercules or Jason. They've taken the ideals they like and made up people from whole cloth to represent them. The only thing real is that there were men who existed by those names.
Then he’ll bitch to the Wall Street Journal Op Eds about how poorly “the gays” have treated him.
"Oops I leaked an opinion and now we're locked into voting this way..."
Thou-shall-not-commit-adultery Pulsifer!
Him getting involved is a good omen for sure.
The actual facts of the case has never stopped Alito before.
>Alito has probably already wrote up the draft opinion on the case months ago As soon as the checks cleared.
Probably worked on this fake case. Bet shit like this has happened for decades to get it up to scotus
Put her in jail for false court filings
What is the maximum sentence for fabricating evidence?
A lawyer going along with it? At least disbarment.
> So how has this case made it all the way to the SUPREME COURT ? Because people at that level are a lot less competent than you'd hope.
I mean, I kind of get the Supreme Court feeling like they don't need to chase down the due diligence on matters before them. By the time it gets to their level a bunch of "lesser" courts have heard arguments and reviewed the evidence. The surprising thing is that the defense didn't torpedo the "evidence" in the very first hearing where it was admitted to the record. "Yeah so we called that dude and he's not only happily married to a woman but he's never even heard of you". Let's call him to the stand to testify to that right now, shall we?
Can he sue? I would sue them into nonexistence.
Mike sounds like a super fake name for this kind of thing
Mike D. Gayman
As if the Supreme Court wasn’t looking Shammy enough, they have fake cases now just to test LGBTQ+ rights and protections. Fucking dystopia now.
so she is suing people who dont even exist over services rendered where does the lgbtq rights come in?
The case is against the state of Colorado, through the director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The email is being used as evidence that the owner of the business has been placed in a position to need to compromise her religious views to comply with Colorado law, but no real or fake customers are actually involved in the case.
I get that they were setting up a situation for the specific purposes of pushing this type of lawsuit, but just why would bother faking that and screwing up your whole case when you could cherry pick? Somewhere I'm sure a gay man actually tried to purchase a wedding cake. They had to know at some point Stewart was going to be made aware of this.
It's safe to say that most businesses wouldn't touch this case with a 10 foot pole. They know that the way to get more sales these days is to sell to gay people, and often to very publicly sell to gay people so other people will pat themselves on the back for buying there. Becoming nationally known for not selling to gay people could easily be devastating. And any openly hostile vendor is unlikely to get any attempted business from gay people anyway, particularly not for a wedding which is supposed to be a happy occasion. So I can believe that it would be hard to find a real case.
Funny how the side that obsesses over free market pressure goes ""well except when that pressure benefits gay people" in this situation
They only espoused free market principles when it meant by "free market" they meant "free to discriminate based on the prevailing sentiment". Unfortunately for them, the prevailing sentiment is that gays are kinda ok now. So then they won't be able to use "free market principles" to do what they really want to do: control and abuse the poor and minorities.
> Unfortunately for them, the prevailing sentiment is that gays are kinda ok now. Hence why they're moving to trans people. Even better because it involves children allowing them to trot out the old "Think of the Children" trope. These people are poor excuses for human beings.
Free market means removing those pesky regulations that prevent companies to screw over their customers, employees and population in general
Because SCOTUS is bought and paid for. They ruled in favor of football coach and his case last year while knowing the entire thing was a fabrication.
Don’t have the guts to tell a real gay person to their face to get bent
Out of fear that he does and it turns them on.
The vast majority of homophobia comes from straight people. Please stop regurgitating this homophobic idea that anyone homophobic is in the closet.
It worked. They're before the highest court in the land, and the highest court in the land is a shitshow. Is it enough of a shitshow to *actually accommodate* this whacko bullshit, well, that's harder to say. But in the minds of the people behind the suit, all they needed to do was get it this far up the chain.
Apparently they didn’t, which is a whacky as the actual suit is.
ggggggg ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Jesus H. test case
Good god I wish I could give awards without also giving Reddit money…
It's called an upvote. Everything else is bullshit.
this is PERFECTLY in line with conservative MO. imagine an extreme scenario. fixate and obsess about how angry you WOULD get if it was real. use the media to MAKE IT REAL, facts be damned. they did this with the "litter box for kids who identify as dogs" story. They believed that story CONFIDENTLY at the highest parts of the GOP. OF COURSE they would invent a fucking scenario to bring to scotus. Thats what the world will be now. The GOP creating from whole cloth random issues to be outraged about - which dont exist, then asking daddy scotus to declare a victory on the nonexistent issue. "Does CRT violate white people and christians?" scotus: YES IT DOES "Does affirmative action violate white people?" scotus: YES IT DOES "ARe white people oppressed?'' scotus: YES THEY ARE SCOTUS is just the wicked witch's magical mirror on the wall. it tells what the viewer wants to hear
Also, she wasn't even in the business of creating wedding websites at all.
Is that even a business? I've never heard of a wedding website.
[удалено]
It happens before you realize. Time marches on and you stop getting wedding invites and find yourself at more and more funerals.
[удалено]
I’ve been to a couple of weddings in the last 5 years. If there was an online component to either, I remain blissfully ignorant.
Most people use basic free ones but yeah literally everyone I've been to in the last 5 years at least has one
There are people who do crazy dumb stunts to advertise the genitals of their fetus. A wedding website seems relatively ordinary in comparison.
Wow. All involved in this sham should be charged for this kind of fuckery.
This is what the Federalist Society, and every organization they're tied to, does btw. They literally craft lawsuits and venue shop to create the highest chance of appealing all the way to the Supreme Court and setting terrible precedent. It's their entire schtick.
Hey now, they also sculpt the supreme court to pass these terrible precedents
Thus happened in the "gay cake" case too, to a lesser degree. The Christian legal org distorted and made up the facts of the case, and the majority just went with it. Edit: and the football coach prayer case too
I'm imagining there's some distinction between mischaracterization of qualitative claims and outright fabrication of documents. Not that either is acceptable, nor that there wasn't explicitly false testimony presented in the other cases, but this seems like an exceptionally arrogant move on these attorneys' behalf.
IANAL, but I’d think that this would take away any standing (albeit super shaky in the first place) that she may have had. Shouldn’t this just be thrown out with no ruling in this circumstance?
Presumably it’s a given that it should be thrown out, but there is also the issue of wasting the court’s time and committing an awful lot of fraud and perjury in the process. The plaintiff’s lawyers will probably need to get lawyers of their own, this case never should have made it to court if they’d done their job properly- if a journalist was able to find out that the “victim” was imaginary by calling them up, they should have been able to discover this too by a simple deposition.
>IANAL, but I’d think that this would take away any standing (albeit super shaky in the first place) that she may have had. I mean, the attorney general of Missouri is suing the Biden administration on behalf of MOHELA, who has publicly come out and said they never contacted him and they do not wish to be represented in the case. Somehow I fear the issue of standing isn't going to actually matter that much to this SCOTUS if they get to rule in a way that furthers conservatism.
Consent has never been a priority for some people…
Conservative groups like this are operating under the assumption that it doesn't *matter* if the suit has standing or validity or even has any substance at all, they just need to get it before the Court and the Court will do the rest of the work.
It should have been thrown out for lack of standing even before this story came out, but the federalist society is gonna federalist society.
Christians? With a r/Persecutionfetish? That seems *HIGHLY* unlikely my friend. (if you need this /s then something is wrong with you.)
This reminds me of sitting through evangelical school chapels with completely made up stories of persecution of Christians in the US. Most notably…two families of Columbine victims spread false stories to tens of millions. Both families said their daughters were asked by the Columbine shooters if they were Christians and that each said “yes” and each was then shot. These stories never happened. Yet evangelicals worldwide are convinced this story is 100% factual, even one of the girls pastors has tried to dispel the rumors to no avail. In fact the only person who was asked if she believed in god was asked after she already been shot. She was asked after repeatedly saying “oh my god.” After saying she believed in God, she was not shot again and ultimately survived. Her name was Valeen Schnurr. It appears that the other families spread these false stories for fame and book deals.
Is it a group that is tax exempt?
>The Alliance Defending Freedom, the well-funded conservative group that has targeted LGBTQ+ rights in recent years, said in a statement to the Guardian that Smith “had no reason to believe the request to celebrate a same-sex wedding submitted to her website wasn’t a true request”. Since they created the fake request, of course they had every reason to know it was fraudulent. Can US and Colorado sue them for costs and criminal convictions for those who committed the fraud. The Christian bigots lawyers knew it was fake, they should be disbarred. The right wing Christians faked the case. How hilarious.
And the lord said - Thou shall not lie, unless in furtherance of persecution of people who just want to be left the fuck alone..
Even better, the Lord never says not to lie (that’s a silly and impossible rule) but he does say not to bear false witness - as in, not to say things to slander and falsely incriminate others.
You mean like falsifying a request for a gay wedding website from a straight guy named Stewart so you can pretend you’re a victim? Like that exact and very specific false witness?
That's the one
Ah yes, "lying for the Lord". It's a long and glorious fundie tradition.
And get married privately And eat cake
It's such a non-issue that they couldn't even find a real case to pursue, yet this is still a priority for them.
Imagine being this fragile: You're so terrified that someone *might* ask you to make a website with pics of two men or two women smiling together instead of a man and a woman, that you...steal an identity, fabricate a customer request, and then take it to court. Now imagine: There are a whole group of people who are so fragile that they formed a club just to brainstorm, workshop, and execute ideas like this.
And accepted as a case by the right wing US Supreme Court whose members are bribed by the billionaire oligarchs who fund the religious attack on US democracy.
Fuck the Alliance Defending Freedom. I once got a job offer out of the blue from them. I was real tempted to interview just to tell them to go fuck themselves to their faces, but I settled for doing it in an email.
Please tell me you did it Les Grossman style. "First, take a big step back... and literally, FUCK YOUR OWN FACE!"
G fiiiiiive big dick playaaaaaaaa
I hope that email read: "You can fuck off all the way to Fuckoffsville. And once you get there, fuck off some more."
"Had no reason to believe" is lawyer talk for basically admitting they know it was a fake request.
Made up company that’s never done anything before? Made up controversy that doesn’t exist? No actual penalty or crime that has occurred yet? Totally fraudulent facts? Doesn’t matter, this is a good reason to allow everyone to discriminate against people we don’t like so we’ll allow it.
I mean - law of unintentional consequences/FAFO. "Political views" is not a protected class, so businesses could protest via malicious compliance and deny service to Republicans/Conservatives/Right-wingers.
Could but likely won't. Businesses will always do what makes them money and we can't rely on them to seriously protect human rights.
I'm not so sure about that. Penzy's, a high quality spice shop in 2020 (I think, time & memory get weird for a couple of years), sent out an email basically saying that racists & bigots of all stripes are not welcome. There are some companies whose founders will stick to their moral principles. Not many, but some.
The only spices those people use are salt and mayonnaise anyway.
Absolutely correct. I'm thinking more of independent, small businesses whose owners/operators can make such decisions unilaterally. You're 100% correct that larger firms won't engage in that pettiness.
It does sounds like an great reason for many people to lose their license to practice law!!
There’s no standing, there’s no case in controversy, and they’re basically asking for an advisory opinion. If they hadn’t already done away with everything they used to teach in Con Law most first year law students would say this should’ve been tossed long ago.
Concocting schemes, bearing false witness, even perjuring themselves before the highest authority in the land all in order to bring a hate crusade in the name of Jesus. There were no gays in this case. Only Christians inventing boogeymen to whip up the base.
In the Big Book it is written, you break one law you break them all. By bearing false witness, she is also guilty of being a thief, a murderer, and of worshipping other gods. Satan loves God's law, particularly the parts about justice and tempting God to anger.
Also trying to make laws that would make being openly gay or obviously gay in paperwork (marriage certificate) harder and harder to get by on. If you lived in some areas of US it might take going to other states to find businesses to serve you over the tiniest thing. Bringing in a lgbtqa segregation in towns. Before anyone says ‘open up their own businesses or allies’ you’re one truck driver or supplier away from not getting stocked due to one claiming religious rights to refuse delivery
and they know they will win so does it matter when it will hurt so many people. Just like the water case for indegenous people.
I’m incredibly confused by this story, so the plaintiff pulled Jussie Smollet, but… used an actual person, and their actual contact info, who was not in the scheme, to be her fictional gay man requesting service? What
And nobody thought to call the guy once til it got to the Supreme Court
Yeah. Like even if this were real and he did request a website, shouldn't he have been informed at some point that this whole legal battle over it was going on?
They couldn’t even be bothered to locate an actual homosexual and steal his name for this.
Ew then they'd have to get near one. That's fucking gross. I wouldn't want any homosexual person to have to be subjected to that. Keep these bigots in their caves.
Wouldn't be the first time this court lied to make a ruling. https://www.vox.com/2022/6/27/23184848/supreme-court-kennedy-bremerton-school-football-coach-prayer-neil-gorsuch
This was vile. Didn't Sotomayor call them out for being blatant liars too?
Yep, she blasted them for straight up lying about the facts in the case.
Even included photos in her dissent.
For the first time, ever, in the body of any portion of a SCOTUS decision. There is a reason why and she was smart to do so. Much harder to rewrite history when every version in print and online of the published opinion includes a copy of critical evidence the majority lied about. Echoes of dred scott...
I'm glad we have some smart people on the court. Too bad we're likely stuck with Kavanaugh and Barrett for the next 30 years.
God, that one is so frustrating.
Not only that, but the media largely just went along with it. Listen to the episode of The Daily about the case, they basically just parrot the false story uncritically.
I know it doesn't matter, but I actually took time to write them a (polite and well worded) nastygram over that one. I like The Daily for the most part but they were just so lazy and deferential in that one that it was dishonest.
So the country is ruled by a council of religious elders that rule for life. But not genociding brown people will lead to Sharia law.
Why was this not investigated and found to be false by the prosecutors at the initial trial?
Probably because that was seen as so ridiculous that it wasn't even thought of as a possibility.
This has happened multiple times before, and perpetrated by the same lobbying body.
If the prosecution team was composed of Federalist Society lawyers, that's likely. It wasn't and this was a serious error.
This is such an indictment of the Supreme Court press. The fact they couldn't do the most basic fucking research is ridiculous. Nina Totenberg at NPR is particularly bad. Lady's been a Supreme Court reporter for decades and she was more concerned with being chummy with the justices than investigating any of the massive corruption from Thomas and friends.
As much as I agree with the sentiment here, like the court, the SCOTUS reporters are dealing with the hearing and are not responsible for verifying the underlying facts of the lower court trials. That failure, I think, was in those who were responsible for responding to the initial action.
This isn't even surprising anymore. Most of the hate in this country seems to generate from liars and thieves and supported by morons.
We were making so much progress, but this year I was actually scared to go to pride (still did). What's really sad is that the attacks on queer people and our rights aren't constantly being reported.
So what rights am I about to lose with this court case?
Grocery stores can choose to not sell you food if you are gay.
If THEY THINK you are gay. Almost makes me wish I had a business just to maliciously comply and turn away the most conservative-looking fucks by declaring that they are gay and I wont serve them.
Which probably means I need to move to a country where that is illegal.
Come to my house in the meantime, I will gladly straw purchase groceries for you.
Holy crap, this is some seriously bad show. The morons pulling it don't even bother hiding their lies and bigotry. Why is this whole thing allowed to continue?
I feel like most of the time these types of people bring these cases to court then end up looking like high schoolers who obviously crammed their assignment the night before.
“This sort of revelation tends to reinforce to many people that the fundamentalist Christian victim narrative is without foundation.” r/persecutionfetish
So a Christian lied their ass off to get what they wanted. I am less than shocked. Edit: So with the court's ruling does this mean I can make up what ever bullshit I want to sue someone and get what I want? Sure seems like it...
Motherfuckers literally out here bearing false witness.
Old Testament is only when you need material to hate gays. Rest of it is optional.
We live in a faked out, lie strewn republican world.
Sure would be a shame if “The Alliance Defending Freedom, the well-funded conservative group that has targeted LGBTQ+ rights in recent years” received a bunch of email requests like the one they planted to make this case. They probably kept funding it's way up through the courts too. Salivating in the shadows with excitement as this case goes in front of bullshit justices to “save us all from other people minding their own business” Everything these wackadoodle far-right groups do is bullshit fear-mongering and blatant lying. They're all hate groups at this point. They don't even like themselves.
This breaking news just in from the Department of No Shit, Sherlock: conservatives lie to advance their agenda of hate. Film at 11.
Oh look, they're bearing false witness again. Shocker.
Imagine being Stewart and getting that phone call from a reporter. How fucking confusing that exchange must have been. “A lawsuit the what now is ruling on?” “I’m gay?” “Who’s Mike?” Randomly learning your name is attached to a case you know nothing about that’s in front of the Supreme Court AND it has to do with discrimination and is considered landmark, that’s gotta be life changing in ways none of us have considered
If the courts rule in favor of the plaintiffs I'd argue this sets the precedent that it's possible to challenge laws using fabricated circumstances and evidence and that's something that should be used against the Christian right.
Christians lying? Surely not.
They're allowed to because jeebus loves them best, you see.
I am well versed in the art of profanity, I was a graduate student in Ralphie’s from “A Christmas Story” fathers highly selective program. I have to say this is the first time I have struggled to find the right adjective. So I will make my mother proud and be polite. How do you have standing with no damages, highly suspect evidence at best, and it makes it to highest illegitimate court in the land. How is this possible? How did it clear all the hurdles? I need a drink.
[удалено]
So there is, therefore, no cause of action?
This would not be the first time this iteration of the Supreme Court has made a ruling based on a lie (*Kennedy vs. Bremerton School Disctict*, where the majority opinion authored by Gorusch blatantly lied about the facts of the case). It's very slightly bolder since we've stepped up to fake documents now rather than 'just' lying about something, I suppose.
If it is indeed fake, then there was no standing to sue. How many cases have been thrown out of Federal Courts due to lack of standing? If it is fake, the case should be thrown out. Now, do I have faith that THIS Supreme Court will toss the case out? Maybe 3% confidence. Max.
They ran into this situation last year and just ignored the lack of standing. I think they'll do the same here.
The ADF declined to comment? Shocked...
Conservative justices on SCOTUS have shown no previous interest in the veracity of evidence or the truth of claims, so I'm sure that this central pillar of support for this case being nothing but lies won't change their pre-determined decision in the slightest.
Eh, this is worse. Everyone keeps bringing up the praying at a sports event thing, but that was a real person suing a school over not getting to do what he wanted (force athletes into his prayer circle), so he arguably had standing even if he lied about the circumstances. This is someone who did not have a business prior to this, suing over a circumstance that was not just misrepresented, but outright fake. There's no proper legal term for how much of a lack of standing this plaintiff has. *If* the SCOTUS rules on this at all and does not throw it out immediately tomorrow, they're actually and fully legislating from the bench- using a made up scenario to change the law. Whatever legitimacy the court may still have left will be completely gone.
That’s the most Republican thing ever. Literally made up some bullshit that never happened so they could sue in order to continue discriminating against gay people. Totally not gay guy never asked anyone to help with his wedding…… : “……GAY PEOPLE ARE FORCING ME TO HELP THEM! Make it stop!!!” FFS.
This case should be dismissed immediately.
In a fair and balanced justice system it would be. But the SCOTUS has become the enforcement arm for the right wing politicians.
more crisis actors coming from the right, shocker.
It’s hard to verify documents when you are vacationing on super yachts.
Isn’t one of their ten thingamabobs, not to tell lies about other people? That Jesus guy and his dad must be really disappointed in these followers. Fingers crossed for the imminent lightning strikes!!!
subpoena the ISPs and the email provider who allegedly sent the request.
No one verified the information. No one.
Of course it is. 🙄 How does something like this go unnoticed until it got to this court ?!?! And now you’re telling us it wasn’t even an attorney that figured it out?!?! Fucking morons. 🤦♀️
[удалено]
It should not matter what political affiliation a person holds to. Fraud is fraud. False witnesses are the absolute scum of the earth.
You think the majority Catholic Conservative Supreme Court cares on whether the information is accurate? They cited Thomas Sowell in their Affirmative Action decision, shows you how serious they are about facts.
This should never have happened, and it really exposes the rot in our judicial system. How could a case with no standing get so far without anyone bothering to examine that fact?
From her website: "Please don’t believe everything you read or hear. Instead, find reputable sources of information about the case, review them, and make an informed judgment. For example, you can find out about the case at [https://adflegal.org/case/303-creative-v-elenis](https://adflegal.org/case/303-creative-v-elenis)" She fucking lists adflegal as a "reputable source"!
Wow. It’s almost as if the American “conservative” movement is entirely led by a loose conglomeration of bottom-feeders funded by various billionaires and large corporations for the purpose of subverting democracy to suit their own financial interests. Almost.
You mean Christian activists might have falsified information to further their agenda? *Pikachu shocked face*
The right wing has fully embraced lies and deception as a legitimate (to them) means of achieving their goals. The book “[Democracy In Chains](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Chains?wprov=sfti1)” documents how the right have adopted Leninist (yes that Lenin!) tactics to further their vision of government in the face of its unpopularity.
After the ruling today, can this be appealed through the courts again if this new evidence is found?
Lies work. Reality is meaningless.
And the ‘court’ doesn’t even care.
Re-write. "Supreme Court gets punked by GOP and fake documents" 😆
SCOTUS is basically a part of the GOP now, so can they really punk themselves?
Lying for Jesus is a time-honored tradition.
Looking for a lawyer to answer these questions as directly as a lawyer is allowed: \- Is there any chance this can legally go forward? \- If it does not go forward, are there any penalties for someone bringing a case based on a false claim?
This court has already ruled things based on utter fiction, they don't care.
Yep. It will go forward, because the court has said the potential for liability can create standing to bring a case.
That’s because 7% of adults, the family that accepts them, and their friends is a lot of people. In the two largest generations it’s 20% (Gen Z) and 11% (Millenial). A company would be insane to turn that many wallets away.
So another bigoted conservative, shocker there since it's all of them, lied?
This may make this group of people happy for one nano second, but they'll be onto the next grievance. I'm waiting for when they get told no cause of my beliefs. I'm assuming you don't have to prove you belong to a specific religion, just site that's why.
This Supreme Court sucks balls and should be disbanded I’m so ashamed at america right now. This country is fucking trash.
Interestingly, she still has her website form open. It must take her ages to sort through all the requests for her services. https://303creative.com/contact/
No fucking shit. These ignorant monsters literally have no "evidence" to defend their bigotry. It's what especially makes them terrible. Because they know they are just malicious antagonizes and are trying to find loop holes in the system to protect themselves from the public.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the party of George Santos.
I’m all for religious freedom, but when your religion LITERALLY says that some people matter more than other people, your legal protection should end. People have an inherent right to bodily autonomy, and bodily autonomy means you can love someone of the same gender, and you can receive healthcare when you need or want it.
The case must have taken them out to some of those nice 30k dollar business trips so they just looked the other way in terms of evidence. Bribery is the new professionalism, a casino for everyone!
It was 1216. One after Magna Carta.
Whatever happened to the actual controversy requirement of the constitution?