Key document may be fake in LGBTQ+ rights case before US supreme court

Source: theguardian.com 6/29/23

Christian website designer says she received email request from same-sex couple but ‘author’ says he did not send it – and is not gay

The veracity of a key document in a major LGBTQ+ rights case before the US supreme court has come under question, raising the possibility that important evidence cited in it might be wrong or even falsified.

The supreme court is expected to issue a ruling on Friday in 303 Creative LLC v Elenis, which deals with a challenge to a Colorado law prohibiting public-serving businesses from discriminating against gay people as well as any statements announcing such a policy.

 
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.

Read the full article.

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Supreme Court makes ruling without checking the facts of a case. Much like Doe in 03’.

Just another nail in SCOTUS’ credibility and integrity coffin for me. The lifetime appointment needs to go along with a few of the injustices(judges and rulings).

Fake “statistics” to determine Constitutionality of “sex offender” laws; fake “facts” to determine Constitutionality of LGBTQ+ discrimination.

Seems about right for the “Supreme” Court.

What’s sickening is the deference that news entities, excluding Faux Noise, has given to Roberts in continuing to portray him as someone with credibility and leadership when in fact Roberts has zero credibility and has failed to lead his court.

Ok, so now what about the fake evidence of the “frightening and high” recidivism rates of registered persons? Is SCOTUS now going to do something about that?

I know I’m jumping in a bit late here, but there are some major issues to parse.

At issue is whether the business owner’s 1st Amendment rights of not providing a service counter to his religious beliefs can be challenged. In fact, there are two sides to the transaction: One side insisting that the owner’s constitutional right be violated (i.e., not providing a service directly for gay marriage), and the other side that insists that their religious practice be compromised by providing this service against their beliefs. So the argument can be construed going BOTH ways. To that end, we have to now look at existing civil rights laws.

Without getting too much into the weeds, what we have here is that the business owner is providing a SERVICE, not a PRODUCT. While transactions involving the exchange of money may be construed my many as synonymous, the activities are not. For instance, let’s say that the person wanting to buy a website celebrating a gay marriage instead wanted to buy a website about his pet dog. If the owner refused to do the website for the dog, then the owner WOULD be liable because his first amendment right is NOT affected, as it would be if he were to do a gay website. In fact, the owner had stated as such if I’m not mistaken. In short, any transaction that another person could get that did not interfere with the 1st amendment rights of the owner would be available to all, and if anyone were refused such transactions, the owner would then be liable because he couldn’t claim constitutional privilege.

I don’t see an issue with declining to do the gay marriage website in this case.

To be honest: If I were the business owner, I would have one or two competent competitors who don’t have religious issues on call, and would have referred the customer to them directly in such a way that it wouldn’t have been declining their business for this very reason. Most reasonable customers would not mind this particular referral, and only unreasonable customers would take it farther, in which case it would not be about the service or the business, but rather the politics.