• jballs@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is standard operating procedure for them. From the article:

    Earlier this year, the Court decided 303 Creative v. Elenis, holding that the First Amendment prohibited Colorado, which has a broad anti-discrimination statute that protects LGBTQ people, from requiring a website designer to make a wedding website for a gay couple. The plaintiff, Lorie Smith, said in court filings that she had been contacted by “Stewart,” one half of a gay couple named Stewart and Mike, about making invites, placemats, and a website for their upcoming same-sex nuptials. Stewart sent Smith his contact information through her website, and this is what ostensibly caused Smith to take a case all the way to the Supreme Court — the mere inquiry from a gay man. Except even that never happened.

    Melissa Gira Grant, a writer at the New Republic, decided to call Stewart, as his contact information was submitted to the court in Smith’s filings. Stewart was very surprised by the call, telling Grant he is straight, has been married to a woman for 15 years, and certainly didn’t ask anyone to make him a wedding website.

    The fact that this scenario literally never happened didn’t stop the Supreme Court from ruling to strip protections away from the LGBTQ community.

    • deadsenator@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      1 year ago

      The fact that this scenario literally never happened didn’t stop the Supreme Court from ruling to strip protections away from the LGBTQ community.

      They did the same thing with the praying football coach. Ruling on the lies as facts in the case even after they were refuted. Actions suited for a kangaroo court. How shameful.

      https://www.vox.com/2022/6/27/23184848/supreme-court-kennedy-bremerton-school-football-coach-prayer-neil-gorsuch

      "Under the real facts of Kennedy’s case, Kennedy violated the Constitution.

      The Lemon case, which the Court overruled in Kennedy, held that the government’s actions “must have a secular legislative purpose,” that their “principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion,” and that the government may not “foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’”

      A public school official conducting a very public prayer during the course of his official duties as a government employee clearly violates this Lemon test."