Man cited in LGBTQ Supreme Court case says he was never involved: Report
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лют 2025
- The report is sparking questions as polls show most people disapprove of the court itself.
SUBSCRIBE to ABC News on UA-cam: bit.ly/2vZb6yP
Latest updates: abcnews.go.com/
Watch FULL EPISODES on Hulu: abcn.ws/3bzvQQn
#news #supremecourt #lgbtq #abcnews
I don't understand how not one single judge or defense lawyer asked to meet the plaintiff's customer.
Fake service fake documents and dirty clerks that’s why duh been a victim of that in utah clean the swamps of corruption
Pretty sure they did. That's why no lower court would hear the case because the plaintiffs had no standing. The SCOTUS knew full well what they were doing.
@@zammmerjammerBingo
@@zammmerjammerthat sounds like judicial fraud to hear a case made up just to set precedent 🤔
Comey-Barrett did ask, but fell for the attorney’s lame excuse. It wouldn’t matter anyway, because the fox was already in.🤷🏽♂️
The fact that there is no way to null a supreme court ruling if the case its based on turns out to be fraudulent should be a concern to everyone in the country, regardless of political belief.
I imagine if the ruling went the other way you would not be complaining. Also, it is not easy to get a case to the Supreme Court.
why did this information not get uncovered in the process to get there? Through the original case and the multiple appeals courts. It seems that one of the sides of the argument would have caught this kind of oversight early in the legal process. or, maybe this is an attempt at gaslighting a defeat.
@@wadecrawford8494it actually did get caught. She originally submitted her case no customer. Then later a customers name appeared. No reason to check because she wasn't suing the customer, she was arguing against a state law. The problem is with the justice's that didn't do their due diligence. It's really a major fail for the conservative justice's who were in favor of the decision. Reduces credibility. 🤷🏿♂️
Wow, imagine how the right felt when the court made up their reason on Roe v Wade.
@@TheJmac82Made up their reason? Where the hell did you get that idea?
@@wadecrawford8494you give our government and courts far too much credit and trust
Frankly, it really goes to show how the 2016 election was even more consequential than we first thought.
and thank goodness it turned out how it did.
@@ab9772 youre a coward.
It's almost like the entire country ignored people's pleas to take the danger seriously. That's /s never /s happened before....Hilary's emails and "unlikeability" were all that mattered...
@@ab9772for real tho, now even a moron can see how corrupt and flip floppy the Republiklan party truly is.
@MandaPandaPeters I agree! I wanted Hillary.: p
First to tell you she made it all up. The man Stewart is married now for 15 years and has a child. He also is a talented well known Web Designer. He is not now nor was he ever gay and knows no one gay named Mike. He was not even aware that this case was going on. Until contacted 2 days before the ruling. So he had no representation in any of this all the way to the supreme court WTF. The woman reporter who contacted him from the New Independent Melissa Gira Grant. Said the man was in shock to even hear this was going on. She found him thru court records and he said his name address phone and other info was all correct. But he never called her for a website. Again the man is an already accomplished Web Site Designer who has clients all over the country. Not some wanna be hypothetical website builder. The Supreme Court is never supposed to take cases based on hypotheticals. Let alone when the other party in the case is never even notified or properly represented by counsel. Well he is lawyering up now.
I hope he is lawyering up for defamation.
"I am not gay. I have never been gay." Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)
Good, sued her a$$ off and the case must go all the way to the SC to reverse the “hypothetical” BS.
@@teresia748They didn’t check either. That’s the issue and it also skipped courts and went straight to the Supreme Court. What she did is illegal and she should be in jail. Hard prison time
@@teresia748the lower court prior to this even went on record to say the whole thing was shady. And their ruling was separate of that fact. The state moved to have it dismissed on those grounds which was denied becayse even tho the judge critical of it had no proof to show it was one hundred percent fake
Sanction the lawyers. Get them dis-barred!!
Collusion between SCOTUS & billionaire-backed plaintiffs for at least a decade….Investigate all parties.
Flanders:"Aw hell, diddly ding-dong CRAP! CAN'T YOU MORONS DO ANYTHING RIGHT?!"
Yes, the lawyer should certainly be sanctioned. Possibly criminally charged if they filed any paperwork that they knew to be false. The same with their hand selected complaint
Disbar the Republican majority Justices, too! And repeal that decision! And reinstate Roe v. Wade!
The Supreme Court cannot be taken seriously anymore
The SCOTUS has not been taken seriously for quite some time.
Then flaunt the law and lets see how it goes for you.
A Christian lied to get what they wanted. These are the people that want to tell others about what’s right or wrong.
This should totally void that decision. She should be charged with presented a false case to the Supreme Court.
WELL.... No, well.... that too. But I see this as the fault of the court myself... more than Lori lying about it. It's their jobs to find out if these people are real people that really said what was charged
You can’t void the decision but the President should act and add 3 liberal justices.
An abortion doctor.
An atheist.
A transgender drag queen.
THAT would send a message.
@@LazyEyePoliticsits an invalid fraudulent case filing. Which is illegal
@@cstuartdcyou can have them void it. Its fake evidence and fraud case filings. Its all based on fraud
The Tenth Circuit of Appeals ruled that she had a right to the case even though no harm or damage had yet been done. It ruled that CADA had been used in the past in situations like hers and that she didn't need to suffer damage before suing. So it heard her car and ruled against her. The SCOTUS would not have heard the case if the lower courts had not already heard it.
The Supreme Court cannot decide on hypothetical cases, and the plaintiff must show injury. Where was she injured??? What a joke! Whoever her lawyers are should be sanctioned and there should be ethic violations filed. This is utterly ridiculous.
You can review the case documents for yourself along with all the responses from the Petitioners and Respondents on Supreme Court G O V. Case #21-476. 303 Creative LLC Lorie Smith, Petitioners V Aubrey Elenis, Charles Garcia, Richard Lewis, Kendra Anderson, Sergio Cordova, Jessica Pocock, Phil Weisner, Respondents. ALL of the respondents replied to the case on February 2, 2022.
Of *course* the guy is going to pretend that he was never involved, because he wants to undermine the case. Obviously, he’s a liberal, otherwise he would’ve kept silent! 😂
@@The8Don Dude, you’re one sick puppy! 😠
@@charlesg7926. Pretend? He is a web designer, he never needed her help. A fake case!
@vivmonroe1802 those respondents said they did no such thing.
This is psychotic how is she not being sanctioned by the government
Its a jailable offense for her and all her lawyer s
@jasonscott4366 if we are suing based on hypotheticals now oh boy do I got a list to go through
Sanctioned for fighting for her right to free speech? How fascist of you.
@@benitosalazar3749 there wasnt even a case. She sued on a what if. There was no gay couple that exists wiyh the contact info she provided to the courts
@@benitosalazar3749shut up
I'm retired now. I grew up believing all these decades that the US Supreme Court was THE most and last most reliable court of law we have. This belief was crushed recently and this only confirms the judges have lost their bearings.
We need younger judges, out with the ancient artifacts!!
You are adorable
The republican appointments are corrupt.
@@1onemile1 you need move to Iran.
Following the wants and needs of their overlords, the Federalist Society.
Embarrassing. What a kangaroo court. Completely lost.
Just like the current administration
@@samuraisaxon6800Just like your current life
a fake case? I’m shocked.
Right? And who did this again? Republicans!
There's a lot of human beings that are shocked that two men can pump on each other into women can go down on each other like that it's a very sick sick sick world we live in and that is 666
Really? You're shocked? I'm not. 🙄🙄😵😵
@@edglebennett6312 I don't think he is either. I understood him to be speaking ironically. How sad that we find ourselves in this place.
So, this was right wing activism at its worst. What sort of country are we when our top judicial venue is corrupted?😣😣😣
So this was not a legal court action it was a political legislation, WHAT THE BLANK!
That's exactly what it looks like to me too. The court appears to have violated their Constitutional role.
@@Joesmith-mg6xdwhat laws are constitutional and where did you get your constitutional law education 🤔
Or are you just doing en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda?
In THIS case, all you have to do is review the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to find out WHY that Court reviewed a case that YOU have been led to believe is “hypothetical.” The fact is, IT IS NOT. The 10th Circuit wrote as follows: “Appellants [303 Creative] brought a pre-enforcement challenge to CADA [Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act].“ Under the issue of “STANDING,” the Court agreed that “Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies…’”
But the Court then went on to say, “Under Article III, standing requires at least three elements: injury in fact, causation, and redressability…An injury in fact is “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical….In the context of a pre-enforcement challenge, to show an injury in fact, a party must allege “an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder…. Article III DOES NOT REQUIRE THE PLAINTIFF TO RISK "AN ACTUAL ARREST, PROSECUTION OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION...Reviewing the issue de novo, we conclude that Appellants HAVE SHOWN AN INJURY IN FACT. Appellants have sufficiently demonstrated both an intent to provide graphic and web design services to the public in a manner that exposes them to CADA liability, and a credible threat that Colorado will prosecute them under that statute…. we are satisfied that Appellants have shown an “intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest….Although Appellants have not yet offered wedding website services, Ms. Smith has been employed as a graphic and web designer in the past. Appellants have also provided clear examples of the types of websites they intend to provide, as well as the intended changes to 303 Creative’s webpage. And Ms. Smith holds a sincere religious belief that prevents her from creating websites that celebrate same-sex marriages. We are also satisfied that Appellants’ intended “course of conduct” is at least “arguably . . . proscribed by [the] statute.”
So there you have it. You may disagree to the extent that the First Amendment protects your right of speech NOT to betray your companion expression of your religious beliefs when providing services to protected classes of the general public, but the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, even in upholding the district court’s summary judgment AGAINST 303 Creative, GRANTED the plaintiff STANDING TO APPEAL THAT VERY SAME JUDGMENT. That's what she did, and as long as the 10th Circuit granted standing, SCOTUS was free to affirm or overrule the lower courts. As is FAR TOO OFTEN THE CASE with the mainstream media pushing a narrative, YOU’VE BEEN LIED TO!!
@@larryk1865 THERE WAS NO INJURY, BULLBLANK. This isn't free speech it is free discrimination.
@@Joesmith-mg6xd NOT TRUE, AFTER AT LEAST 50 YEARS IT HAS BECOME THE LAW OF THE LAND WHICH THE COURT MUST UPHOLD, YOU AGREE BECAUISE YOU DON'T WANT A FREE COUNTRY.
The case should have NEVER gone as far as a state court let alone the Supreme Court! It's a HYPOTHETICAL case. What?!
The website was fake. Therefore the case should be null and void.
DEFAMATION. I hope the gentleman sues her.
Exactly. We know one thing for certain--HE was injured. He ought to be able to legitimately sue for that if he's so inclined.
He should, that is ridiculous. Sad, the court is now an abomination. 🫤
The news station and anyone else that was a part of this.
@@zeemc2751The only thing the ""News stations"" are guilty of is trusting the Supreme Court did it's due diligence.
@@ajs11201 She'd just appeal all the way to the same corrupt Supreme Court that handed down this verdict.
Sounds like a defamation and slander case!!
Affirmative Action laws no longer exist. Free to discriminate against anyone. You can't sue someone for taking your rights away.
Yep !
Your right She definitely has a defamation case and Slander case against several News Media outlets for reporting false news
How can the Supreme Court even rule on a case that never was a court case in any lower court?
Add to that the fact that the person named as wanting the services of the web designer never approached the company, isn't gay and is a web designer himself.
This is a case where somebody just got the ear of the Supreme Court and got them to rule on something they don't *want* to become an issue later.
Is the Supreme Court allowed to act in that capacity? Where's the ACLU or other watchdog agency that gets involved?
I believe the old term was a kangaroo court.🤔
It was a case in the lower courts. You might want to do basic research before developing an opinion.
@@indifferentadvocate1737
A case went to court where the woman claimed a man she never met asked her to design a website for him?
He needs to sue her for damages.
And all you have to do is review the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to find out WHY that Court reviewed a case that YOU have been led to believe is “hypothetical.” The fact is, IT IS NOT. The 10th Circuit wrote as follows: “Appellants [303 Creative] brought a pre-enforcement challenge to CADA [Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act].“ Under the issue of “STANDING,” the Court agreed that “Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies…’”
But the Court then went on to say, “Under Article III, standing requires at least three elements: injury in fact, causation, and redressability…An injury in fact is “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical….In the context of a pre-enforcement challenge, to show an injury in fact, a party must allege “an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder…. Article III DOES NOT REQUIRE THE PLAINTIFF TO RISK "AN ACTUAL ARREST, PROSECUTION OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION...Reviewing the issue de novo, we conclude that Appellants HAVE SHOWN AN INJURY IN FACT. Appellants have sufficiently demonstrated both an intent to provide graphic and web design services to the public in a manner that exposes them to CADA liability, and a credible threat that Colorado will prosecute them under that statute…. we are satisfied that Appellants have shown an “intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest….Although Appellants have not yet offered wedding website services, Ms. Smith has been employed as a graphic and web designer in the past. Appellants have also provided clear examples of the types of websites they intend to provide, as well as the intended changes to 303 Creative’s webpage. And Ms. Smith holds a sincere religious belief that prevents her from creating websites that celebrate same-sex marriages. We are also satisfied that Appellants’ intended “course of conduct” is at least “arguably . . . proscribed by [the] statute.”
So there you have it. You may disagree to the extent that the First Amendment protects your right of speech NOT to betray your companion expression of your religious beliefs when providing services to protected classes of the general public, but the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, even in upholding the district court’s summary judgment AGAINST 303 Creative, GRANTED the plaintiff STANDING TO APPEAL THAT VERY SAME JUDGMENT. That's what she did, and as long as the 10th Circuit granted standing, SCOTUS was free to affirm or overrule the lower courts. As is FAR TOO OFTEN THE CASE with the mainstream media pushing a narrative, YOU’VE BEEN LIED TO!! Hell, I cannot find a single network news coverage that honestly reports on EXACTLY on what the 10th Circuit DID!!!
@@larryk1865
Would you agree to say that a case involving a man who never met the web designer is a little weird? I hope the man sues her for damages to his reputation.
So the guy wasn't gay, he didn't even want a wedding website and the woman never did wedding websites...but might in the future! ?? What BS!! She should be charged for lying to the SCOTUS. Didn't they bring him in to testify? Or just took her lying word for it...? Making a ruling on something hypothetical !!
Crazy they’re making rulings on hypotheticals now
1 once of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
FALSE. And all you have to do is review the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to find out WHY that Court reviewed a case that YOU have been led to believe is “hypothetical.” The fact is, IT IS NOT. The 10th Circuit wrote as follows: “Appellants [303 Creative] brought a pre-enforcement challenge to CADA [Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act].“ Under the issue of “STANDING,” the Court agreed that “Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies…’”
But the Court then went on to say, “Under Article III, standing requires at least three elements: injury in fact, causation, and redressability…An injury in fact is “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical….In the context of a pre-enforcement challenge, to show an injury in fact, a party must allege “an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder…. Article III DOES NOT REQUIRE THE PLAINTIFF TO RISK "AN ACTUAL ARREST, PROSECUTION OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION...Reviewing the issue de novo, we conclude that Appellants HAVE SHOWN AN INJURY IN FACT. Appellants have sufficiently demonstrated both an intent to provide graphic and web design services to the public in a manner that exposes them to CADA liability, and a credible threat that Colorado will prosecute them under that statute…. we are satisfied that Appellants have shown an “intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest….Although Appellants have not yet offered wedding website services, Ms. Smith has been employed as a graphic and web designer in the past. Appellants have also provided clear examples of the types of websites they intend to provide, as well as the intended changes to 303 Creative’s webpage. And Ms. Smith holds a sincere religious belief that prevents her from creating websites that celebrate same-sex marriages. We are also satisfied that Appellants’ intended “course of conduct” is at least “arguably . . . proscribed by [the] statute.”
So there you have it. You may disagree to the extent that the First Amendment protects your right of speech NOT to betray your companion expression of your religious beliefs when providing services to protected classes of the general public, but the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, even in upholding the district court’s summary judgment AGAINST 303 Creative, GRANTED the plaintiff STANDING TO APPEAL THAT VERY SAME JUDGMENT. That's what she did, and as long as the 10th Circuit granted standing, SCOTUS was free to affirm or overrule the lower courts. As is FAR TOO OFTEN THE CASE with the mainstream media pushing a narrative, YOU’VE BEEN LIED TO!! Hell, I cannot find a single network news coverage that honestly reports on EXACTLY on what the 10th Circuit DID!!!
You’re absolutely correct, this woman made up a case and the Supreme Court was eager to buy it, just so they could make this ruling. This is the new Court, and it won’t change until we stack it, or some of these right wingers die off.
@@leonblack2651Try listening to the very brief UA-cam video upon which you’re commenting. The US Constitution has requirements that a case must satisfy in order to go before the US Supreme Court.
Feel free to ignore the overly dramatic commenter who has worked themselves into a lather. The standing of this case has been (and still is) disputed. In my opinion, the district court had the most comprehensive and logical reasoning for why 303 Creative did not have standing for the public accommodations portion of their claim.
The reason that matters is a) that’s the portion of the claim that was ultimately reviewed by the USSC and b) the ranting user conveniently never mentions what the federal district court said-only the appeals court, which conveniently props up their whining assertions.
This court is trash now.
It took you *This* long to figure that out?
Your current administration is the left over toilet paper in construction crew porta potty 🚽
Time for the Colorado AG to start the ball rolling on having this abortion of Justice vacated!
You do realize that the Supreme Court is over Phil Weasel?
Unbelievable, she should be charged for invention the story
Uh no? Lmao she still has a valid point
She should be put in jail for lying to the court.
Agree. Harass her with the law.
She should have filed her invention at the US Patent and Trademark Office. Not the Supreme Court 😂
@@kill1drake It's called defamation. Would you be cool if I made a valid point that rape is bad and used your identity as the rapist when making my point, and have the whole point confirmed by the highest court in the land?
How is this not enough to go back and undo a ruling? If the ruling is based on fraudulent accusations, what's it matter?
So why can private businesses discriminate based on sexual orientation yet private institutions cannot discriminate based on race? Shouldn't it be all or none? I'm highly confused by this corrupt court and their contradictions.
So what's going on in your words?
It's a religion thing
It’s all backwards
Business can reserve the right to deny services for any reason. Private institutions don't take public tax money in any way, but they are also regulated by law and oversight. Almost all colleges take government money and resources, even the ones that claim to be privately owned/ funded. Examples would be campus police and public roads on campus.
You do seem very confused about basic American society 😕
Very good insight. These are protected classes, and the right is on a mission to destroy rights.
It'd be a real shame if web and graphic designers in solidarity started rejecting Christian marriage requests based on this precedent. A real shame.
Well, we know of one "Christian" web designer looking for clients!
I'd have very little problem rejecting any request that would require me to discriminate based on someone's sexual orientation, and that's really what this case is. As I'm presently studying Web Design, I'd reject you if you got on my last nerve with stupidity.
Supremecourt is a joke now
The Supreme Court, especially alito can not make law. They only interpret law which they aren't doing.
This case needs to be reviewed and expunged. She has no standing to bring the case.
FALSE. And all you have to do is review the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to find out WHY that Court reviewed a case that YOU have been led to believe is “hypothetical.” The fact is, IT IS NOT. The 10th Circuit wrote as follows: “Appellants [303 Creative] brought a pre-enforcement challenge to CADA [Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act].“ Under the issue of “STANDING,” the Court agreed that “Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies…’”
But the Court then went on to say, “Under Article III, standing requires at least three elements: injury in fact, causation, and redressability…An injury in fact is “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical….In the context of a pre-enforcement challenge, to show an injury in fact, a party must allege “an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder…. Article III DOES NOT REQUIRE THE PLAINTIFF TO RISK "AN ACTUAL ARREST, PROSECUTION OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION...Reviewing the issue de novo, we conclude that Appellants HAVE SHOWN AN INJURY IN FACT. Appellants have sufficiently demonstrated both an intent to provide graphic and web design services to the public in a manner that exposes them to CADA liability, and a credible threat that Colorado will prosecute them under that statute…. we are satisfied that Appellants have shown an “intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest….Although Appellants have not yet offered wedding website services, Ms. Smith has been employed as a graphic and web designer in the past. Appellants have also provided clear examples of the types of websites they intend to provide, as well as the intended changes to 303 Creative’s webpage. And Ms. Smith holds a sincere religious belief that prevents her from creating websites that celebrate same-sex marriages. We are also satisfied that Appellants’ intended “course of conduct” is at least “arguably . . . proscribed by [the] statute.”
So there you have it. You may disagree to the extent that the First Amendment protects your right of speech NOT to betray your companion expression of your religious beliefs when providing services to protected classes of the general public, but the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, even in upholding the district court’s summary judgment AGAINST 303 Creative, GRANTED the plaintiff STANDING TO APPEAL THAT VERY SAME JUDGMENT. That's what she did, and as long as the 10th Circuit granted standing, SCOTUS was free to affirm or overrule the lower courts. As is FAR TOO OFTEN THE CASE with the mainstream media pushing a narrative, YOU’VE BEEN LIED TO!! Hell, I cannot find a single network news coverage that honestly reports on EXACTLY on what the 10th Circuit DID!!!
@larryk1865 I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The standing comment was my not-so-learned opinion, but they are already intending to file to have the case expunged.
@@larryk1865It was not only hypothetical, it was imaginary, and the defendant perjured herself as did the lawyers: the so-called injury never existed. The "gay" couple never existed. She LIED. Her lawyers LIED. It was pushed and financed by a radical right-wing foundation with a bigoted, anti-gay agenda. SMH.
The guy is a victim and will forever be recorded in history as a gay man. As a straight married man he should sue her for defamation.
The guy addressed in the case should go after the judges, lawyers and client for using him in a case without his knowledge and fake crimes
if the case was based on false pretense then the whole case should be thrown out.
Appears to me that this panel of justices isn't as interested in interpreting and upholding the constitution of the US as it is about legislating new law.
Freedom of religion? i think that's in the 1A. Sounds like upholding the constitution to me.
10 month old troll @@landor7610 s' religion is the kkklan. Wants the freedom to make up stories to discriminate against people.
@@landor7610 This has nothing to do with religion. I don't care that she thinks a make believe sky daddy told her she has to be a bigot. That's between her psychologist. I care that she's allowed to discriminate.
The right-wing in America has spent 50 years working to take over the Supreme Court because they *know* they cannot win at the ballot box. So they built a Court that will force their views on a majority of people who would vote against this exact legislation.
@@landor7610The freedom to practice religion is constrained by the authority of the 14th Amendment, which provides all American residents equal protection under the law. That’s why it’s illegal for a business to deny goods or services to a customer based on that customer’s protected trait. There’s not a religious exemption in the US Constitution for Christian business owners to discriminate against same-sex couples.
How the heck could this plaintiff have standing for this lawsuit????
She doesn't, apparently standing no longer matters
The focus now should be investigating how the SC came to rule on a hypothetical situation, as well as consequences for the person who invented the scenario.
And all you have to do is review the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to find out WHY that Court reviewed a case that YOU have been led to believe is “hypothetical.” The fact is, IT IS NOT. The 10th Circuit wrote as follows: “Appellants [303 Creative] brought a pre-enforcement challenge to CADA [Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act].“ Under the issue of “STANDING,” the Court agreed that “Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies…’”
But the Court then went on to say, “Under Article III, standing requires at least three elements: injury in fact, causation, and redressability…An injury in fact is “an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical….In the context of a pre-enforcement challenge, to show an injury in fact, a party must allege “an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder…. Article III DOES NOT REQUIRE THE PLAINTIFF TO RISK "AN ACTUAL ARREST, PROSECUTION OR OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION...Reviewing the issue de novo, we conclude that Appellants HAVE SHOWN AN INJURY IN FACT. Appellants have sufficiently demonstrated both an intent to provide graphic and web design services to the public in a manner that exposes them to CADA liability, and a credible threat that Colorado will prosecute them under that statute…. we are satisfied that Appellants have shown an “intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest….Although Appellants have not yet offered wedding website services, Ms. Smith has been employed as a graphic and web designer in the past. Appellants have also provided clear examples of the types of websites they intend to provide, as well as the intended changes to 303 Creative’s webpage. And Ms. Smith holds a sincere religious belief that prevents her from creating websites that celebrate same-sex marriages. We are also satisfied that Appellants’ intended “course of conduct” is at least “arguably . . . proscribed by [the] statute.”
So there you have it. You may disagree to the extent that the First Amendment protects your right of speech NOT to betray your companion expression of your religious beliefs when providing services to protected classes of the general public, but the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, even in upholding the district court’s summary judgment AGAINST 303 Creative, GRANTED the plaintiff STANDING TO APPEAL THAT VERY SAME JUDGMENT. That's what she did, and as long as the 10th Circuit granted standing, SCOTUS was free to affirm or overrule the lower courts. As is FAR TOO OFTEN THE CASE with the mainstream media pushing a narrative, YOU’VE BEEN LIED TO!! Hell, I cannot find a single network news coverage that honestly reports on EXACTLY on what the 10th Circuit DID!!!
@@larryk1865 you can copy and paste this a thousand more times if it makes you feel better. It's already been addressed and proven an invalid argument on various other channels here. Sit down.
@@larryk1865 ua-cam.com/video/m7uJjOS6H6A/v-deo.html
@@clm2025-wtf The reason I paste the same response repeatedly is because people keep asking the same question repeatedly and obviously do not reference prior answers, nor do they do the legal research themselves. I don't know how you can say that the argument has been "proven invalid" when the ruling FOR STANDING was made by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals AND was not contested by either the conservative or liberal members of the Supreme Court. The opinions expressed by various channel creators do not supersede the authority of each ascending rung of the federal judiciary. I simply wanted each individual inquiring about the issue of standing to know what the appropriate appellate court decided. I felt they were entitled to that detailed information. No more, no less.
The conservative part of SCOTUS was too hungry for this case.
Wow. Sue her.
Disbar the plaintiff’s attorneys. That’ll teach all attorneys to better vet their cases.
****As for the Justices of the Supreme Court allowing this Legislation to Continue: The Web Design Case was Hypothetical, you cannot Legislate from a Hypothetical, Where is the Point of Law? This is the Question you should be Asking... What this case is Saying, is that the Supreme Court is (Now) "Above the Law"... SCOTUS Must make Rulings on Real Cases because if they Legislate on Hypothetical Cases, this means that they "Can Create Any Law they Want", by Legislation, They don't even Need a (Real Case to Do So.)****Get The Point.****It's Un-Constitutional.***
It does appear more and more that the us supreme court is just a religious court for the evangelical movement. So much for separation between religion and state.
I think the separation of Church and State needs to be enforced more.
If you offer a service to the public, you can't discriminate - duh
Ok, but that's not the point of this story.
@@merrim7765it is now
It’s not discriminating against them it’s being able to stand true to your own beliefs. If they have rights so do Christians to stand for our beliefs.
@@emilylabo7053 but being LGBT is not a choice, so your logic doesn't really track.
@@emilylabo7053 Wait till some of these self-righteous, judgemental Christians start refusing to serve or service divorcees getting remarried!
A SCOTUS case based on a hypothetical? Outrageous.
Its clear that these Conservative judges are choosing to filter the Constitution through a Conservative lens. Both cases they ruled on involved the 14th Amendment in some way. The affirmative action case involved it directly, the Christian web designer case involved it indirectly.
But its clear that these Conservative judges only believe in the 14th Amendment as long as it DOESN'T violate and interfere with long held Conservative beliefs regarding religious freedom.
They effectively ruled that it was ok for a business to violate the Equal Protection clause based on religious belief. So they've basically said that the Christian web designer's religious belief and freedom of speech, takes precedent OVER the same sex couple's 14th Amendment equal protection rights.
So a business apparently can now discriminate and violate the Equal protection clause based on religion. Let me make that more specific, Christian religion.
So now every shopkeeper can refuse to let someone with a gun entering their shop, if this is against their beliefs? Or refuse service if someone is wearing a Trump supporter cap?
They already could. Allowing guns and having a dress code has always been the option of the merchant.
Or refuse to serve a bigot
No one lied to this woman. She lied like all evangelicals lie. Is there any evidence that she knows how to design a web site?
I would tend to suspect it was more the anti-LGBT ADF and it's lawyers lying. The man's phone and email were gotten by the New Republic reporter who followed up on this from the court documents, so they must have been part of ADF's filings, yet they never contacted him to verify a near-MIRACULOUS and incredibly convenient request for 303 Creative and the ADF legal team, while on the other hand it works entirely against the interests of the man they alleged made the request. Anybody else call Bullshit? An investigation is definitely called for.
I always thought that a case had to lose in a lower court and lose in appellate court before it could even be presented to the Supreme Court. How did something this flimsy make it to D.C.?
Because MAGA control the court
Can she be criminally persecuted for falsifying evidence after the verdict has been reached, though how are we letting this large slide by even though there was false evidence?
Sanction those lawyers.
It’s pathetic of the court. I have lost all confidence in the institution.
Time to discriminate against Evangelicals
Organized religion is spiraling down for a reason.
@@davidguelette7036
Very true
Because of people like this!
Amen to that for sure
This makes them all look incompetent! Embarrassing! 😢
Accept the defeat you crime supporting DEMORAT
Comparing the Supreme Court to an umpire calling balls and strikes is ridiculous. You can refuse to go to games if you think they’re rig. You can’t refuse to obey the laws of the land no matter what you think. The court needs accountability which it doesn’t have.
Except it's not. The judicial branch has no ability to enforce its rulings. However, because we as a society believe it to be credible and legitimate, the other branches enforce its rulings. Congress, for example, makes laws that bind us to decisions made by the court. So, what if the majority of Americans and in turn the other branches of our government, refused to believe in the the Court's impartiality, credibility, and legitimacy? The Court would then just be a group of children in robes banging toy gavels.
Roberts accepted the case where the plaintiff was never approached asking for a website design. Roberts is not an unbiased judge. He is clearly a Republican political operator and his action in this case is absolute proof.
Roberts should be impeached. We deserve honest people in our Supreme Court.
And this is the HIGHEST FORM OF COURT IN THE COUNTRY?! Ridiculous!
Meanwhile MANY people are harmed by this bigotry and hate directed at “others” The gay community needs to sue that lady and put her on the street!!
Shouldn’t that automatically void the entire case?
This case MUST BE REVERSED if the 6 Trumpians on this court are to have any credibility in the future. The lawyers who brought this suit MUST BE DISBARRED - the suit should NEVER have been heard in the first p;ace ere was NO REAL PERSON who had claimed injury.
Well when they end up in cuffs we shall see what happens
This court needs to go, Impartial laughable.
So this a false court impeach the court
Absolutely Ridiculous.
Isn't this what that movie Minority Report was (kind'a) about?
Arresting and convicting people for thoughts or things they MIGHT do in the future.
The real menace to society.
Brought to you by the same people who think alternate electors aren’t illegal.
Democrats don't want to harm the institution, I get that, but this court has exposed just how fragile the institution is & how susceptible it is to abuse.
Then it's time for the Democrats to "clean house!" Purge the MAGA Injustices and pack the Court with a Democrat majority, then nullify all MAGA decisions and impeach all Red State governors who make homophobic or transphobic state laws, then repeal them all as unconstitutional. Then try all the MAGA politicians for crimes against humanity in the World Court and send them to Spandau or Guantanamo.
This fricking unbelievable! how can the SCOTUS get away with scrap?!
Because it's in the Constitution. DUH!
Still waiting for the courts to decide whether Bigfoot has the right to bear arms and whether mermaids can go in the water topless.
How does that violate her right to her religious belief? She wasnt being asked to marry a gay person. She wasnt being asked to perform the ceremony. She is not committing a sin by creating a website. She is committing a sin by lying about having a wedding website design business. And it is a sin to swear under oath that she had a legitimate request by a legitimate client to create a wedding website. Does her religion dictate that she should be less concerned with her own tendency to lie and deceive than she is with the perceived sins of others? I question if Smith has any real religious beliefs at all. This case has no business being in front of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court used this fraudulent case to further their political agenda.
Time to stack the courts Dark Brandon! If the right could, they WOULD!! Just DO IT!!!
The right could and didn’t. Maybe don’t ask your leaders to be shittier
Absolutely!!
I’m so tiered of him trying to be “fair.” This is more than enough reason
Actually, it would be *UNSTACKING* the courts since the GOP blocked 2 seats that should have been filled by Obama and Biden.
Fabricated the whole thing in order to discriminate.
These crybully bigots need to lie and imagine harm done to them in their demented crusade to discriminate against people just existing. The irony being even if there was an actual client who she didn't want to serve for their immutable characteristics, she would still have zero business operating if she wants to discriminate.
@agent00soul48 "No there wasn't" what? How about you 'try and speak' in complete sentences.
Seems like she committed perjury and fraud while slandering a random person in court 🤔
Can you just make up random stories in court... or do they make you swear to not do that 🤔
@agent00soul48 It's clear to anyone paying attention that there's a concerted effort by the right wing to demonize, vilify, discriminate against, and stoke violence against LGBTQ+ people. They do this with many proxies, "free speech", "religious freedom", "think of the children", etc. It's all a cover for their real motivations rooted in ignorance, fear, and hate.
@@randominternetuser2888 With partisan hacks like Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and the 3 Trump stooges, anything they want goes. Precedent and original intent matters when they want, and it's easily ignored and excused when it's inconvenient for what they want to enact.
I am shocked a Republican lied!🤔
I’m shocked Libs can’t accept defeat 🤡
@@samuraisaxon6800Why are conservatives always prematurely declaring victory.🤔🐩 Is it because you can't win elections?
Where were our media outlets, they did not fact check this case? Would have been nice to locate the couple in question. I have always assumed they were involved but giving the media "no comment", am I mistaken? Did they know the case was based on them? Were they involved? This opens a can of worms, we got questions.
Npr did
There wasn't actually a couple in question because he isn't gay. He's married to a woman and has a kid. Nor did he want a wedding website. And he had no clue this was happening, apparently very surprised when he found out. Hope she gets sued!!
The media is the only reason we know about this. Thank them for investigating and reporting on this.
Made fools of the Supreme Court.
How did no lawyer catch this at all? This is basically falsifying a witness/case. The whole thing should be voided and the woman herself and her legal team who brought this up to the court should be charged
It's almost like there is a subset of people in this country that keeps creating solutions to problems that don't exist while they completely ignore actual issues
Someday people are going to find it hard to believe that all of this crazy stuff really happened.
The plaintiff committed perjury.
This is so tragic on so many levels. Equal justice for some?
Restructure the US Supreme Court, by retiring some justices & appointing new ones, or by adding more justices to the court. Or restructure the federal court system, keeping most cases out of the Supreme Court.
It CAN be done.
We have a winner! 😁🥳
This is a completely corrupt court. The state of Colorado should sanction the lawyers and charge the plaintiff with perjury. The person unknowingly listed in the suit - who has been confirmed as not Gay - should sue those parties involved.
Can the man sue the woman??
Oh I think he *'may'*
Imagine the maga harassment he'll get
As evidenced by national political elections in the US, the Supreme Court was already scewed to the right before Trump. But being fair is not a Republican thing. So the court is going out of its way to shape our nation instead of deciding actual cases. AS EXPECTED if you are familiar with the christian conservative right and The Federalist Society.
SCOTUS made a laughingstock of themselves.
impeach the supreme court
sounds bullshit and this case should have never made the court
Glitch?? No!! It’s a total scam and fraud!!!
Can anyone explain why something we don’t even vote for get to create laws that affect us ALL?
Mixed Consequences of both Past to Present. The Mistakes of Voters of the Past laid the Foundation to Ruin the Future. And mistakes in the Present carry that issue to the next Future. Hence Vote Better today because Republicans will Ruin the Present and its Future.
supreme court of US is a joke 🤣🤣🤣
This ruling should be set aside as moot.
Nice. Fake case for a fake court.
the court has no enforcement power, should just ignore them honestly. I have always hated the idea of the supreme court being appointed individuals by a person i got to pick from a small pool of pre selected individuals. AMERICA ! FREEDOM! xD
You would think the judge would have the documents from.the lower court. In the lower court documents it's would said if the man ask her or not. You would think they would read it. But the Supreme Court is brought
A ROGUE court doing Republican bidding!
I can't think of a better example of what an actual moral hazard is and how to create one
It's against my religion to serve Christians, Orthodox Jews, and Arabs and other religions that discriminate.
Our supreme court is truly embarassing
You know they're still going to uphold it.
You can’t embarrass this court. It’s just not possible. They have an agenda to fulfill. That’s all they care about. “What is the recourse?” “There is no recourse”
Such corruption
People need to flood the court with hypothetical cases they think may affect them some day and see how that plays out.