A public business that serves only some of the public, but refuses to serve all the public, sound familiar? Did we not have this same fight in the 1960s? Is gay the new black? Just who gets to sit at the lunch counter? Look, just replace the words same sex with Black or Jews and does it seem correct now. We don’t serve blacks, we don’t serve Jews, I won’t make a cake or a website for blacks or Jews. Imagine the outcry if a Christian was refused service due to someone not wanting to serve, make a cake, or build a website for Christians. I am so tired of being second class. Being gay and paying taxes without the rights that the upper class straight people have. Dogs that love gravy I am so tired. Hugs
Representing the plaintiff—303 Creative, a small business run by a Colorado woman named Lorie Smith—is Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a group whose founder dubbed it a “Christian legal army,” with a long history of opposing civil rights protections for LGBTQ people. But unlike the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, which at least involved real customers wanting a real cake, there is no wedding website. No person has hired Smith to create a wedding website. In fact, Smith has never designed a wedding website.
As such, there is no client Smith has told she is rejecting due to her stated religious beliefs that marriage is only allowed between one man and one woman. In the absence of all that, ADF has, instead, fashioned Smith as the victim of an injury that has never occurred. The group has a $76 million annual budget and thousands of attorneys in its network. The goal with 303 Creative, as it was with Masterpiece, is to redefine civil rights protections for LGBTQ people as a form of religious discrimination against Christians.
Yesterday it was reported that an ADF claim that Smith [photo above] was contacted by gay man seeking a same-sex wedding website is false and that the man in question is straight, was married to a woman at the time, and says that he made no such request.
Later yesterday, however, it was reported that the claim does not appear in the filings before the Supreme Court.
As I’ve said here many times, the ADF invents these businesses with the specific intention of challenging local pro-LGBT ordinances. My first 2016 report on the 303 Creative case is here. And below is today’s ruling.
The Supreme Court decides in favor of Alliance Defending Freedom and guts civil rights laws in the 303 Creative LLC case.
The 6-3 opinion, with the typical breakdown of Republican appointed ultra-conservatives in the majority, is here:https://t.co/QPB7jmydVF
Let's be clear: nothing happened to the plaintiff in 303 Creative, the whole "case" was a hypothetical exercise, and the GOP Justices used it as a vehicle to undermine every single federal, state, county, and city anti-discrimination law in the country. https://t.co/LTgg9LRBwY
The thing that sucks most about the 303 Creative decision is that Smith's case is entirely a fiction. The entire question is based on a business she doesn't have being asked to do something they weren't.
It never should have seen a state court, much less SCOTUS
— Chris supports workers over management (@cokes311) June 30, 2023
Facts and beliefs/opinions sadly carry the same weight in this country. Their religion says sexuality can change. You just have to pray the gay away hard enough.
Legal eagles, I have a question: Would a decision necessarily have to be vacated if the facts of the case are found to be a fabrication? Can there be a ruling in favor of an injured party if there is no injury? Can a decision be made in favor of a party that has based their claim of injury upon that falsehood? Can a party that claims an injury based on a falsehood be guilty of perjury? Can the party that was claimed to have created the injury in the first place have standing to sue?
I would never call myself a “legal eagle” but no, that the court recited made up facts and circumstances makes zero difference. The literal only thing that matters is the holding and the vote. The last religion case Gorsuch wrote, Bremerton, was on completely fictitious facts and the dissent even posted a picture showing that.
Sotomayor did point out the standing issue here – to wit, the plaintiff alleged a facial challenge on a potential future harm. That’s a bit speculative for these things and against the trend of requiring ‘as applied’ challenges to laws – i.e harm in fact.
No theofascist business will be blocked, now, from discriminating against our community. If and when the theofascists are challenged in court, the lower courts will be bound by today’s Supreme Court ruling.
At what point? When the Court upholds religious laws that punish infidelity – at that point the Senators who are cheating on their wives will rise up to counteract the Court’s rulings.
Only some religions, of course. Not pro-Buddhist, or Jewish, or Sikh, or Islam, or anything Native America, or Wiccan, or Taoist, or Hindu, or…well, long list.
To expose the christofascism of this Supreme Court, we need, for example, a case involving a non-Christian baker who won’t do a wedding cake for a Christian couple because Christianity offends the baker’s religious beliefs.
“Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.” – Sotomayor
I feel sorry for Sotomayor. She knows on the deepest of levels how legally and morally wrong all these decisions are, yet she is powerless to stop them.
I am an older gay guy in a long-term wonderful relationship. My spouse and I are in our 36th year together. I love politics and news. I enjoy civil discussions and have no taboo subjects. My pronouns are he / him / his and my email is Scottiestoybox@gmail.com
View all posts by Scotties Playtime
4 thoughts on “Supreme Court Rules For Hate Group On LGBTQ Rights”
Yeah, 2 years in a row, now; the late June gut-punch from SCOTUS. By next year, maybe it won’t knock the breath out of me. Sheesh.
Sorry Ali. But I expect the haters will rush more lawsuits to chip away at LGBTQ+ rights and to minimize same-sex marriage benefits. They have already admitted it worked with abortion and women’s rights, so they expect it to work now. Hugs
All of this stuff needs a nice brain cleanser. Here’s Jenny making 90 min. whole wheat bread. She’s also very dryly funny; I remember sitting watching her videos for an hour or more one night not long after TFG was nominated last time, on the rec of a G+ friend who’s gay. Take a nice breath! 🌈✊☮💖
Scottie's Playtime 
Yeah, 2 years in a row, now; the late June gut-punch from SCOTUS. By next year, maybe it won’t knock the breath out of me. Sheesh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry Ali. But I expect the haters will rush more lawsuits to chip away at LGBTQ+ rights and to minimize same-sex marriage benefits. They have already admitted it worked with abortion and women’s rights, so they expect it to work now. Hugs
LikeLiked by 1 person
All of this stuff needs a nice brain cleanser. Here’s Jenny making 90 min. whole wheat bread. She’s also very dryly funny; I remember sitting watching her videos for an hour or more one night not long after TFG was nominated last time, on the rec of a G+ friend who’s gay. Take a nice breath! 🌈✊☮💖
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Ali. You might like Beau’s take on this. Hugs
LikeLiked by 1 person