this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
181 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19178 readers
6425 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MicroWave 49 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Why it's so problematic

A Christian graphic artist who the Supreme Court said can refuse to make wedding websites for gay couples pointed during her lawsuit to a request from a man named “Stewart” and his husband-to-be. The twist? Stewart says it never happened.

The revelation has raised questions about how Lorie Smith’s case was allowed to proceed all the way to the nation’s highest court with such an apparent misrepresentation and whether the state of Colorado, which lost the case last week, has any legal recourse.

[–] gAlienLifeform 41 points 1 year ago (4 children)

One other detail another article mentions here,

Smith’s lawyer, Kristen Waggoner, said at a Friday news conference that the wedding request naming Stewart was submitted through Smith’s website and denied it was fabricated.

She suggested it could have been a troll making the request, something that’s happened with other clients she has represented. In 2018, her client, Colorado baker Jack Phillips, won a partial U.S. Supreme Court victory after refusing to make a gay couple’s wedding cake, citing his Christian faith.

I'll bet this attorney submitted the troll requests after being retained by these homophobic clients

[–] ThatGirlKylie 40 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The “graphic designer” and I use that term lightly. Preemptively filed a lawsuit against Colorado in 2016 and then the very next day she received this “request” and that’s all that she based it on?

That’s all any of this is based on? That’s absolutely insane. That means anyone could make up any scenario and with enough work get it seen by the Supreme Court.

Insane.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What I feel it does is get as much supreme court precedent in place while the right still have a stacked deck. Who knows how long it would take for this situation to happen organically?

[–] scutiger 19 points 1 year ago

But as we learned just over a year ago, decades of precedent mean nothing to the Supreme Court. Decisions made 50 years ago can be overturned just because.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)