The court ruled in favor of a website designer who did not want to produce a site celebrating a gay marriage.
Yaay religious freedom!
Yaay Freeze Peach!
You Go 1A!
Yes, the court can apparently rule on a theoretical case. But what happens if the basis of a case is fraudulent?
I had not heard of nationalzero.com . https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-zero/ suggested that it is not a reliable source. Can you provide a more reliable source for this information?
The national zero page quoted in the OP links directly to a page on the New Republic from which content was reposted. Granted, New Republic itself is somewhat biased in their reporting, but who is not?
I missed that—reading too fast, I guess. I’ve now read the New Republic and the CNN articles, and this is very strange. I wish I were informed enough to know what it means.
In practical terms, as things stand, the SCotUS majority has telegraphed their intent. This will be a precedent for as long as the theocrats hold sway over the court, and lower courts will mostly act in accordance.
The real question is whether someone will/should have to answer for the deceit, and whether this might develop into a trend of fabricating cases for the sake of, shall we say, legislating from from the bench.
Everything i read indicated that she planned to start offering a wedding website business but hadn’t yet because she couldn’t be sure she wouldn’t have to work for a same sex couple as Colorado law demanded.
I have to say upholding religious freedom to be a bigot and discriminate is an awful decision and a slippery slope.
Right. This was basically a preemptive attempt–and, as it turned out, a successful one–to make sure that she wouldn’t get into trouble.
Wouldn’t get in trouble with who?
The State of Colorado, which had an anti-discrmination law on the books.
This is interesting. I know the Supreme Court can’t rule on a theoretical issue; it can only rule on actual cases that have been brought before it. I don’t know if there has ever been a case which the Court had reason to believe was real but was then found out to be theoretical.
Well, now you do.
I realize that “precedent” has already been tossed into the SC toilet. I guess “standing” goes too.
Maybe they’ll abolish jurisdiction next. By a 6-3 majority they’ll declare Canada’s public health care system unconstitutional and order the army in to enforce their decision.