# SCotUS upholds religious freedom – however, **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 30, 2023, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-upholds-religious-freedom-however/986379 "2023-06-30T22:22:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2023, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-upholds-religious-freedom-however/986379/1 "2023-06-30T22:22:03Z")
The court [ruled in favor of](https://www.npr.org/2023/06/30/1182121291/colorado-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision) a website designer who did not want to produce a site celebrating a gay marriage. Yaay religious freedom! Yaay Freeze Peach! You Go 1A! [Except](https://nationalzero.com/2023/06/30/alleged-client-request-from-gay-man-used-to-justify-gay-marriage-website-lawsuit-likely-fraudulent-report-finds/), > [@](#): > > According to court filings, “Stewart”–the name of the person who allegedly contacted Smith’s firm, 303 Design, via email in September 2016–wanted a website designed to celebrate his upcoming wedding to his partner, “Mike.” According to the New Republic, Stewart’s full name, contact information, and address were listed in the filing. When New Republic reporter Melissa Gira Grant called the listed number, she reached a man named Stewart who was very confused. (The outlet did not list the man’s last name to protect his privacy.) > > “I wouldn’t want anybody to … make me a wedding website?” he said confused after the reporter told him he was the subject of the pending Supreme Court case. “I’m married [to a woman], I have a child - I’m not really sure where that came from? But somebody’s using false information in a Supreme Court filing document.” Yes, the court can apparently rule on a theoretical case. But what happens if the basis of a case is fraudulent? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2023, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-upholds-religious-freedom-however/986379/2 "2023-06-30T23:08:50Z")
I had not heard of [nationalzero.com](http://nationalzero.com) . [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-zero/](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-zero/) suggested that it is not a reliable source. Can you provide a more reliable source for this information? ---
**Author:** ![AlsoNamedBort](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alsonamedbort/32/3213_2.png) [@AlsoNamedBort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlsoNamedBort)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2023, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-upholds-religious-freedom-however/986379/3 "2023-06-30T23:36:48Z")
> **[Colorado web designer told Supreme Court a man sought her services for his...](https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/politics/colorado-web-designer-court-filings/index.html)** > > The Colorado web designer who wanted to refuse LGBTQ customers and just won her case at the Supreme Court had claimed in court filings that a man inquired about her services for his same-sex wedding. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-upholds-religious-freedom-however/986379/4 "2023-07-01T00:20:27Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-upholds-religious-freedom-however/986379/5 "2023-07-01T00:27:40Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-upholds-religious-freedom-however/986379/6 "2023-07-01T00:48:23Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![MulderMuffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldermuffin/32/2862_2.png) [@MulderMuffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MulderMuffin)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-upholds-religious-freedom-however/986379/7 "2023-07-01T01:09:03Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-upholds-religious-freedom-however/986379/8 "2023-07-01T03:03:17Z")
I have to say upholding religious freedom to be a bigot and discriminate is an awful decision and a slippery slope. ---
**Author:** ![Digger11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@Digger11](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digger11)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-upholds-religious-freedom-however/986379/9 "2023-07-01T03:32:12Z")
> [@MulderMuffin](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-upholds-religious-freedom-however/986379/10 "2023-07-01T03:44:13Z")
Wouldn’t get in trouble with _who?_ ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-upholds-religious-freedom-however/986379/11 "2023-07-01T04:05:02Z")
The State of Colorado, which had an anti-discrmination law on the books. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-upholds-religious-freedom-however/986379/12 "2023-07-01T04:07:54Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-upholds-religious-freedom-however/986379/13 "2023-07-01T04:10:24Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-upholds-religious-freedom-however/986379/14 "2023-07-01T04:14:42Z")
I realize that “precedent” has already been tossed into the SC toilet. I guess “standing” goes too. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2023, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-upholds-religious-freedom-however/986379/15 "2023-07-01T04:19:07Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > 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.