July 1, 20232 yr Author I've seen no real answer for how a hypothetical situation got a ruling from SCOTUS.
July 1, 20232 yr 5 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: I've seen no real answer for how a hypothetical situation got a ruling from SCOTUS. She brought a suit against the state of Colorado requesting an injunction. Really no different than any other suit requesting injunction against a law.
July 1, 20232 yr The Smith case is being painted as a Civil Rights case when it's really not. She's not saying she wouldn't work with someone because they are gay. She's saying she wouldn't create content for a gay wedding. This is a freedom of speech issue. A sole proprietor shouldn't be forced by law to create content they don't agree with. If she was pro choice, and an anti-abortion person came to her and asked her to make a website and t-shirt to promote an upcoming anti-abortion protest. Should she be forced to do so? If a couple who belongs to the Church of Satan came to her and asked her to make a website their wedding which will be a Satanic wedding, should she be forced to do so?
July 1, 20232 yr Author 30 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: She brought a suit against the state of Colorado requesting an injunction. Really no different than any other suit requesting injunction against a law. But for an injunction don't you have to show actual injury? Not hypothetical injury, but a provable threat or harm? This seems a very low bar.
July 1, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said: But for an injunction don't you have to show actual injury? Not hypothetical injury, but a provable threat or harm? This seems a very low bar. I don’t believe so. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/preliminary_injunction#:~:text=A court needs to examine,is in the public interest.
July 1, 20232 yr Author 1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said: I don’t believe so. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/preliminary_injunction#:~:text=A court needs to examine,is in the public interest. How is this "irreparable harm?" The merits of the case are one thing. But what is bothering me here is that hypothetical, not demonstrated or proven, harm allowed not only an injunction to proceed but that it made its way all the way to SCOTUS. IANAL, but it seems awfully ridiculous in a society already as litigious as our out that we can tie up the courts litigating any hypothetical threat to rights that one can dream up ... and be taken seriously by the courts in the process.
July 1, 20232 yr Author I just don't understand how a case based on her "believing" something even gets off the ground.
July 1, 20232 yr 6 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: I've seen no real answer for how a hypothetical situation got a ruling from SCOTUS. Wait so not only was it a fake couple, but she's not even a real web designer?
July 1, 20232 yr Author 5 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Wait so not only was it a fake couple, but she's not even a real web designer? It's literally a "what if" scenario that made its way to the supreme court. I find it hard not to view the case and ruling as wholly absurd.
July 1, 20232 yr 5 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: It's literally a "what if" scenario that made its way to the supreme court. I find it hard not to view the case and ruling as wholly absurd. I'm fine with the ruling, but yeah a hypothetical web designer alleging hypothetical harm going all the way up to the scotus is dumb.
July 1, 20232 yr 12 hours ago, ToastJenkins said: And you should be embarassed Are the businesses that took out PPP loans knowing they'd be forgiven embarrassed? Are oil companies who take federal subsidies embarrassed? Don't hate the player, hate the game.
July 1, 20232 yr 30 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: Wait so not only was it a fake couple, but she's not even a real web designer? She’s a web designer. She’s expanding her business to the wedding industry.
July 1, 20232 yr Author Just now, Phillyterp85 said: She’s a web designer. She’s expanding her business to the wedding industry. She literally never did a wedding website.
July 1, 20232 yr 15 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: She literally never did a wedding website. WGB said she’s not a web designer. That’s not true. Her company does web design, graphic design, social media, etc… at the time of the case she was expanding her business to include weddings.
July 1, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said: It's literally a "what if" scenario that made its way to the supreme court. I find it hard not to view the case and ruling as wholly absurd. But it’s not necessarily a "what if” scenario. She requested injunction and the lower courts ruled against her motion.
July 1, 20232 yr 13 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: WGB she’s not a web designer. That’s not true. Her company does web design, graphic design, social media, etc… at the time of the case she was expanding her business to include weddings. So she's alleging harm presumably because she's a self-employed freelance web designer looking to expand to doing weddings in addition to whatever she does now? In other words, does she own her own business and have actual clients now? She's apparently already lied about this gay couple and the guy she listed already confirmed he never requested her services and has no idea why she listed him.
July 1, 20232 yr 4 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said: She brought a suit against the state of Colorado requesting an injunction. Really no different than any other suit requesting injunction against a law. Think the point is even remedial due diligence would have and should have had it throw out long ago before the SC
July 1, 20232 yr Author 19 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: Think the point is even remedial due diligence would have and should have had it throw out long ago before the SC Exactly. I've never been one to jump on the "the SC is political" bandwagon, but this particular case selection and ultimately the ruling makes it really hard to argue that politics wasn't a factor.
July 1, 20232 yr Super bad precedent if all it takes is someone saying they are concerned that they might feel bad about something in the future. We can't be allowing snowflakes to take bad feelings into the courts and expect some ruling based on a feeling that something might make them feel uncomfortable at some point in time.
July 1, 20232 yr 16 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Exactly. I've never been one to jump on the "the SC is political" bandwagon, but this particular case selection and ultimately the ruling makes it really hard to argue that politics wasn't a factor. Perhaps after the cake incident/case they felt the need to settle the matter?
July 1, 20232 yr 9 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: Super bad precedent if all it takes is someone saying they are concerned that they might feel bad about something in the future. We can't be allowing snowflakes to take bad feelings into the courts and expect some ruling based on a feeling that something might make them feel uncomfortable at some point in time. Agree have to show actual harm not theory. but when did all this come out? When they heard the case?
July 1, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, ToastJenkins said: Agree have to show actual harm not theory. but when did all this come out? When they heard the case? No idea. I hope the info in here is wrong or incomplete.
July 1, 20232 yr 7 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: No idea. I hope the info in here is wrong or incomplete. I dont know the procedural stuff, but they probably found out after they agreed to hear it. I guess they could have dismissed it?
July 1, 20232 yr 8 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: I dont know the procedural stuff, but they probably found out after they agreed to hear it. I guess they could have dismissed it? Who knows, but obviously it should have even gotten that far and if it did they should have refused to hear it after doing the basic due diligence.
Create an account or sign in to comment