It’s embracing…..
The High Court judges ruled for someone who wasn’t giving them a shread of truth…..
The court ruled the woman doing the website didn’t have to do a site for a ‘Gay’ couple wanting to get married’….
Turns out?
There was NO such situation ……
In fact?
The woman involved is part of a group trying to work against gay marriages and they have used the suckers on the ‘Supreme Court’ court to get over….
And she NEVER had a website business up and running in the first place…..
As website designer Lorie Smith battled Colorado’s public accommodation law, she claimed that one day after filing her lawsuit, a man requested she design a website for his upcoming same-sex marriage.
But the man, identified in the request as “Stewart,” says he has been married to a woman for more than a decade and never submitted the inquiry.
The Supreme Court on Friday handed Smith a victory in her pre-enforcement lawsuit, ruling along ideological lines that Colorado could not compel the evangelical Christian to design same-sex wedding websites if she expanded her business to offer them for opposite-sex couples. The ruling was one of a handful of landmark cases the court considered this term – one that struck a significant blow to LGBTQ rights.
The justices’ opinions made no reference to the supposed request, and Smith only briefly mentioned it in filings at the Supreme Court.
But the development has raised new scrutiny of Smith and her conservative lawyers’ years-long effort to claw back LGBTQ+ protections, as they had cited the request on multiple occasions in the lower courts while asserting that she had authority to challenge Colorado’s law.
“I’m just really disappointed in the ongoing and sustained attacks on the LGBTQ community in this country, and I’m also disappointed and concerned about the lack of rigor that’s been shown by the lawyers in this case,” said Stewart, who agreed to be interviewed by The Hill on the condition that his last name not be used.
“There’s some evidence there which is easily refutable and easily proven to be incorrect and has been in the case filings for the last five plus years,” he continued. “So it’s concerning that that could make it all the way to the Supreme Court without anybody checking.”….
…
At a Friday news conference following the Supreme Court’s ruling, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser (D) said he didn’t know any details about the man’s denial of sending the request.
“Our position in this case has been there is no website development happening, there is no business operating,” he said. “This was a made-up case without the benefit of any real facts or customers. The Supreme Court in our view should never have decided this case or address the merits without any basis in reality.”
Note….
The Supreme’s voting AGAINST this ruling can smile at the idiot fellow judges who took the bait……
While somewhat amusing?
This has nothing to do with the actual ruling.
Ruling should NEVER have got to the Highest Court
I agree with Colorado
Anyone with the least discernment would understand that your and Colorado’s position is actually irrelevant to the real issue.
Yes this probably shouldn’t have happened in the bureaucratic sense of how the case ended up at the Supreme Court ; however, there would have been another similar case to reach the S.C. in the near future and the ruling would be the same.
In other words, given the present makeup of the court?One can expect similar type of restrictive rulings in the future,
The ruling is based on misrepresenation an outright lies…..
Cases get throw out on review ALL the time….
To quote you…..
“Yes this probably shouldn’t have happened in the bureaucratic sense of how the case ended up at the Supreme Court ; however, there would have been another similar case to reach the S.C. in the near future and the ruling would be the same….”
…
per·ju·ry
nounLAW
the offense of willfully telling an untruth in a court after having taken an oath or affirmation.
“he claimed two witnesses at his trial had committed perjury”
Is perjury the same as lying?
A false statement given under oath relating to a minor or an immaterial matter is not perjury, even though the statement could be deemed a lie, because perjury law is centered on protecting the credibility of official proceedings.
Did this woman ‘swear’ to tell the truth?
This is a Civil ‘wrongful act times TWO…..
But this IS the SUPREME COURT so they are ABOVE the law, eh?
We should be taking things ONE day at a time….
Ya never KNOW what could come out from the lawyers of the High Court….
Andrew Weissmann 🌻
@AWeissmann_
Consequences for fabricating a court case:
DOJ: It’s a crime to lie to a court.
Roberts: litigants who file false filings can be removed from SCT bar and disbarred.
(Nothing will happen by MY POINT exactly)
Like I said…
“Anyone with the least discernment…”
Oh FYI….
Of all the people who post here or for that matter who have EVER posted here?
You have least “discernment “ of them all.
Carry on Waldo!
There IS a Update for this story……
Please check the Post….