SCOTUS Rules You Can Refuse Service to Same-Sex Couples

Dionysus444

Member
Mar 3, 2012
13,824
6,086
48
I never argued what you're saying. I have no clue why you're saying this. I'm simply making an observation about a person obsessed with sexual orientation. You're making a bunch of assumptions here that aren't even close. I don't hate them or refuse to help. I'd do anything I can for any of them. I even said above that I would just bake the cake. Did you actually read what I said or did you just assume your way through? Haha! 🤣
See @Ron Mehico's post. They aren't making it about their sexuality any more than you're making your life about your sexuality. You just see any reference to non-straight life as about sex when you don't judge all references to straight life by the same standard.
While I actually agree with your point about how insane the whole sexuality thing is now, almost like a real life SNL skit, where it’s just a political ploy to garner votes (who needs to go through the difficulties of balancing a budget when you can just garner feverish support by saying you support/don’t support transgenders!), I do disagree about heterosexuality not being a prominent part of your life.

Heterosexuality is basically my entire life now. I have 3 kids and everyone new I’ve met in the last five years I’ve known either through my wife or kids. I even wear a shiny ring around town when I’m not with my wife and kids that says I’m married. And you better believe every guy that I meet at my kids sports practice or dance recital and sees my big tittayed blonde wife knows I’m straight as an arrow (Am I right fellas?!). It’s basically what my entire life is based around. And before I was married as a single guy pretty much all social events centered around me attempting to get laid - preferably with some big ole chest beefers am I right fellas?! I would even eat at places called hooters and the tilted kilt so I could look at some sweet perky bigguns when I was eating wings with my other buds who loved talkin bout titties.
 

Beatle Bum

Well-known member
Sep 1, 2002
39,226
57,808
113
“In legal filings, Smith claimed that a man named Stewart contacted her on September 21, 2016, to do some wedding design work for him and his fiancé, Mike. On Thursday, the New Republic reported that the request was bogus—they contacted Stewart and he said he is straight, married to a woman (and was even in 2016), and never contacted Smith. And the timing is also suspect: Stewart’s purported request came in less than 24 hours after Smith first filed her lawsuit in state court.”

Stewart’s name, phone number, email, and website are listed on the 303 Creative inquiry form cited in filings, including at the Supreme Court. Stewart, whom the New Republic is identifying only by his first name, told the outlet, “If somebody’s pulled my information, as some kind of supporting information or documentation, somebody’s falsified that.” He continued: “I wouldn’t want anybody to…make me a wedding website? I’m married, 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.”


In fact, her lawyers did not mention “Stewart’s” request until months later. It first came up in February 2017, when her lawyers wrote in response to defense motions, “Notably, any claim that Lorie will never receive a request to create a custom website celebrating a same-sex ceremony is no longer legitimate because Lorie has received such a request.” Smith said in a sworn statement that “Stewart” made a request through the contact form on her site.

All of this information is public. It has been mentioned in multiple articles. This article was just the first one in my search. I hope Stewart sues the hell out of her.


As I said, you did not read the case. The parties, including the state, stipulated to the facts. This is atmospheric, but not relevant. The case this thread is about has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with what you posted. The Colorado statute was found unconstitutional in regards to the facts STIPULATED IN THE CASE.
 

Beatle Bum

Well-known member
Sep 1, 2002
39,226
57,808
113
I agree with you on this, but those cases are generally lost, especially if companies have the balls or insurance to fight them. Most plaintiff's lawyers only get paid when they win, so I don't think too many lawyers (at least those capable of sustaining a practice) take and file too many of these lawsuits. The EEOC and KCHR weed through these cases. Just because someone complains, doesn't mean they ultimately get paid.
On the contrary. Most of the cases that get filed are like that. Good cases get resolved at the admin level. Plaintiff attorneys get paid. They make hourly arrangements with clients who have bad cases.

Some good cases make it to court, for various reasons. As with the Starbucks case, I assume the parties could not agree on punitive damages. The plaintiff made out well. That is not the common case, in my experience.
 
Feb 4, 2004
6,102
4,539
0
As I said, you did not read the case. The parties, including the state, stipulated to the facts. This is atmospheric, but not relevant. The case this thread is about has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with what you posted. The Colorado statute was found unconstitutional in regards to the facts STIPULATED IN THE CASE.
It doesn’t change anything about what I said. I hope Stewart sues the pants off of her.
 

revcort

New member
Feb 20, 2003
32,489
30,769
0
See @Ron Mehico's post. They aren't making it about their sexuality any more than you're making your life about your sexuality. You just see any reference to non-straight life as about sex when you don't judge all references to straight life by the same standard.
We can agree to disagree Dionysus. I don't see faith and sexuality as even in the same category, but I can see how you view them similarly. 👍
 

Beatle Bum

Well-known member
Sep 1, 2002
39,226
57,808
113
If someone is criticizing the Jack Phillips cases as setups then pointing out that 303 Creative was also a setup is fair game. It doesn't matter to the legal arguments at hand either way obviously, but some people care about the context.

Two different contentions. Phillips was targeted by animus. That is not the same as setting up a legal argument that finds a statute unconstitutional. Yeah, unconstitutional. I know that is a small thing to some, but it’s important. The Alphabet mafia targeted Phillips to harm him, personally. I know you like that kind of harm and have said you think he should be put out of business. But, the two things are dramatically different.

I'm not harping, merely rebuffing the argument of people who say they care about that. You yourself claimed to care last time the issue was discussed.
Yeah, I care about a hit job and unconstitutional overreaches of government. I don’t care about irrelevant stories about a guy who got married. Sorry.
 

Beatle Bum

Well-known member
Sep 1, 2002
39,226
57,808
113
At least one of the two men whose information was used, Stewart, was never checked by the court no, as it's irrelevant to the case whether that request was real or genuine. Are you arguing they did check? Because the man himself says they didn't, he never filed any request, and he's been married to a woman since the 2000s.
You are going to have to be more clear than that. But, this married guy is, by definition, irrelevant to the case the SCOTUS decided and this thread is about.
 

Beatle Bum

Well-known member
Sep 1, 2002
39,226
57,808
113
It doesn’t change anything about what I said. I hope Stewart sues the pants off of her.
On what grounds? 🤦‍♂️

You pissed at the woman who demonstrated a state statute was unconstitutional. Geez. Where is Nightwish now? Go take a nap.
 

Dionysus444

Member
Mar 3, 2012
13,824
6,086
48
You are going to have to be more clear than that. But, this married guy is, by definition, irrelevant to the case the SCOTUS decided and this thread is about.
I already agreed it's irrelevant to the outcome, but it isn't irrelevant to the conversation, which this thread is. She submitted false documents to the lower court in this case that eventually went to the Supreme Court saying an inquiry had been made by a man named "Stewart" about his wedding to "Mike" and "design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website," complete with names and contact information that wasn't redacted. This was all fake as "Stewart" was contacted by the press and yes, that was his contact info, but no, he had never made such an inquiry and was actually married to a woman at the time of the filing. "Stewart" confirmed no court at any level had ever followed up on the contact information to check with him. That's the "Stewart" @TCurtis75 is referring to in his latest posts.

They lied to the court and no one noticed. It wasn't material to the outcome of the case, as it was a purely hypothetical case from the get-go that didn't involve any actual business transactions, but it did happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheJuddDome

Beatle Bum

Well-known member
Sep 1, 2002
39,226
57,808
113
I already agreed it's irrelevant to the outcome, but it isn't irrelevant to the conversation, which this thread is. She submitted false documents to the lower court in this case that eventually went to the Supreme Court saying an inquiry had been made by a man named "Stewart" about his wedding to "Mike" and "design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website," complete with names and contact information that wasn't redacted. This was all fake as "Stewart" was contacted by the press and yes, that was his contact info, but no, he had never made such an inquiry and was actually married to a woman at the time of the filing. "Stewart" confirmed no court at any level had ever followed up on the contact information to check with him. That's the "Stewart" @TCurtis75 is referring to in his latest posts.

They lied to the court and no one noticed. It wasn't material to the outcome of the case, as it was a purely hypothetical case from the get-go that didn't involve any actual business transactions, but it did happen.

Glad we agree it’s irrelevant. Whether someone lied to the court is not known, even from the information you provided. I know that will hard for you to swallow. But, it’s irrelevant. And, that makes the ongoing discussion meaningless.
 

Beatle Bum

Well-known member
Sep 1, 2002
39,226
57,808
113
Defamation, libel, fraud.
So, the first two are the same. I am not sure how the Stewart guy could meet the elements of fraud. Doubtful he has a defamation claim, given the immunities involved in court filings, the fact the attorneys probably presented the information, and he probably could not show damages, even if this fell into a per se category under the state law. To say being called gay is defamation that could damage a reputation might be, as they say, homophobic.
 

cole854

New member
Sep 11, 2012
10,156
22,637
0
One would have hoped the superior race fans, bible thumpers and other puritans would have understood victimhood, discrimination and marginalization much much better.

Given there were no victims in this decision, no discrimination, and no marginalization, then I guess *thump* *thump* *thump*.
 
Feb 4, 2004
6,102
4,539
0
So, the first two are the same. I am not sure how the Stewart guy could meet the elements of fraud. Doubtful he has a defamation claim, given the immunities involved in court filings, the fact the attorneys probably presented the information, and he probably could not show damages, even if this fell into a per se category under the state law. To say being called gay is defamation that could damage a reputation might be, as they say, homophobic.
I’m not an attorney but I hope he finds a reason to sue. If not, I hope he does everything he can to make her suffer for her lies. I hope he leaves no stone unturned.
 

Beatle Bum

Well-known member
Sep 1, 2002
39,226
57,808
113
I’m not an attorney but I hope he finds a reason to sue. If not, I hope he does everything he can to make her suffer for her lies. I hope he leaves no stone unturned.
I have no doubt you feel that way. It sounds familiar.
 

Dore95

New member
Mar 2, 2008
2,435
1,906
0
On the contrary. Most of the cases that get filed are like that. Good cases get resolved at the admin level. Plaintiff attorneys get paid. They make hourly arrangements with clients who have bad cases.

Some good cases make it to court, for various reasons. As with the Starbucks case, I assume the parties could not agree on punitive damages. The plaintiff made out well. That is not the common case, in my experience.
Employment discrimination/retaliation/harassment cases make up a good percentage of the cases filed in federal court. Some of the largest law firms in the country are employer-side firms that primarily handle these cases. If anything, the volume of these cases is going up, and not down. So, whoever said that Title VII could be abolished because "these cases" are not filed often or are rarely of concern for companies, think again.
 

Beatle Bum

Well-known member
Sep 1, 2002
39,226
57,808
113
Employment discrimination/retaliation/harassment cases make up a good percentage of the cases filed in federal court. Some of the largest law firms in the country are employer-side firms that primarily handle these cases. If anything, the volume of these cases is going up, and not down. So, whoever said that Title VII could be abolished because "these cases" are not filed often or are rarely of concern for companies, think again.
Good discrimination cases are hugely outweighed by crap cases. Title VII has become a litigation magnate that is an undue burden on the system. Great for defense attorneys’ pocket books, but not what the statute intended. It definitely should be modified. Perhaps a loser pay attorney fees model, rather than fees only being awarded to Plaintiff counsel upon a victory. This argument is distinct from whether the federal government has the constitutional power to impact private business. It is a policy observation.

Counselor, quoting “these cases” (whomever you were quoting) and then interjecting something no one but you said is bad practice.
 
Last edited:

TheJuddDome

New member
Mar 17, 2022
575
503
0
Good discrimination cases are hugely outweighed by crap cases. Title VII has become a litigation magnate that is an undue burden on the system. Great for defense attorneys’ pocket books, but not what the statute intended. It definitely should be modified. Perhaps a loser pay attorney fees model, rather than fees only being awarded to Plaintiff counsel upon a victory. This argument is distinct from whether the federal government has the constitutional power to impact private business. It is a policy observation.

Counselor, quoting “these cases” (whomever you were quoting) and then interjecting something no one but you said is bad practice.
You might want to check out the commerce clause.
And on a different note, let me ask you this, and many others who have claimed to read the actual case, I bet none of you read the dissent. You might want to educate yourself by doing so.
(And don’t be that dumbass who responds with why read the dissent its the loser.)
 

cayts25

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2017
2,042
2,087
113
Geez, I take the weekend off from arguing with strangers and this thread has ballooned to 13 pages. Are we all best friends yet?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dionysus444

Beatle Bum

Well-known member
Sep 1, 2002
39,226
57,808
113
You might want to check out the commerce clause.

That actually was a different note. And, as most lawyers know, the commerce clause is the “can indict a ham sandwich” for the SCOTUS. But, to be clear, I expressly said I was not commenting on that issue. One others here have.

And on a different note, let me ask you this, and many others who have claimed to read the actual case, I bet none of you read the dissent. You might want to educate yourself by doing so.
(And don’t be that dumbass who responds with why read the dissent its the loser.)

Create a strawman dumbass, why don’t you. The dissent for a 6-3 opinion can be important, but not for the reasons you probably suggest. I have read some of the dissent. What is your point? Or are you just hoping someone will actually read the dissent.
 

Bill Cosby

New member
May 1, 2008
29,257
74,453
0
Yes, don’t want anything changing your mind.


The Supreme Court held the state of Colorado cannot force a business owner to produce expressive content against her will.

If Sotomayor’s irrelevant ramblings and policy statements have you convinced otherwise, I don’t know what to tell you at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IdaCat and cole854

TheJuddDome

New member
Mar 17, 2022
575
503
0
That actually was a different note. And, as most lawyers know, the commerce clause is the “can indict a ham sandwich” for the SCOTUS. But, to be clear, I expressly said I was not commenting on that issue. One others here have.



Create a strawman dumbass, why don’t you. The dissent for a 6-3 opinion can be important, but not for the reasons you probably suggest. I have read some of the dissent. What is your point? Or are you just hoping someone will actually read the dissent.
And that’s what I thought.
 
Apr 14, 2023
871
1,492
0
Can you imagine the forefathers rolling around in their graves over the **** going on in this country right now? We have actual existential crises in motion and we are focusing on this kind of garbage? Shame on all of us for letting it get to this.
 

TheJuddDome

New member
Mar 17, 2022
575
503
0
The Supreme Court held the state of Colorado cannot force a business owner to produce expressive content against her will.

If Sotomayor’s irrelevant ramblings and policy statements have you convinced otherwise, I don’t know what to tell you at this point.
How do you know her “ramblings are irrelevant” when you have not even read them. But I get it, you don’t care.
 

TheJuddDome

New member
Mar 17, 2022
575
503
0
Can you imagine the forefathers rolling around in their graves over the **** going on in this country right now? We have actual existential crises in motion and we are focusing on this kind of garbage? Shame on all of us for letting it get to this.
Well, we have to make sure that business owners can discriminate and display their judgmental hatred against homosexuals in their commercial speech. I mean this is america damn it.
 

Bill Cosby

New member
May 1, 2008
29,257
74,453
0
How do you know her “ramblings are irrelevant” when you have not even read them. But I get it, you don’t care.

It’s a dissenting opinion. It has no legal weight. It’s likely just whining about the majority opinion and making policy statements, as dissents do. Thus it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You are correct that I don’t care.

I assume you all have parroted Sotomayor’s arguments in this thread. Yet not one of you has made a good argument as to why the Supreme Court erred in its ruling.

If Sotomayor’s dissent makes arguments better than you guys have in this thread, feel free to quote those excerpts.
 

TheJuddDome

New member
Mar 17, 2022
575
503
0
It’s a dissenting opinion. It has no legal weight. It’s likely just whining about the majority opinion and making policy statements, as dissents do. Thus it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You are correct that I don’t care.

I assume you all have parroted Sotomayor’s arguments in this thread. Yet not one of you has made a good argument as to why the Supreme Court erred in its ruling.

If Sotomayor’s dissent makes arguments better than you guys have in this thread, feel free to quote those excerpts.
Well she lays it all out in black and white. How could I make the argument any better. You sound like a real open minded reasonable dude.
 

Beatle Bum

Well-known member
Sep 1, 2002
39,226
57,808
113
The majority’s assessment of the dissent is compelling. Most of the dissent reads like a HuffPost opinion piece, rather than a legal analysis.

The loser in the opinion is the attempt to convince that the first amendment is not implicated because this is not speech.

We should thank Trump and McConnell that Sotomayor is in the minority on the Court.
 

TheJuddDome

New member
Mar 17, 2022
575
503
0
The majority’s assessment of the dissent is compelling. Most of the dissent reads like a HuffPost opinion piece, rather than a legal analysis.

The loser in the opinion is the attempt to convince that the first amendment is not implicated because this is not speech.

We should thank Trump and McConnell that Sotomayor is in the minority on the Court.
Ok, fair enough. But just to make sure I understand you, you are just ok with discrimination against homosexuals when it involves “expressive content” from a business owner. That’s the limit for you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jameslee32

Bill Cosby

New member
May 1, 2008
29,257
74,453
0
Well she lays it all out in black and white. How could I make the argument any better. You sound like a real open minded reasonable dude.

Ok. I’ll assume you made her arguments equally as poorly. Unless you have specific excerpts you can quote that make your point, whatever that is, better than you do.