It still feels unnerving to some, even those caught in the crossfire, to see injuries invented wholesale and lies accepted by the highest court in the land.
It still feels unnerving to some, even those caught in the crossfire, to see injuries invented wholesale and lies accepted by the highest court in the land.
I don’t understand why everyone is saying it’s hypothetical.
Smith sued the Colorado government for the right to put a message on her website. I don’t see what’s “conjured from thin air” about that.
Her motivation for wanting to put the message on her site might have been disingenuous, what with the seemingly fictious story, but the issue was around whether she was allowed to put the message on her site, under the principle of free speech and the right to offer services, regardless if anyone was asking directly for it.
It would be akin to if a gay web developer wanted to a put a message on their site pre-emptively refusing to do work for Christian Bible camps that were known for providing conversation therapy, or a Jewish web developer wanting to pre-emptively put a message on their website to refuse to do work for an all-you-can-eat crab and bacon festival.
Even if they weren’t actually asked to make these things (and even if they made up a story about being asked to make these things), it’s still a tangible issue.
It’s not like before this decision these people would have been allowed to put any messaging they wanted on their website unless someone specifically asked them for them for these services. There was a tangible remedy that was being sought.