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.
Precedent set, no injured party required. I look forward to all the future cases. Good job Roberts. /s
Can we call them Prima Farcie cases?
Anything that supports their bigotry, doesn’t need to be true.
“I’m not interested in reality” really sums up their entire position at this point.
Much like the MAGA twits, I mean individuals.
Yeah this one is almost scarier than any other for the precedent it sets. While most of the actual decisions this term were bad but par for the course of a conservative majority court (with a few pleasant surprises like rejecting racial gerrymandering, dismissing independent legislature theory, and reaffirming Native adoptions) this case was uniquely dangerous for being just conjured from thin air. The idea that you can take an issue to court over something that was proven to be entirely hypothetical prepares the way for more ready-made cases designed to create a particular legal outcome.
Exactly. It’s making an a actual legal decision based on the equivalent of an argument someone had with themselves in the shower.
It’d be laughable if it wasn’t actually serious and legally binding.
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.
Prima Farcie
Ha!
How did this case even make it to the supreme court? Did the defence fail to find out about this fiction when it went through the lower courts?
Lying for the Lord. It’s legal now.
Lying for the Lord made her a heretic.
Exodus 23:1-2 Do not spread false reports…When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice
This is a really weird narrative some people are trying to push.
The conflict was between Smith and the government, so she sued the government. It could be that her explanation of the motivation is made up, but that’s fairly irrelevant. The question was does she have a right to advertise something on her website about her business.
I also feel like the panic over this is a bit strange. I think a gay web designer, for example, should have every right to say “I won’t make websites for Bible camps that support conversation therapy”, and advertise that on their own website, despite the fact that religion is a protected class.
This ruling, as far as I can tell, secures that right.
