4 ms·

That’s one hot take on the ruling. It was quite narrow, and has nothing to do with same-sex weddings, but is about compelled speech and free association.

bluepod4 3y ago
It’s not really a “hot take” since this is the main reason why the web designer filed the lawsuit to being with lol. But I understand what you’re saying.
- spondylosaurus 3y ago
  Not only that, the web designer initially filed the suit in anticipation that maybe, one day a gay couple would ask for her services... and then the specific gay couple who she eventually denied services to doesn't seem to exist at all. https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-... > Maybe it should not be a surprise, though, that this strange fake “request” popped up in a case in which the plaintiff’s main argument rested on the claim that someday, out there, a same-sex couple would want her to design a wedding website. The closest thing Smith had to an actual inquiry—the nonwedding of Stewart and Mike—arrived within 24 hours of her having filed a suit in which said inquiry would be potentially a helpful piece of supporting evidence. The inquiry floats through the filings only later, and still it remains. Despite the district court raising doubts about it representing a genuine inquiry from two men getting married—and the court didn’t even raise the real doubt that the couple does not exist—it is now part of the case history, a bit of fan fiction joining the other phantom gays the case invokes. ADF made no mention of Stewart and Mike specifically in their arguments before the Supreme Court this session, but they don’t need to: Their entire case, after all, is built around the idea of gay people doing something that they have not yet done, nor ever will do.
  - bluepod4 3y ago
    Yes! The “maybe, one day” thing threw me for a loop. I was sort of hoping that maybe she was planning on running for office and wanted to get some votes. But nope, not even that. All this over some hypotheticals lol.
- olliej 3y ago
  The "web designer" filed a fraudulent law suit.
wryoak 3y ago
While I support the ruling for the abstract basis you describe, to say it has nothing in the concrete world to do with samesex weddings is disingenuous. Do you presume the plaintiff would have brought such a suit over something that echoed her beliefs? Unless you can reasonably attribute such conviction of principle to her, she cannot be said to have brought the suit on such principles, only that her argument was parallel to such principles.

bluepod4 3y ago

It’s not really a “hot take” since this is the main reason why the web designer filed the lawsuit to being with lol. But I understand what you’re saying.

spondylosaurus 3y ago
Not only that, the web designer initially filed the suit in anticipation that maybe, one day a gay couple would ask for her services... and then the specific gay couple who she eventually denied services to doesn't seem to exist at all. https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-... > Maybe it should not be a surprise, though, that this strange fake “request” popped up in a case in which the plaintiff’s main argument rested on the claim that someday, out there, a same-sex couple would want her to design a wedding website. The closest thing Smith had to an actual inquiry—the nonwedding of Stewart and Mike—arrived within 24 hours of her having filed a suit in which said inquiry would be potentially a helpful piece of supporting evidence. The inquiry floats through the filings only later, and still it remains. Despite the district court raising doubts about it representing a genuine inquiry from two men getting married—and the court didn’t even raise the real doubt that the couple does not exist—it is now part of the case history, a bit of fan fiction joining the other phantom gays the case invokes. ADF made no mention of Stewart and Mike specifically in their arguments before the Supreme Court this session, but they don’t need to: Their entire case, after all, is built around the idea of gay people doing something that they have not yet done, nor ever will do.
- bluepod4 3y ago
  Yes! The “maybe, one day” thing threw me for a loop. I was sort of hoping that maybe she was planning on running for office and wanted to get some votes. But nope, not even that. All this over some hypotheticals lol.
olliej 3y ago
The "web designer" filed a fraudulent law suit.

wryoak 3y ago

While I support the ruling for the abstract basis you describe, to say it has nothing in the concrete world to do with samesex weddings is disingenuous. Do you presume the plaintiff would have brought such a suit over something that echoed her beliefs? Unless you can reasonably attribute such conviction of principle to her, she cannot be said to have brought the suit on such principles, only that her argument was parallel to such principles.