5 ms·

TIL you can sue on hypothetical grounds: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-web-designer-refused-work-sex-weddings-rcna68629 htt

• gjsman-1000 3y ago
  ... fabricated one for her case, according to the Colorado Attorney General who was just stung with losing this case.
  • tedivm 3y ago
    According to the actual person she claimed had has solicited her business, and who happened to be a happily married straight man.
    • gjsman-1000 3y ago
      According to the person and the story the media claims is that individual. The person has never come publicly outside of the media, and at this point, I have my doubts whether the person is the same, or whether the person is telling the truth (plenty of incentive to lie - and no oath to bind).
      • pseudalopex 3y ago
        What does come publicly outside the media mean? How would you learn it happened?
        • paulmd 3y ago
          Folsom Pride is a wild place
    • kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
      Oh sure, he is NOW, but what was he at the instant he contacted her?
      • tedivm 3y ago
        He's been married for like 12 years, to a woman.
      • ttyprintk 3y ago
        He’s claiming to have never interacted with her, nor ever been in a relationship with the completely imaginary “Mike”.
  • candiddevmike 3y ago
    From what I've read, the entire case revolved around a message, sent a day after the court filing, by a heterosexual man that claims he never sent it.
  • ttyprintk 3y ago
    Citation needed. I don’t believe the attorney general for Colorado is involved in this reporting. His press statement: https://coag.gov/press-releases/attorney-general-phil-weiser-says-scotus-decision-in-303-creative-civil-rights-case-fails-to-uphold-the-principle-of-equal-justice-for-all/ https://coag.gov/press-releases/attorney-general-phil-weiser...
• justrealist 3y ago
  That's kind of a misrepresentation. She said that state law unconstitutionally restricted her actions. If say, Alabama made a law that Black Americans couldn't vote, affected citizens wouldn't have to wait to be fined for attempting to vote, they could sue about the unconstitutionality of the law as soon as it was passed.
  • kolbe 3y ago
    Civil rights violations are different. For article III standing in other types of lawsuits, you do need to prove harm. But civil rights violations sort of loom over you all the time, so even if you aren't trying to express the impugned right, it's still harming you is the logic (if my memory serves me right).
    • justrealist 3y ago
      It only seems different because you don't agree on the merits.
      • kolbe 3y ago
        No, I'm actually telling you the standard for article III standing. I'm in no way telling you what I believe should be true or just.
        • justrealist 3y ago
          > But civil rights violations sort of loom over you all the time, so even if you aren't trying to express the impugned right This is exactly the situation the designer believed themselves to be in, during the course of normal business.
    • zeroonetwothree 3y ago
      I’m not aware of a general “civil rights” exception to standing—can you cite your source? But there is a 1st amendment exception—because of the “chilling effect” of restricting speech it’s allowed to sue even if a law hasn’t directly affected you. Which seems to be the case for this one.
• shagie 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment > A declaratory judgment, also called a declaration, is the legal determination of a court that resolves legal uncertainty for the litigants. It is a form of legally binding preventive by which a party involved in an actual or possible legal matter can ask a court to conclusively rule on and affirm the rights, duties, or obligations of one or more parties in a civil dispute (subject to any appeal). > ... > A declaratory judgment is typically requested when a party is threatened with a lawsuit but the lawsuit has not yet been filed; or when a party or parties believe that their rights under law and/or contract might conflict; or as part of a counterclaim to prevent further lawsuits from the same plaintiff (for example, when only a contract claim is filed, but a copyright claim might also be applicable).
  • shadowgovt 3y ago
    What is disquieting in this context is that SCOTUS is generally not in the business of handing out declaratory judgments. After all, if they start extrapolating on what could happen if a given course of action were taken, that gets disquietingly close to legislating from the bench. It's odd behavior for Originalists, who, if anything, one would assume, would hew far more closely to the power of the courts at the time the Constitution was framed, which was very little.
    • Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
      > It's odd behavior for Originalists But it is perfectly on-brand behavior for this particular court who very much develop decisions by working backwards from their desired outcome.
• alphanullmeric 3y ago
  You can also say that someone shouldn’t be allowed to murder you without actually being murdered.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]