Jannah Theme License is not validated, Go to the theme options page to validate the license, You need a single license for each domain name.
USA

A man cited in a Supreme Court case about a same-sex marriage website said he never contacted the designer. But does it matter?

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week in favor of Christian graphic artists, creating a wedding website for same-sex couples in violation of her religious beliefsthe man whose name and contact information were listed in the case documents that allegedly asked him to use the designer’s services for same-sex marriages has denied contact with the company.

But legal experts say even if plaintiffs’ claims were untrue, it would have no material effect on the case.

This man, identified by the first name Stewart, Court submissiontold CBS News and a number of other media outlets that it had “not sent any requests” to 303 Creative, the web design company founded by Laurie Smith nearly a decade ago. New Republic first reported And he told the magazine that he was already married to his wife when the demands were filed.

A request from “Stewart” didn’t actually trigger the lawsuit Smith first filed in Colorado seven years ago before he started designing a wedding website. She filed a so-called “pre-enforcement challenge” to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), a state law that prohibits denial of service by businesses open to the public because of their sexual orientation. claimed to violate the right to liberty. Speech by forcing her to express a message contrary to her religious beliefs.

Smith’s attorneys later cited Stewart’s alleged demands as part of an argument that she had good reason to pursue the lawsuit.

“Plaintiffs also directed the court to refer to an email Ms. Smith received on Sept. 21, 2016, after the filing of the complaint in this case. If it concerns an event in , please describe the nature of the event and its purpose,” the email read. “My wedding. My name is Stewart and my fiancée is Mike. We are getting married early next year and would like you to do some design work on the invitations (sic).” Place names (as in the original), etc. You can even extend it to a website.” district court judgmentin support of the state in September 2017.

The district court noted that the evidence was “too inaccurate,” and that it “isn’t clear that Stewart and Mike are a same-sex couple,” and that the email “does not expressly request the services of the website.” , without which there can be no refusal,” he said. by plaintiffs. “

“Because the likelihood of enforcement based on denial of service is weakened and relies on the satisfaction of multiple conditions of precedent, the court found the likelihood of enforcement to be unreliable,” the ruling continued. .

supreme court Judgment of 6-3 In that case, 303 Creative LLC v. Ellenis, found that the First Amendment prohibited the state of Colorado from forcing Smith to express messages contrary to the religious beliefs she staunchly believed.The ruling is widely seen as a blow to LGBTQ+ rights and anti-discrimination laws in the US The decision itself does not include a reference to Mr. Stewart.

Laurie Smith speaking outside the United States Supreme Court building
Laurie Smith, owner of Colorado website design firm 303 Creative, speaks to reporters outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on Dec. 5, 2022, after judges gave oral arguments in her case. told the group.

/ Getty Images


Allegations surfaced last week in The New Republic that the lawsuit itself may have been based on at least partially false premises, according to Stewart, who said early court records included him. It is said that it first notified that it was

“Thank you for reaching out and doing the due diligence here,” Stewart told CBS News in an email. He said he has been a web designer for more than 15 years, including working as a web designer for CNN.com in Atlanta from 2012 to 2015, and denied sending a request letter referring to the lower court motion.

“I have not submitted a request to 303 Creative. [know] Who did it, or what was their motive? he said.

He previously told The New Republic that he was married to a woman, they had a child together, and that the request was allegedly sent from “Stewart,” including his full name and contact information. He said he was already married. 303 Creative.

When asked to comment on this aspect of the case, the organization representing Smith, Alliance Defending Freedom, asked CBS News: statement The statement, posted on the company’s website, is attributed to Kristen Wagoner, Chief Executive Officer, President and General Counsel, who defended Smith’s case in the Supreme Court.

“This desperate attempt to defame our client, the ADF, and this important ruling affirming free speech for all Americans is based on the facts of the case and the pre-enforcement proceedings,” Wagoner said in a statement. It blatantly distorts nature,” he said.

“It is a lie to say that Laurie Smith or the ADF fabricated a same-sex marriage website application,” Wagoner continued in a statement. “Just because the court didn’t have to decide her case, it doesn’t make sense to say she fabricated the bill. A bill that wasn’t mentioned anywhere in the Supreme Court’s decision is not the ‘heart’ of the case.” You are showing ignorance by acting as if” with respect to the relevant legal principles. “

CBS News also reached out to a spokeswoman for the U.S. Supreme Court for comment.

Amanda Shaner, assistant professor at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania and former attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, was one of Colorado’s leading attorneys in the Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado case. . 2018 Supreme Court Cases Similarly, it addressed whether an employer could deny certain services to gay couples based on the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and freedom of religion claims. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the bakery owner in a narrow judgment that did not resolve the broader issue. Friday’s majority in the 303 Creative lawsuit cited portions of the Masterpiece Cake Shop ruling in its decision.

Shanner told CBS News that while it was important to include what he believed to be a false investigation to prove in favor of Smith’s case, the emails from the “Stewart” , said it did not play a fundamental role in Mr. Smith’s First Amendment focus. She admitted to proving that she stands to sue based on credible threats of retaliation from Colorado. Referring to Masterpiece Cake Shop’s previous judgment, the majority cited “the record of past enforcement actions under Colorado’s CADA, including one filed with this Court five years ago.”

“As a practical matter, I don’t think that information ended up being material to the lower court or Supreme Court decisions,” Mr. Chanoll said of the “Stewart” emails. “It is questionable whether that is correct.”

First Amendment lawsuits often have relaxed requirements, which may make it easier to challenge them before they come into effect than in other types of lawsuits, Shanall said. . She suggested that the lower court may not have followed up on the email because it “deemed it unimportant to the standing inquiry and, by extension, to the case.”

“While the constitutional argument for civil rights law is old, the idea of ​​subjecting it to the Speech Clause is relatively new,” Chanoll explained. “But if you’re the ADF, one of the advantages of not citing or not citing is that you can make up a good plaintiff in public, without even having to look at the victimized side. “It’s religious people who feel they’re being thwarted by civil rights laws. I don’t see people being barred from public places as a result.” yeah.”

USA, LGBTQ, justice, rights, religion
LGBTQ+ rights activists demonstrate outside the US Supreme Court on June 30, 2023.

Olivier Dulliery/AFP via Getty Images


Allegations of emails from “Stewart” are now in the spotlight, but as the case goes to court in the United States, the legitimacy of this element of 303 Creative v. There is also the question of why it was not confirmed.

“We raised the fact that it wasn’t a real request,” Lawrence Pacheco, a spokesperson for the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, told CBS News.

Pacheco mentioned the 2022 section of the office Summary of benefits This is because “customers have not asked us for any services,” and the district court found that sufficient evidence had not been presented to challenge that Mr. Smith was harmed by the state’s anti-discrimination policy. It explains some of the reasons for the decision.

“The company claims to have received a ‘same-sex marriage website request’ after the lawsuit,” the brief reads. “However, the ‘request’ referred to by the company was not a website request at all, but merely a response to an online form asking about ‘invitations’ and ‘place names’, and the person said ‘something like: It was accompanied by a statement that the ‘”

“We did not respond to the online form,” the article continues. “Also, we did not take steps to ensure that genuine prospects submitted the forms.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case came late in the week when the conservative majority made key decisions on the following issues: affirmative action and student loan forgiveness. Three liberal judges dissented, saying the majority decision in the wedding website lawsuit gave companies a “license to discriminate.”

President Biden also criticized the court’s ruling.

“No one should face discrimination in America just because of who they are or who they love,” Biden said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s disappointing ruling in 303 Creative LLC v. Ellenis undermines that fundamental truth and tragically unites millions of Americans across the country to support the LGBTQI+ community’s contribution to recovery. , the ruling was handed down during Pride Month, which celebrates strength.”

While the public revelation that cast doubt on emails from “Stewart” may have come as a surprise, it is not the first time the Supreme Court has ruled on cases of unknown or misrepresented origin. .

The court’s landmark ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the state’s 2003 sodomy statute criminalizing consensual sex between men and women, stems from a case where the most basic facts are questionable. It is a thing. Today’s legal scholars point out: Details of the arrest on which the case was based The testimony of legislators on the ground is contradictory, complicated by issues of race, class and attitudes towards LGBTQ+ people, and is “shrouded in mystery and secrecy.” Ultimately, the two gay men at the center of the case were arrested in Houston in 1998 for violating the Texas sodomy law, but there were conflicting statements as to whether they were not a couple and had sex. be. Nonetheless, the case advanced to the US Supreme Court, where judges ruled that Texas law was unconstitutional.

Margaret Brennan and Melissa Quinn contributed to the report.

Summarize this content to 100 words After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week in favor of Christian graphic artists, creating a wedding website for same-sex couples in violation of her religious beliefsthe man whose name and contact information were listed in the case documents that allegedly asked him to use the designer’s services for same-sex marriages has denied contact with the company.But legal experts say even if plaintiffs’ claims were untrue, it would have no material effect on the case.This man, identified by the first name Stewart, Court submissiontold CBS News and a number of other media outlets that it had “not sent any requests” to 303 Creative, the web design company founded by Laurie Smith nearly a decade ago. New Republic first reported And he told the magazine that he was already married to his wife when the demands were filed. A request from “Stewart” didn’t actually trigger the lawsuit Smith first filed in Colorado seven years ago before he started designing a wedding website. She filed a so-called “pre-enforcement challenge” to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), a state law that prohibits denial of service by businesses open to the public because of their sexual orientation. claimed to violate the right to liberty. Speech by forcing her to express a message contrary to her religious beliefs. Smith’s attorneys later cited Stewart’s alleged demands as part of an argument that she had good reason to pursue the lawsuit. “Plaintiffs also directed the court to refer to an email Ms. Smith received on Sept. 21, 2016, after the filing of the complaint in this case. If it concerns an event in , please describe the nature of the event and its purpose,” the email read. “My wedding. My name is Stewart and my fiancée is Mike. We are getting married early next year and would like you to do some design work on the invitations (sic).” Place names (as in the original), etc. You can even extend it to a website.” district court judgmentin support of the state in September 2017.The district court noted that the evidence was “too inaccurate,” and that it “isn’t clear that Stewart and Mike are a same-sex couple,” and that the email “does not expressly request the services of the website.” , without which there can be no refusal,” he said. by plaintiffs. “”Because the likelihood of enforcement based on denial of service is weakened and relies on the satisfaction of multiple conditions of precedent, the court found the likelihood of enforcement to be unreliable,” the ruling continued. .supreme court Judgment of 6-3 In that case, 303 Creative LLC v. Ellenis, found that the First Amendment prohibited the state of Colorado from forcing Smith to express messages contrary to the religious beliefs she staunchly believed.The ruling is widely seen as a blow to LGBTQ+ rights and anti-discrimination laws in the US The decision itself does not include a reference to Mr. Stewart. Laurie Smith, owner of Colorado website design firm 303 Creative, speaks to reporters outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on Dec. 5, 2022, after judges gave oral arguments in her case. told the group. / Getty Images Allegations surfaced last week in The New Republic that the lawsuit itself may have been based on at least partially false premises, according to Stewart, who said early court records included him. It is said that it first notified that it was “Thank you for reaching out and doing the due diligence here,” Stewart told CBS News in an email. He said he has been a web designer for more than 15 years, including working as a web designer for CNN.com in Atlanta from 2012 to 2015, and denied sending a request letter referring to the lower court motion.”I have not submitted a request to 303 Creative. [know] Who did it, or what was their motive? he said.He previously told The New Republic that he was married to a woman, they had a child together, and that the request was allegedly sent from “Stewart,” including his full name and contact information. He said he was already married. 303 Creative.When asked to comment on this aspect of the case, the organization representing Smith, Alliance Defending Freedom, asked CBS News: statement The statement, posted on the company’s website, is attributed to Kristen Wagoner, Chief Executive Officer, President and General Counsel, who defended Smith’s case in the Supreme Court. “This desperate attempt to defame our client, the ADF, and this important ruling affirming free speech for all Americans is based on the facts of the case and the pre-enforcement proceedings,” Wagoner said in a statement. It blatantly distorts nature,” he said. “It is a lie to say that Laurie Smith or the ADF fabricated a same-sex marriage website application,” Wagoner continued in a statement. “Just because the court didn’t have to decide her case, it doesn’t make sense to say she fabricated the bill. A bill that wasn’t mentioned anywhere in the Supreme Court’s decision is not the ‘heart’ of the case.” You are showing ignorance by acting as if” with respect to the relevant legal principles. “CBS News also reached out to a spokeswoman for the U.S. Supreme Court for comment. Amanda Shaner, assistant professor at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania and former attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, was one of Colorado’s leading attorneys in the Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado case. . 2018 Supreme Court Cases Similarly, it addressed whether an employer could deny certain services to gay couples based on the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and freedom of religion claims. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the bakery owner in a narrow judgment that did not resolve the broader issue. Friday’s majority in the 303 Creative lawsuit cited portions of the Masterpiece Cake Shop ruling in its decision.Shanner told CBS News that while it was important to include what he believed to be a false investigation to prove in favor of Smith’s case, the emails from the “Stewart” , said it did not play a fundamental role in Mr. Smith’s First Amendment focus. She admitted to proving that she stands to sue based on credible threats of retaliation from Colorado. Referring to Masterpiece Cake Shop’s previous judgment, the majority cited “the record of past enforcement actions under Colorado’s CADA, including one filed with this Court five years ago.””As a practical matter, I don’t think that information ended up being material to the lower court or Supreme Court decisions,” Mr. Chanoll said of the “Stewart” emails. “It is questionable whether that is correct.”First Amendment lawsuits often have relaxed requirements, which may make it easier to challenge them before they come into effect than in other types of lawsuits, Shanall said. . She suggested that the lower court may not have followed up on the email because it “deemed it unimportant to the standing inquiry and, by extension, to the case.””While the constitutional argument for civil rights law is old, the idea of ​​subjecting it to the Speech Clause is relatively new,” Chanoll explained. “But if you’re the ADF, one of the advantages of not citing or not citing is that you can make up a good plaintiff in public, without even having to look at the victimized side. “It’s religious people who feel they’re being thwarted by civil rights laws. I don’t see people being barred from public places as a result.” yeah.” LGBTQ+ rights activists demonstrate outside the US Supreme Court on June 30, 2023. Olivier Dulliery/AFP via Getty Images Allegations of emails from “Stewart” are now in the spotlight, but as the case goes to court in the United States, the legitimacy of this element of 303 Creative v. There is also the question of why it was not confirmed. “We raised the fact that it wasn’t a real request,” Lawrence Pacheco, a spokesperson for the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, told CBS News. Pacheco mentioned the 2022 section of the office Summary of benefits This is because “customers have not asked us for any services,” and the district court found that sufficient evidence had not been presented to challenge that Mr. Smith was harmed by the state’s anti-discrimination policy. It explains some of the reasons for the decision.”The company claims to have received a ‘same-sex marriage website request’ after the lawsuit,” the brief reads. “However, the ‘request’ referred to by the company was not a website…
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-303-creative-case-stewart-wedding-website-lgbtq-free-speech/ A man cited in a Supreme Court case about a same-sex marriage website said he never contacted the designer. But does it matter?

Back to top button