#303 creative

“The suit centers on Lorie Smith, a website designer who does not want to provide her services for gay weddings because of her religious objections.

In 2016, she says, a gay man named Stewart requested her services for help with his upcoming wedding. “We are getting married early next year and would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website,” reads a message he apparently sent her through her website. In court filings, her lawyers produced a copy of the inquiry.

Web designer’s US supreme court case could trample LGBTQ+ rights, advocates say

But Stewart, who requested his last name be withheld for privacy, said in an interview with the Guardian that he never sent the message, even though it correctly lists his email address and telephone number. He has also been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years, he said. The news was first reported by the New Republic.

In fact, until he received a call this week from a reporter from the magazine, Stewart said he had no idea he was somehow tied up in a case that had made it to the supreme court.

“I can confirm I did not contact 303 Creative about a website,” he said. “It’s fraudulent insomuch as someone is pretending to be me and looking to marry someone called Mike. That’s not me.

“What’s most concerning to me is that this is kind of like the one main piece of evidence that’s been part of this case for the last six-plus years and it’s false,” he added. “Nobody’s checked it. Anybody can pick up the phone, write an email, send a text, to verify whether that was correct information.”

These articles will explain exactly what the ruling does and doesn't do, according to many legal experts (don't read what I write afterwards until you read them):

303 Creative: discriminate against those icky gay people

SCOTUS: when would you like to do this?

303 Creative: i dunno someday prolly

Rob Rogers, http://TinyView.com

@Rob_Rogers

* * * * *

And so it begins . . . the damage wrought by 303 Creative.

          Some commentators claimed that progressives were overstating the holding in 303 Creative v. Elenis, in which the reactionary majority ruled that free speech rights allowed a hypothetical business owner to discriminate against a hypothetical same-sex couple who might request a hypothetical website advertising a hypothetical marriage. We were told “Don’t worry, the holding only relates to businesses involving free speech and creative expression, not general public services.”

          Well, the next “303 Creative” case has emerged in Michigan. A hair salon owner has refused to serve transgender people, telling them they should instead go to a pet grooming service. See Slate, Citing “Free Speech,” a Michigan Hair Salon Refuses to Serve Transgender People. The salon owner wrote, in part,

“If a human identifies as anything other than a man/woman please seek services at a local pet groomer. You are not welcome at this salon.” “ I am not willing to play the pronoun game or cater to requests outside of what I perceive as normal this probably isn’t the best option for that type of client.”

“There are over 800 licensed stylists in the County. There are plenty of salons/stylists willing to cater to what I will not. This is a free country and I am not a slave to any narrative.”

          Apart from the insulting, dehumanizing comments by the salon owner, she relied on the same arguments advanced by the hypothetical business owner in 303 Creative—that there are “plenty of other web designers / salons” that transgender people can patronize. That argument misses the nature of the injury: Refusing to service people at any establishment because of their gender or sexual orientation stigmatizes everyone included in the targeted group. It was no answer in Greensboro, North Carolina that Black customers could find a different lunch counter when Woolworths refused to serve them.

          The case of the salon owner in Michigan drives home the point that every instance of discrimination against LGBTQ must be taken seriously. Conservatives are picking on LGBTQ people because they understand that society (wrongly) believes that it is still acceptable to discriminate against LGBTQ people. Let’s hope that the salon owner in Michigan loses her clientele who choose to stand in solidarity with LGBTQ friends, family, colleagues, and complete strangers who deserve our support.

The worst part is how fucking telegraphed this all was. They’ve been after these cases for years and they finally got do what they wanted. Thomas told us after Dobbs that gay rights were next. Gorsuch wrote himself a big old libertarian opening in Bostock through which, with that as precedent, he could argue that any protected group constituted discrimination. They’ve been going after affirmative action since the 60’s.

The plaintiff in the 303 Creative case (the wedding website designer) literally has no standing, since her filing claim has been revealed to be a complete lie. The court does not fucking care: they were looking for a way to weaken acceptance for gay marriage and they took it, no matter the representative. The same problem exists with the student debt relief decision: Missouri has no standing since it does not control MOHELA. The facts, presented by the highest fucking court in the country, are literally incorrect. They’re not even trying to obfuscate at this point.

I will absolutely not be surprised when we see a challenge to Obergefell on the docket next year — no need to design a website for a gay wedding if there are no gay weddings. To anyone who’s going to try to tell me I’m exaggerating or that won’t happen: I was also called hysterical when I said, the day that RBG died, that it was the end of Roe. Stop telling POC, queer people, and any other marginalized group that we’re wrong to imagine the worst and just fucking listen to us when we tell you what’s coming. Help us. Help us protest, vote, raise awareness. The alternative is selective extinction, and I’m just going to quote something MLK wrote half a century ago: “He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”