About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Whataboutism
Author: Raine    Date: 07/03/2023 13:07:42

You have all heard about the Colorado web designer who walked in(to) a bar, right? She's so 303 Creative...

Well, it appears to have been a hypothetical case and the gay couple she based it on doesn't appear to exist.
On Friday morning, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines that Lorie Smith, a Colorado graphic designer who wanted to create wedding websites, could choose not to make them for same-sex couples despite a state law that protected against discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender and other characteristics. Smith, a Christian who does not make wedding websites but said she would like to, said the Colorado law violated her First Amendment rights. In a major win for the religious right, the court’s conservative justices all agreed.

However, according to a Thursday story in the New Republic, the only inquiry Smith has ever received about potentially creating a wedding website for a gay couple apparently came from a man who says he never sent it.

According to Smith and her legal team, the Christian group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a man identified as Stewart requested a wedding website in September 2016 for his upcoming marriage to someone named Mike. When reporter Melissa Gira Grant used the contact information provided by the plaintiffs in court documents to contact him, there was immediate confusion.

Grant reached a man named Stewart, who confirmed that the contact information used in the filing was his but said he was straight and married to a woman, not to a man named Mike.

“If somebody’s pulled my information, as some kind of supporting information or documentation, somebody’s falsified that,” Stewart told the outlet, adding, “I wouldn’t want anybody to ... make me a wedding website? I’m married, I have a child — I’m not really sure where that came from? But somebody’s using false information in a Supreme Court filing document.”
So she brought a case in Colorado, lost it, then lost on appeal in the 10th circuit -- but won at the Supreme Court.

Her Christianity is a strange one. I guess you can lie in the name of your version of the truth? Here is her defense team. This is one of the statements from them about 10 years ago:

“Alliance Defending Freedom seeks to recover the robust Christendomic theology of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries. This is catholic, universal orthodoxy and it is desperately crucial for cultural renewal. Christians must strive to build glorious cultural cathedrals, rather than shanty tin sheds.”

Also? From Leviticus 19:28, “You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead, or incise any marks on yourselves.”

From Creative 303's website:
https://303creative.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/52098992550_08ac40e142_c.jpg


How about that whataboutism?

This SCOTUS is broken.

&
Raine

 
 

3 comments (Latest Comment: 07/03/2023 15:33:10 by Will_in_Ca)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati

Add a Comment

Please login to add a comment...


Comments:

Order comments Newest to Oldest  Refresh Comments

Comment by BobR on 07/03/2023 14:08:15
IOKIYAR

Comment by Raine on 07/03/2023 14:51:01
Quote by BobR:
IOKIYAR

A'yup...

Comment by Will_in_Ca on 07/03/2023 15:33:10
Good morning, bloggers!!!!

People can find many ways to justify their actions. This is known as "lying for Jesus," and some Christians justify it as a way to bring people to their faith. (Here is a historical perspective from Rational Wiki There is even a website that looks at some modern evangelical leaders called "Lying for Jesus" Because Investments Need Protection.)

I disagree with President Biden on expansion of the Supreme Court. Mitch McConnell used a rule that does not exist to prevent Merrick Garland from ascending to the court. We have evidence of Supreme Court justices lying before Congress in their confirmation hearings. So, as the process is corrupt, we can argue for a remedy. Also, as we have 13 Federal district courts and only nine justices, the court can be expanded. Indeed, the court was expanded to nine justices to have one justice per federal court.