A gay customer's request to a Christian designer has gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Turns out it's probably fake.

[Jesse13927]

@CLamb

No, the court said that the service needed to have a creative product.

So, the supermarket is okay as long as you don’t go to the deli section?

[gracchus]

@CLamb

No, the court said that the service needed to have a creative product. There’s nothing creative about retail sales.

The carve-out is too vague. A bakery or restaurant that uses its own recipes (or just one) can claim to put out a “creative product”. A Web hosting company can claim it’s acting in the capacity of an art gallery for clients. A clothing store that sells a designer product can also claim that status. So can a hotel where the rooms are staged by an interior designer. Now all of those businesses (and more) which engage in retail sales have been given an opening to discriminate against people based on their immutable characteristics.

And before you say “yes, but absurd/bad faith/edge case”, remember the nature and past behaviour of the groups we’re dealing with here. Give bigots and religious fundies an inch, as the SCOTUS majority just did, and they’ll take 100 miles. We’re about to see the judicial equivalent of what Steve Bannon calls “flooding the zone with sh*t”.

@CLamb

I can’t find any reference to this email in the plantiff’s filings with the USSC or the USSC’s decision. If someone can please point out where. It seems like this was only part of a filing with one of the lower courts.

The fake client’s e-mail was continually referenced as an actual request as the case advanced through the courts. That it was or wasn’t cited when it reached its final destination does not obviate the bad faith indicated by its use even once in the process, which is the point people are making here.

[smulder]

@CLamb

There’s nothing creative about retail sales

“I refuse to talk to you” is just as protected by the First Amendment as “I won’t decorate your cake”

Pandora’s Box is fully open

[anon67050589]

What are the odds that the Supreme Court will follow this procedure, now that it’s public knowledge that they ruled on a bogus case?

Procedure exists to force the Supreme Court to rehear 'made up' wedding...

[anon61221983]

Except if you’re serving the public, you can’t turn the public away based on their race, gender, etc. You can for other reasons, but not based on someone’s status as a protected category. We had a centuries long movement about access to public accommodations. If you are serving the public, you can’t discriminate…

Except, now you can thanks an asshole who made shit up to get attention… so get ready to see a bunch of businesses banning people based on a number of criteria. The public lynchings and wholesale destruction of entire neighborhoods based on race is not too far behind.

We protect people’s basic right to exist in public - ALL PEOPLE - or we don’t live in a free and democratic society.

[ETA] Looks like I was far too late to the party, and you have a greater understanding of why this is a problem! Excellent!

Also, to everyone else…

[gatto]

@ficuswhisperer

That’s the thing. The supposed customer wasn’t actually a customer.

and, hell. the business wasn’t even a business. she was just planning to start a business, and wanted to make sure she could discriminate first

the case never should have been heard at all

[ficuswhisperer]

@goretsky

If that is the case, does anyone know what their religion says about this

It says a lot about loving your neighbor and enemies, the golden rule, not to judge those who are different than you, and a lot about forgiveness. None of which seems to apply here.

For all the things these supposed followers of Christ are supposed to believe in, they sure love to get hung up on things like Leviticus to justify hating gays, and dishonest interpretations of Jeremiah to deny abortion care. Not to mention how much they just love the death penalty.

[jerwin]

@GagHalfrunt

You’re allowed to break the rules if you’re doing the Lord’s work.

“Whoever for devotion alone, not to gain honour or money, goes to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God can substitute this journey for all penance.”

[robertmckenna]

@robertmckenna

I don’t understand how a fictional grievance allowed locus standi in the first place.

Because this court is engaged in a radical redefinition of what locus standi is, utterly at variance with centuries of legal tradition (and yes, of course the slave owning sacred founders had a normal conception of locus standi, not these bought and paid for freaks’ version) in order to be able to change any law they want.

The Supreme Court’s worst new ruling you never heard of

[catsidhe]

Their understanding of locus standi goes perfectly with their understanding of stare decisis.

[anon97585346]

[brettvk]

If a private business has the luxury of turning down paying customers, then I think they should have that right

Taken to the extreme, this is how you lose a Bessie Smith, when the only medical care within reach refuses to treat an injured Black woman. For less dire situations, you get the only grocery store in a 40-mile radius refusing to sell to people who can’t easily afford to go elsewhere, or the only power company refusing to hook up a particular family after they move in.