Text from post:
So lemme get this straight.
- Lorie Smith, owner of 303 Creative, doesn’t actually design websites. Her company doesn’t actually provide that service.
- Stewart (last name withheld) didn’t ask for a wedding site for him and his husband from her.
- Stewart isn’t gay. He’s married to a woman and they have a kid together.
- AND what could possibly be the most ironic occupation for Stewart to have? He’s a web designer.
You can’t make this shit up. Or I guess you can. Because Lorie and the Supreme Court did.
What is this referring to?
Driving me crazy that I didn’t find an answer so while this is old, this is the first article that popped up when I searched “Lorie Smith Court”
Thank you so much, came across this by chance and was completely and utterly lost what this was referring to.
That’s just the result of the inability to challenge laws unless you’re personally affected.
In Germany we have something called abstrakte Normen-Kontrolle, which does exactly what it sounds it does: Federal or state governments or a quarter of members of parliament can ask the Consitutional Court to review a law in the abstract and decide wether it’s compatible with the constitution.
This saves a lot of headaches when it comes to laws that are on the books but unenforced, or are new and so far unchallenged.
So they made their decision based on a fucking lie ? What the hell is that.
That’s US “democracy” Bought and paid for, wholesale.
