I know that I was found responsible for payment of past-due child support as I had not garnished wages for an employee who was my friend, not my employee, for a company I did not have and that company did not exist. When I brought to the Country Judge that the documents, confirmed to exist by the County Clerk as evidence in the case, were in fact a complete fraud, and that he had made his judgement on the basis of this fraud, he was really hot to have the presenting lawyer disbarred for committing fraud in his Court! I imagine something like this should happen.
i hope you didn't have to pay the child support. if they seized your money and gave it to the woman i would bet they wouldn't take it back from her " for the good of the children" . they would say you can sue the other lawyer or something.
@@ronblack7870 Oh, no, the Judge removed his verdict and went after the lawyer for presenting fraudulent documents to commit fraud, then the plaintiff for committing fraud, then her friends who provided the documents for conspiracy to commit fraud, then the Postal Inspector went after her friends for mail fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, embezzlement, and bank fraud.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894 It is called 'veracity', and it is intrinsic to the public faith in the legal system to be above reproach. When the preservation of "freedoms" to recognise the practice a religion is a 2000 year old collection of bad guesses by sand peasant Dads who it has been proven added and edited in racist, and sexist additions (about 30,000) including a multitude of bad translations and a complete misunderstanding of geology, biology, astronomy, food handling, and physics just what is it we are revering? It's SO KOOKY at this point if being an advanced civilisation that it borders on the absolute ridiculous. Sure this decision recognises constitutional elements, but that's why we have amendments, because vehemence is nit what makes nations great, and certainly not what the religious preach.
Since the guy had his identity stolen and "slandered" I wonder what harm he might have received because of this. Sounds like a good ground for a LARGE civil suit.
Who are you going to sue? if you can't prove that the people who filled the original request are the ones who used his information by creating the fake event or you have no case and it will be summarily dismissed.
@@michaelcastro5339, it is obvious that the plaintiff and her attorneys were not the source of the false information. They clearly did not know that the LGBTQ activists who solicitated her to create a web site had lied to her about their identity.
Supreme Court fillings are written. Wouldn't it be libel? Not that it matters, defamation is defamation like an alkane is an alkane, but if you're using the more specific words I think you used the wrong one.
I'd probably file a suit of fraud and identity theft if my name was used in a case I was never informed I was party too, let alone my personal contact information being used as part of the filing. How they got it, who knows, but I'd be damned angry my identity was used in such a way.
Absolutely! Don't forget, the defendant could go after the plaintiff (losing party) for legal fees. So if your name was fraudulently used as the plaintiff and the case is lost, as in this case, the defendant would be coming after *YOU.* Yeah, I would be going after those lawyers, because I 1000% guarantee they were in on this fraudulent lawsuit. Those lawyers need to be disbarred and sued into oblivion.
Fraud and identity theft are out the window because there's no exchange of value (required for fraud) or crime committed using his identity (for identity theft). Maybe he could file a defamation suit, if people were contacting him and accusing him of cheating on his wife with a man or something, but first he has to figure out who actually submitted his contact info. Otherwise he doesn't have a defendant to sue.
It isn't fraud or identity theft for the reasons others have pointed out above, but also, who would you go after? There is no evidence that the lawyers or plaintiff in the case did anything wrong. The notion that the plaintiff or her lawyers fabricated this information is completely unsubstantiated. It is totally possible that a third party randomly used that information without anyone's knowledge or consent.
in the inverse, the state had the chance to verify the info one way or the other and chose not to bother at all levels. so, really, there isn't much room for complaint. its a bit late to cry foul when it just wasn't even looked at as potentially false. they'd also have to prove the appellant or was an agent thereof that submitted the info for a quote for it to be a concern for the appellant in a falsification aspect. a near impossibility.
While there are plenty of missed opportunities to dispute the information, the case itself is a prime example of the willingness of the rabid right-wing judges to assert religious autocracy at the expense of established codes of democratic capitalism where everyone has access to resources brought to an open market. By itself, the individual business bringing this suit is no more than a popcorn fart. However, as seen in our not-too-distant past, refusal to serve people of color became so rampant that an entire demographic of people had difficulty or even impossible access to commercial venues.
Possible unwillingly? Is it not an attorneys job to check all the facts before showing up in court? If it is not then I have to wonder how many innocent people who are behind bars because of laziness and or negligence.
@@mitchtarpley6185 true. I just thought if the attorneys were questioned they could get to the bottom of how this seemingly bogus case got to the Supreme Court without a plaintiff named.
We’ve seen from the ChatGPT lawyer case that if a lawyer puts their name on a document, they swear that everything on that document is true, and should it be discovered that something in that document is fake, the lawyer can be sanctioned. And in this case, plaintiff’s counsel absolutely should be sanctioned for presenting false information to the Supreme Court.
They might not have files false information. If someone (not involved in the case) filed the request (which they never followed up on) then their filing isn't false. They did receive the request even if it wasn't real
this assumes they know it was false. If the way they got this information was on a public comment form on the website, then the commenter could have googled this guy and put his info into the form instead of their own. If that's what happened, then the web developer and their council haven't made knowingly false statements to the court. Now, it's true that the lawyer in the CGPT case also didn't know they were wrong, but I think there is something materially different from claiming false court precedent (which a lawyer has an obligation to know) vs checking in on every single irrelevant fact of the case. Does the fact that this person never made the request invalidate the logic of the court? No.
I would love to know who paid for the lady's legal fees. Going all the way to the Supreme Court is an expensive endevor and it seems odd that she would go this far with no real defendent.
@@christopherwojtan750 I did read it. You didn't. She doesn't offer websites because her free speech rights have been chilled by the unconstitutional Colorado law. It's called prior restraint. Look it up.
@@B_Bodziak Yep, he wasn't even Informed that he was named in the case and was clueless that he was until a journalist reached out to him for his opinion on things.
Not really cause using a hypothetical to explain reasoning and extent is different than just coming up with a hypothetical situation where you were harmed so you can sue people even if they actually did nothing
Yeah it's definitely convenient, "this will likely go further if we just had standing." *Ding* "You have one new email." Really can't prove it, but I hate coincidences.
@@cericathe district court ruled the request didn't adequately prove a gay person wanted a website for a same-sex marriage. None of the judges relied upon Stewart being a potential gay client to make their decisions, so it doesn't matter that he is in fact not a potential gay client.
What's strange to me is that it went from a local court (initial trial) to state appeals court, to state supreme court, to US district appeals court, all before reaching the SCOTUS... that's SUSPICIOUS ...
Right-wingers have been playing the court like a fiddle for years now. From judge shopping, to grooming judges with billionaire contacts, to wining and dining from Federalist Society and similar groups, to designing cases out of whole cloth specifically designed to achieve a specific verdict, this is a multi-billion dollar conspiracy. The Federalist Society received a billion dollar dark-money donation for just this purpose.
Josh Hawley's wife was on the anti gay legal team and republican colorado AG Cynthia Coffman ensured no checking would be done. This was a premeditated effort by the federalist society.
@@borabora4480 The incident the case is supposed to be about was a hypothetical situation that never actually happened. Courts *are not supposed to take hypothetical cases*. Therefore it was fraudulent under the common meaning of the word.
It reminds me of a company that was trying to sue in a state, so they had people post reviews from that state so they could try having the minimal contact
But at least in that circumstance there was some sort of reality. The situation is kind of ridiculous and how bald-faced it was. They straight up lied their way to the supreme court, and I don't even think the justices cared. The conservative justices seem to care more about their own personal feelings of how things should be and are on a war path to make the United States justice system in their image.
This went through all the layers of different courts before getting to SCOTUS...it managed to squeak through all of them? And no one looked to see if the offended person was real? Almost sounds like a bad drunken bet. "How much you wanna bet I can..."
This was an intentional oversight by the court system at all levels. As far as I'm concerned the courts are no longer legitimate and the only thing they have going for them is the ability to outsource violent to the police
Well technically you may be right as someone who has worked in web design if I was preparing for my wedding would think its cheaper to hire out as I would presumably be very busy with preparing for the wedding. Also if time was the issue wedding templates that a designer who does wedding website design would save a lot of time. Honestly a lot of times I have templet and just replacing pictures and stuff in the code so that afterwards tweaks in the code for adjustment and done.
You have to prove who stole it to make a case. This case has been going through the 10th circuit for 7 years. The state of Colorado's lawyers are incompetent to have failed to do even the basics on their side of the case.
@@soaringeagle5418 Exactly. Also if you are going to make serious claims you better at least cite some statutory and case law. Identity theft? Really? lol
@@nateo200 Using someone else's identity is theft even if no harm ultimately is perpetrated. There is NO right that allows such use and you can't prove no harm will come of it. Even if it's not legal theft, it's still theft. We (everyone) has come to the point where identity is a traded commodity, especially on the "dark web".
Surely this presents an ethical violation for the prosecuting attorneys. I can't imagine their state bar would not be uninterested in one of their members exploiting fiction as fact, the lawyer who did it with ChatGPT received a sanction in his state!
Prosecuting attorney? Why? If the defense doesn’t want to produce their only witness/defendant then it’s their problem. If you want to be mad at someone be mad at the defense.
Saw your radio club t-shirt, and it reminded me of an older gentleman I met from Flint, Michigan. His name was Louis W. Van Slyck, and with his spark-gap generator he became the first licensed Ham radio operator in that state.
Hardly, you need to prove they had something to do with the false request, after all these years good luck finding any information on the original server request.
@@rakninja The strawman is strong with this question as I made no inference regarding their ability to practice or not due to information that was provided to them (assumed as you can't prove otherwise). I agree that they should've contacted the plaintiff or their attorney in an attempt to get a deposition done if possible, had they done that the case wouldn't have moved along as it did(as the person would've denied being the plaintiff and it would've been dropped)... So my issue isn't the evidence but their incompetence in never trying to contact the other side to get any kind of information, in that regard they are worthy of losing their license to practice but in the case of the evidence we can't say anything against it as we have no evidence of wrongdoing.
Thanks for unpacking that one, Steve. Bizarre to me that it could get this far without someone verifying this claim. Also, I like the new studio but I keep looking for the KPIG bumper sticker. I hope it finds it way back!
I wonder if the person who’s name have been used for the fake complaint could sue for defamation. Now there’s a public record with his name, address and phone number saying that he requested a website for his upcoming gay marriage. This could potentially damage his reputation since, he’s in an heterosexual marriage and has children.
i don't think any court today would rule that accusing someone of being gay is defamation. i think they already ruled that in a case a few years ago. i don't remember exactly but that was the ruling it wasn't defamation.
@@ronblack7870I honestly believe that you can use the supreme Court decision in this specific case to argue that being accused of being gay could be considered derogatory now. Because the supreme Court specifically gives private individuals the ability to discriminate based upon the sexual preference of the customer. Meaning to be considered gay would have a detrimental effect in your life more now due to the extra legal protections the supreme court gave discriminatory action towards them.
@@ronblack7870regardless of sexuality the implication here is that while he was married to his wife he was behind her back planning for a wedding some time in the future to marry someone else
All of this stuff reminds me of a Seinfeld episode where Kramer participated in a walk but refused to wear the ribbon. Classic episode that has turned into reality
The left has undergone a kind of Mao-style cultural revolution since 2016. Not only do you have to TOLERATE the sodom and gamorrah behavior, but you MUST participate and celebrate it under threat of legal punishment.
The defense flubbed that badly. They should have checked the "request" out initially. Requests via email or a web form usually have data included about the server, the client and the exact time of the request.
@@mojota6938 it's the job of the defense to prove it... it sounds like they didn't know what they were doing... to possibly not even compare the dates to see something was fishy, and then ask for the details of the "request"
The trial court addressed this as did the appeals court. It was not part of the case the Supreme Court reviewed. The web designer request was included as one of several the plaintiff argued to establish standing. The trial court ruled the "request" was not adequate to establish standing. So the "request" was not relevant. This case was specifically heard by the trial court, and the appeals court based on prior restraint. The supreme court was not asked to determine standing as it was not in dispute before it.
@@tzaphkielconficturus7136 If you have to be a physicist to understand physics, you do not have physics. A deep knowledge of physics isn't necessary to live your daily life. The same is true of law. Either way, it's not about accreditation. Anyone can acquire said knowledge, but it's often not particularly useful outside of its respective field.
I suspect the reason the Supreme Court heard this case was because it dealt with compelled speech under the First Amendment. First Amendment cases tend to make their way to the Supreme Court with much more frequency than other cases.
And I suspect that it's just another naked power grab by The Extreme Court. This court is out of control and has a pipeline of predetermined reich-leaning outcomes.
@@evan12697except for the fact that the current supreme Court seems to be under the impression that speech seems to be a much broader topic than it should be.
Steve, it is a baseball, America's pastime, reference. If the outfielder catches a fly ball, the batter is out. If the outfielder bobbles it or outright fails to catch the ball, the batter is safe on First Base (or second, I suppose, if he is a really quick runner).
how would the Lawyers know it was fake, or indeed what actual evidence is there that it was in fact faked by the litigant? It was provided as ancillary evidence, it could equally have been faked by an LGBTQlmnop activist
Knowingly submitting falsehoods as fact can be grounds to be disbarred, but that would not usually be the result for a single offense. Provided you could prove a particular lawyer knew about it, which would not be easy, that lawyer would have to answer to a review board. That board would most often choose censure or suspension, unless the action were egregious or the board wanted to make a political point.
This entire case reminds me of the Christian Baker who refused to bake a cake because it had a certain message that went against his beliefs, even stating that he'd make a cake for them as long as it didn't have that message
And I honestly don't see how this can ever be an issue. The very fundamental principle of contracts is "you cannot force a person to sign a contract against their will". One fundamental principle of the free market is "I can choose my customers". Only a country of tyrannical nature would be able to enforce that without obviously breaking the expectations people have of a just and free society.
Thank You Steve Lehto, you've made this much more clear to me. When I was trying to read the published news articles about this it seemed to be a jumble of contradictory statements that I couldn't make sense of at all.
They knew it wasn't a fake claim because the injury was and is based on the Colorado law that stops her from conducting her business as she chooses. They pretended to not know the procedure going on so when they lost which they knew they were going to (because the court had no choice but to correct the mistakes made in the Cake Baker ruling) this way they'd have something to cry about. It's the classic allowing bread crumbs to trickle so as to make themselves victims after the fact. This matter would have come up anyway because it's based on the constitutional law in the 1st amendment. The Government SHALL NOT COMPEL ANYONE TO SPEAK. I mean for fk sake they can't make you testify against yourself. So, when have they had the power to make you "speak" against your religion. This is not about a gay couple/people coming in to buy a soda and the owner tells them to get out, that is discrimination. But, to have someone sit down and create with their computer a gay website with THEIR creative mind against their religious beliefs is a 1st amendment violation. Full stop!
@@guidosarduce4054 The same first amendment that can allow the second scenario to happen can easily be used to justify the first. This ruling could turn equal opportunity, lending, housing and other laws, back a century. I'm sorry but your ability to discriminate based on your religion isn't freedom, it's tyranny wrapped in the guise of freedom. Believe what you want inside your church, but outside your church, we are a secular advanced nation and need to act like one. And to be frank, this is downright anti-Christian behavior. Jesus was willing to be slapped and crucified and still forgive others, but "Christians" today can't be bothered to bake a cake or make a website for people who aren't even hurting anyone. F*** you, fake Christians.
@@jarack3256 Thank you! It's a fundamental principle. It's quite amazing how many comments on this video are from people who are angry that an unconstitutional law was overturned.
When the trial court determined the request wasn't relevant to its standing decision everyone stopped caring about it. It never was relevant and is a red herring now.
They knew the 10th would side with them and 7 years ago SCOTUS was very different from what it is today. They probably thought that Garland would get in and it would be 6-3 in their favor if it went that high.
@@kge420 courts that are afraid to make decisions usually do everything they can to determine a party lacks standing. In this case both courts determined she had standing without any request or complaint and then happily ruled against her.
It's nice to know that if a law makes a credible threat to violate my civil rights, I have standing to challenge that law in the courts - without the hassle of needing to be arrested/charged/indicted/fined. The SCOTUS's biggest regret about this ruling may end up being the *flood* of similarly-argued cases. It's also disappointing to know that the website designer (or cake decorator, for that matter) is actually speaking any message on their product. This makes me realize that the ones _really_ wishing me a happy birthday/anniversary/holiday have been the greeting card companies and children who hand-made a card for me. I wonder if actors can now be held accountable for the acts and words of the characters they play. People would be surprised to learn that Charlton Heston was personally trying to warn us about Global Warming in _Soylent Green_
Actors cannot be compelled to act. They may turn down any role. If they agree to perform, they speak the words given to them. That's the contract. Otherwise, so long as an actor has time in his schedule, he MUST act if called upon, and play any character offered. That situation was outlawed by the 13th amendment. They also cannot be held accountable for what they say or do because...free speech! So take the cake example. If the order is for a 12x18 vanilla cake with blue frosting, there is no message, and the product must be produced i.e. the customer served without prejudice. But if the decorator is asked to draw or write something they deem offensive or incompatible to their world view, they may deny that part of their service - the creative part. Ditto web designers. Ditto actors. Ditto the costume designer who refuses to produce white hoods for the KKK. Interesting question: Is there any message in the white hoods BEFORE they are donned for a KKK gathering? If not, can someone be compelled to create them on demand by the grand wizard? Hmmmm...... Another thought: You can get cards celebrating many common events in life, but a card celebrating your brother's marriage to his dog is still probably out of the catalog. Should they be compelled to produce one in that vein? Must they put their best poet and graphic designer on it? Must it be available everywhere throughout the US? When speech is compelled how does one measure that the compelled part has been satisfactorily completed?
Something I have seen, and in fact have to keep a constant eye out for on Google and Yelp, is people file false reports against companies saying that they were terrible. But the person filing the report not only was never a customer of the company, but in fact is actively working in the same industry. In the case of a friend of mine, we had to have google block an entire family from posting on his Google page because this other person kept review bombing him, when they had never even met. In this case, they are both DJ's in the same area. Following that same concept, it is possible that either the original web designer in this case knowingly targeted a competitor, or the 2nd person is simply lying and did ask for this web site in order to make the original person look bad, OR this was started by a 3rd party entirely who just lied about who they are.
I had someone post a bad review of my business on Google saying something about getting a fish dinner there. We were not a seafood restaurant. Google refused to delete it when challenged because it was "legitimate" in their eyes.
@@MarkAdams-z4b Well, you shouldn't have given them a dinner so bad they thought it was fish. No wonder they were pissed... they couldn't even tell what you were serving them. LOL!
I'm pretty sure she's just seen his name and info in professional settings and took it. There's *no* reason someone would specifically file a fake request for a gay wedding just, what, hoping that she took it to the supreme court and outed herself as a homophobic garbage can? As if that would actually effect her business?
Doe vs. Bolton back in 1973 was another case like this. Sandra Cano was the named litigant in the sealed case (forgive me if I got the terminology wrong there, I’m not a lawyer) who never wanted nor received an abortion, and yet her case was decided along with Roe vs. Wade in establishing federal abortion rights in the US.
Not really, Cano claimed the case was filed on her behalf without her actual involvement nor consent. That's a whole other kettle of fish, namely alleged legal malpractice.
So what we have here are 2 good possibilities: 1. The party challenging the law made up the incident and pushed this thing all the way to the SC without the other side ever bothering to actually properly check things. 2. The other web designer did make the request, but it was never a legit one, and is now denying it as it was discovered to be illegit. 2 seems less likely unless these two have some history I don't know about so I'm guessing 1 is the case. So the real question is why didn't this whole thing get tossed at one of the lower levels.
It didn't get tossed because this story is Fake News, designed to manipulate people who are mad that they can't force people to participate in their 'G' activities.
@@soaringeagle5418the trial court determined whether or not the request was valid was not relevant, so the state didn't bother to investigate further. The 10th circuit reviewed standing de novo and didn't consider the request in its entire review before determining she had standing and then ruling against her.
Really? Cuz I'm pretty sure that's exactly part of their job. To be honest, i don't care where you fall on the political spectrum or your opinions about the supreme Court decision, but every single lawyer involved in active decisions on this case should be disbarred
So can't a person who is afraid of being discriminated against file a similar suit? Seems to me the court has opened the door to entertaining thought experiments and ruling on them.
There is a difference between suing to prevent a law from being used against you for conduct that you want to engage in but are afraid to engage in because of a statute that carries massive penalties for violating compared to a situation where you are not violating a law but wondering if someone will do something that might be illegal. As an example, in the aftermath of the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision from June 2022, I have a client who has a prior felony conviction who would like to be able to purchase a firearm. I am preparing to file a lawsuit asking to strike down the statute (chance of success is uncertain because of the total undoing of jurisprudence on 2A issues caused by Bruen) prior to him buying a firearm. It would be ludicrous to say that my client has to purchase the gun first and face criminal penalties of up to a decade in prison before he would have "standing" to sue. These sort of "theoretical" lawsuits are actually fairly common when challenging the legitimacy of a statute that would impose penalties for conduct that a person WANTS to engage in but is fearful of risking the penalties for.
@@matthewbecker6553and yet we still have NY courts tossing lawsuits based on standing until a plaintiff comes saying they intend to violate the concealed carry improvement act. What a bunch of lizards.
@@matthewbecker6553based, nobody should have to destroy themselves to maintain their rights against compelled speech, let the theoretical precedents flow!
When the court decided it wasn't relevant to determine standing nobody followed up any further. If the court had decided it was required for standing there would have been more discovery on the issue.
Because christians usually don't harass the gay person just because they wanted their service. If it were the other way around it would have come to light already though
The website building lady also said she MIGHT become a website builder in the future too, so she had no web business. Fake client, fake business, hypothetical situation, seems legit. SCOTUS is so extreme right now, pretty weird.
Even if he could prove it, he suffered no damages. Just being called gay not being defamatory has been settled for a good while now. The fact that he didn't know about it until the reporter contacted him further shows that it hasn't impacted his life.
@@ChillyJack one he's married to a women so this could damage his reputation. The accusations would indicate that he's gay cheating and incompetent ( cause he's a website designer). If he has even a half decent lawyer there alot of damages to pick from.
I completely agree. For the record, I am gay. Not only do I support the right of private business owners to refuse service for any reason, I've never understood why anyone would spend money on a court case trying to force the business to serve them. The way I see it, if a private business owner doesn't want to do business with me for any reason, be it sexual orientation, skin color, physical appearance or whatever, why on earth would I spend the time and money to take them to court demanding they let me pay for their service and support their business? It's the same to me as a business with a legally posted no firearms sign. If I'm carrying my firearm and see that sign I'm not going to break the law and enter anyway. I'm not going to file a lawsuit attempting to make them let me enter while armed. I'm not even going to assume they don't respect my 2nd Amendment protected right. They may fully support my right to bear arms but for whatever reason they don't want me to do so in their establishment. I'm perfectly fine with that as it's 100% their right. It just means I have some choices. I can lock my gun in my vehicle and enter the business, I can go to another business that doesn't have signs posted, or I can go on with my day and return to that business on a day I'm not armed. It makes no sense to me to exercise my rights but try to stop someone else from exercising their's.
@@Xterraforce spot on! And do you really expect you’re going to get more than the barest minimum effort from someone compelled to do something they don’t want to do? Take your business elsewhere and let the money do the talking. It’s not rocket science.
Absolutely! Don't forget, the defendant could go after the plaintiff (losing party) for legal fees. So if your name was fraudulently used as the plaintiff and the case is lost, as in this case, the defendant would be coming after *YOU.* Yeah, I would be going after those lawyers, because I 1000% guarantee they were in on this fraudulent lawsuit. Those lawyers need to be disbarred and sued into oblivion.
You can't sue either because one received information from a random source that can't be identified and the second was a victim of identity theft, good luck getting either party to have to pay anything.
The plaintiff in a suit is the complainant, i.e. the person who complained and filed suit. That is the woman who is afraid of people getting married. She is the plaintiff. If there was a defendant in this case, that would be the guy who is already married to a woman and who knew nothing about this case. And that's part of what is really bizarre about this case. There was no injured party to seek relief and there was no defendant present to deny liability, or responsibility. In fact, the plaintiff was suing for the right to treat a defendant with inequality. A defendant was not provided the opportunity to seek equal treatment. The defendant was falsely accused of putting the plaintiff in an uncomfortable position with unreasonable demands. But the defendant was not present or asking for anything. And the court sided with inequality.
@@davidsnyder3799 The case had nothing to do with the guy... Colorado's unconstitutional law was overturned and honestly, you should celebrate that your freedom of speech has been protected.
I seem to remember a case here recently where a hunter had his case tossed because he was preemptively suing. With the basis that he had no standing without an injury. My question is who exactly is she suing? The government? It seems like a obvious loop-hole for a kangaroo court, where you sue a government with a DA that you know will not put up more than a token defense.
Suing the state over a law that she believed violated the Federal constitution. She wanted to accept only a certain category of clients, but the state law would have forced her to take other clients.
@@Br3ttMIt is also important to note THAT SHE DID NOT EVEN OFFER TO MAKE WEDDING WEBSITE TO ANYBODY. That was simply not one of the services she provided and only started advertising it after filing the case to make her made up bs more believeable
The federal courts have a special solitude for the protection of Constitutional rights, ESPECIALLY the 1st Amendment where I'd say a large number of pre-enforcement challenges involved the 1st Amendment for that reason.
@@Br3ttM Compelled speech and prior restraint are severely frowned upon in English Commonlaw alone to say nothing of how American law built on that and has a Constitution that proscribes it.
SCOTUS isn't the trier of fact in this type of case. The facts are determined at the trial court level, and the subsequent appellate courts rely on a cold record and arguments of appellate counsel.
Sounds more like the gentleman who had his identity attached to the lawsuit may have a case of identity theft. Sounds like either the first website creator or the lawyer representing them used this guys information to back up the validity of the lawsuit.
She didn't. This was known long before this case made it to the courts. The US finds new ways to prove that it isn't a real country. Why would any nation take us seriously if we can't even do the things that other countries do?
@@borabora4480 That's an often repeated false claim made by movement conservatives. I'd bet John Eastman likes that drivel but it's purely ideologically rooted nonsense dressed as legal analysis. The 10th Circuit's ruling changed nothing, the CO law remained intact; Smith was not injured. The 10th circuit's legal f-up in the first place, before they heard Smith's complaint. That did not prevent or preclude the SCOTUS from rejecting the case on the basis that Smith does not have standing. Two wrongs don't make a right, even in American juris prudence.
For its part, the Tenth Circuit held that Ms. Smith had standing to sue. In that court’s judgment, she had established a credible threat that, if she follows through on her plans to offer wedding website services, Colorado will invoke CADA to force her to create speech she does not believe or endorse. The court pointed to the fact that “Colorado has a history of past enforcement against nearly identical conduct-i.e., Masterpiece Cakeshop”; that anyone in the State may file a complaint against Ms. Smith and initiate “a potentially burdensome administrative hearing” process; and that “Colorado [has] decline[d] to disavow future enforcement” proceedings against her. Before us, no party challenges these conclusions. From page 5 of the Supreme Court's opinion.
@@mwduck she doesn't even have a website business to cater to couples, and nobody even asked her to create such a website for her to refuse to create. Thought there had to be an immediate harm for standing. This entire thing seems like a what-if hypothetical scenario that the court's don't typically entertain. "What if I want to start a wedding website business, and what if someone asks me to put gay things on it I don't agree with?"
In your other video about this case, people in the comments were saying that this case was based on a theoretical situation... so that seems to have been known at the time of the case. Also, what difference does it make? The SCOTUS opinion would be the same, regardless of whether the guy exists or not, because IT'S THEIR SWORN DUTY TO RULE ON THE LAW, not the parties involved. Justice is supposed to be blind, which means that the people involved are totally irrelevant.
Exactly. History is full of cases where defendants were created specifically to challenge a law and in some cases the courts were even manipulated to keep a case going that would likely have never been prosecuted. In the Scopes Monkey Trial, the ACLU straight up colluded with the city of Dayton to have the person they selected prosecuted and Scopes even said he wasn’t sure if he had ever taught evolution (he had substituted for Biology but taught other subjects normally).
It is not SCotUS sword duty to rule on the law, judicial review is a power they gave themselves in Madison v Marbury. According to the constitution they are merely supposed to preside over disputes between states, states and the federal government, and maritime/international cases.
@@logansmall5148 The oath says “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice _*_without respect to persons,_*_ and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially _*_discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________** under the Constitution and laws* of the United States. So help me God." Article III, Section 2: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising *under this Constitution,* the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority... Amendment 14: No *State* shall *make* or enforce any law which shall *abridge the privileges or immunities* of citizens of the United States Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; *or abridging the freedom of speech,* or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It's unconstitutional for a state to even MAKE a law that violates the Bill of Rights (AKA "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States"). And who has judicial power over all cases arising under the Constitution? The Supreme Court, as described in Article III, Section 2.
Thanks for not make a judgement on the ruling, but staying with the legal procedures. Also, if they "guy" really had his name misused in the case, shouldn't he have the right to sue the web designer?
@@B_Bodziak not really. He could sue and through discovery get all the relevant documents (physical and digital). Slander and defamation. His identity was misused, without consent.
unlikely because you cant prove unless they talked about faking it, anything was faked. anyone couldve put in the request but even then both the state and the SC said the email didnt matter
@@ace-kz9id We know it was faked, and have a pretty good idea who did it. What you wouldn't be able to prove is which individual did it and that the organisation sanctioned it. And either way, it wouldn't change the outcome of the case, only potentially earn someone some Rule 11 sanctions.
Yeah, they can refuse to do business with women, men, black people, Hispanic people, Jewish people, tall people, short people, gay people, etc. Just refuse whoever they want on whatever basis they want, right? Makes sense....
@richardisner3671 Nobody is arguing the "no shoes/shirt, no service", they're arguing about protected statuses like nationality, religion, sex, serial orientation, etc. Are you really going to pretend you'd be completely fine with a business not serving straight, white, Christians? Because under your absolutist position, businesses could quite literally discriminate against anyone for any reason at all, which I think most sane, caring, non-bigoted people would think is a horrible standard to have.
"false facts" What is that. If it's false, it's a lie, not a fact. That sounds like mumbo jumbo between an idiot judge and a shyster lawyer. You need to use that expression in front of my fourth grade English teacher and get a 60 minute detention
@@MichaelOnines , for starters, they claimed that he had asked them about building a wedding website, for himself and his gay fiance. That is certainly some type of fraud.
They need to go after the lawyers that presented that case. That would seem to be fraud. Bad facts make bad law as they say in the gun community. Maybe they were trying to make bad law with bad facts.
@@snex000 I did read the case and the business was created and funded by the adf to bring case. When they realized it might not be enough they created a fake request for a website
This whole case is political, though. The very reason this fake evidence occurred is almost certainly political, and I'm not even located in the USA and I know that. I feel like trying to skirt around the politics here is strong metaphorical example of ignoring the elephant in the room while trying to puzzle out how the room got wrecked.
He is not apolitical at all. He strongly implied that the woman, and/or her lawyers, fabricated the website request and that the court's decision in her favor was based on "fake facts". Then he buries the lede and mentions at the end of the video that the "fake facts" didn't even matter to the case. Between this and the recent Michigan "hate crime" law video, I think we see pretty clearly where Mr Lehto stands on these issues. Further he says that the guy probably didn't submit the request and then lie about it afterward, because "why would you do that"... but he doesn't apply that to why the woman and her lawyers would use a real (already married) person's contact info in their devious plan, rather than making up some fake contact info and names.
from my understanding under Colorado state law, if this had happened, they would've gone after her. So the case was less about the details and more about the Colorado state law it's self.
Allegedly, but she doesn't have a business and no one prosecuted her, so she had no standing to sue... Or everyone can now sue the government for imaginary things that didn't happen.
The case took 7 years to go all the way through the 10th circuit. The lawyers for the state of Colorado failed to do their jobs. If you look at the SCOTUS filing its pretty clear that the story as it is currently being presented in the media has left out details of the case that they don't want to include because it goes against a political narrative they are trying to create.
Prove who made the false statement. Remember 7 years ago when this was filed that Colorado's laws were being weaponized against citizen's first amendment rights and the 10th leans left. It could have come from the state of Colorado's lawyers trying to bankrupt a woman before she even got started in her business. That's one sure way to make sure that it never gets started.
The court doesn't have to jack about it. But CO may file a motion to reconsider based on the previous cases false evidence and lack of live controversy.
SCotUS justices will just lean back in their private jet seats paid for by billionaires and laugh while sipping martini's from gold plated crystal goblets.
@@IsYitzach That would be a waste of time. Quote from the decision: "The dis- sent chides us for deciding a pre-enforcement challenge. Post, at 23. But it ignores the Tenth Circuit’s finding that Ms. Smith faces a credible threat of sanctions unless she conforms her views to the State’s. " The request was not a factor for standing and thus completely irrelevant.
Not quite. That wasn't one of the stipulations. They refused to say they wouldn't go after her, so with the masterpiece cake case in recent memory the court determined it would likely enforce against her if she offered wedding websites and refused to create a same-sex marriage website.
This is what they do, they call thousands of businesses and ask for some gay wedding services. Nearly all the businesses contacted have no problem with doing a gay wedding project. Businesses generally don't turn away paying customers. They inevitably find someone who says no and then they get to work with a lawsuit. The problem is a real gay couple wouldn't bother with this, they would just go to someone who wants their business and they would have no problem finding someone. This is a fake controversy
This is one of those where time is needed for the facts to come out. Too many obvious and important questions unanswered. Too many times I have seen "lack of standing" used in ways I consider abusive; This particular case seems like it could have been fought on a Pre-enforcement basis.
It was fought and decided on a pre-enforcement basis. None of the courts relied on the request to determine she had standing. This is a red herring because people don't like the ruling.
@@MichaelOnines Thanks Michael! I try to read all the justices' opinions before solidifying my own opinion. Sometimes those opinions are enlightening and they help educate me, and sometimes it is horrifying what they chose to write. Perhaps more people would be less frustrated if they didn't see the supreme court as their backup legislature.
Scotushas the legal authority to take on cases and controversies. "The judicial Power shall extend to … Cases … [and] to Controversies …" US Constitution, Article III Sec. 2. Smith's case had to do with the Colorado statutes - The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits all "public accommodations"-defined "broadly to include almost every public-facing business in the State"-from "denying the full and equal enjoyment of its goods and services to any customer based on his race, creed, disability, sexual orientation, or other statutorily enumerated trait." Smith was going to the Supreme court to address the free speech issue in light of the Colorado anti-discrimination act. Smith sought an injunction to prevent the State from forcing her to create wedding websites celebrating marriages that defy (sic) her beliefs." The 10th circuit court ruled: "… that [Smith] had established a credible threat that, if she follows through on her plans to offer wedding website services, Colorado will invoke CADA to force her to create speech she does not believe or endorse.… The court pointed to the fact that 'Colorado has a history of past enforcement against nearly identical conduct-i.e., Masterpiece Cakeshop'; that anyone in the State may file a complaint against Ms. Smith and initiate 'a potentially burdensome administrative hearing' process; and that 'Colorado [has] decline[d] to disavow future enforcement proceedings against her'."
Why would you ask a company that doesn't do wedding websites for a wedding website? The woman wasn't offering such a sevice so she can't have advertised it. Why would Stewart ask her in particular?
Because its never about " wanting a cake " its all about forcing people to do what the mob wants. No sane person would be this desperate to hire someone that doesnt want the business.
I have a feeling he felt strongly about some kind of court decision. Made a phone call asking for a gay website but since these matters take so long to wind through the courts he totally forgot he even did that.
I love the logic of this case. "I don't believe gay marriage is real." Personal beliefs resulting in more case law is just what this country needs. I mean I don't believe 70% of Republicans are real but I don't think that would fly in court.
It would be easy to "miss" facts if both sets of attorneys were being paid by the same individual or group. I'd think it sort of ties in with your vid "Lawyer Disbarred over False Conspiricy Theories". It'd be interesting to learn if this case went thru lower courts or if it was cherry picked by the Supreme Court.
@@impeachy1518 No, it doesn't work like that. This case went all the way through the 10th circuit, including the 10th circuit court of appeals. That's why the case took 7 years to work its way all the way up. If the lawyers for the state of Colorado had done their jobs, the case would have been dismissed long before it got high enough to be ruled on by the SCOTUS. This is what happens when bad laws are passed and frivolous lawsuits are allowed to be filed by activists and instead of being dismissed by the lower courts or the bad law nullified by the lower courts other people file frivolous law suits. The "news" you are seeing is from politically biased media outlets leaving information out of a story that doesn't fit the story they want to craft as they so often do.
@@soaringeagle5418Dude, once things get to SCOTUS they have to choose to pick it up. Someone fought to get this to them, knowing the SC is full of paid dummies who will nod their heads yes to any fascist policy that comes across their plate. Someone funded this solely to get across that line through a ton of appeals. No way SCOTUS would have seen it otherwise. Definition of cherrypicking.
There were two cases ruled on that week that was on shaky grounds. In the student loans case, the state agency in Missouri (MOHELA) didn't even want to file the lawsuit. The state did it in their name claiming they're entitled to as its their agency. They were the only state who could claim standing on federal loans because of this agency. The problem is, the student loan forgiveness was actually estimated to earn the state tens of millions of dollars. Meaning they weren't being harmed by the forgiveness and thus couldn't show harm and have standing in the case.
