What is religious freedom?

@suzianne said
You do realize that the woman who caused the case to be brought before the Supreme Court was lying about it, right?

Ha yeah apparently the gay guy she didn’t want be creative for was as straight as an arrow and married with kids.
But why let reality get in the way of bigotry

@kevcvs57 said
Ha yeah apparently the gay guy she didn’t want be creative for was as straight as an arrow and married with kids.
But why let reality get in the way of bigotry

Well the whole case was contrived; the plaintiff claimed she wanted to create wedding related websites but never actually did. She provided the District Court with a mock one she would make that only contained innocuous information like times and dates, how to access the wedding registry etc. etc. It's hard to see how providing such information is "compelling" her to make any substantive statement regarding gay marriage.

@no1marauder said
Well the whole case was contrived; the plaintiff claimed she wanted to create wedding related websites but never actually did. She provided the District Court with a mock one she would make that only contained innocuous information like times and dates, how to access the wedding registry etc. etc. It's hard to see how providing such information is "compelling" her to make any substantive statement regarding gay marriage.

So what is stopping anyone from conjuring up a claim to bring to SCOTUS? Does this mean someone can falsely claim a girl was attacked in a bathroom by a trans person in order to get SCOTUS to block their rights as well?

@no1marauder said
Well the whole case was contrived; the plaintiff claimed she wanted to create wedding related websites but never actually did. She provided the District Court with a mock one she would make that only contained innocuous information like times and dates, how to access the wedding registry etc. etc. It's hard to see how providing such information is "compelling" her to make any substantive statement regarding gay marriage.

These judges seem to envision themselves as philosophers, "deciding" on cultural issues rather than ruling on fact. It's not a good idea to have SCOTUS doing this, but also apparently no way to prevent it.

@vivify said
So what is stopping anyone from conjuring up a claim to bring to SCOTUS? Does this mean someone can falsely claim a girl was attacked in a bathroom by a trans person in order to get SCOTUS to block their rights as well?

There are a series of other court entities that rule on your first, and then you can appeal. SCOTUS then has the authority to decline to hear your case. If there's a conservative majority, they get to decide what cases they want to "weigh in" on. In a normal court, they don't pick hypotheticals. In this court, they do.

This case was contrived from the very beginning as one that would be heard by the supreme court, but they had to go through all the motions to make it seem like there was a real grievance first. At its most benign, a waste of tax dollars.