Supreme Court Gay Website Case was made up by plaintiff: https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples The article reveals that the man, who they...

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples

The article reveals that the man, who they alleged was the gay person asking for them to design a website for him was actually a married (to a woman) web designer, who says he never submitted any such request.
Smith, (the plaintiff) is saying that the request was submitted through her website, but couldn't determine if it was Smith or a Troll.

The above is from the article (follow the link). In my humble opinion, this entire case should be thrown out and referred to the Department of Justice for investigation. If she knowingly committed fraud, then she should face the consequences.

To my trolls on the right: Apologies are not necessary but neither is insulting me. I'd like to see some meaningful posts.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Frank T wrote:

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-desi... (show quote)

Funny how Kracken describes NPR as being non-biased when clearly in the article they point out that many see the ruling as a set-back for Gay rights, which clearly it is not. The article fails to mention however that the ruling is simply an affirmation of religious liberty and free speech contained within the first amendment making it a major win for constitutional protections. The state can not compel speech, this is all the ruling says and there are tens of thousands of web designers who would design the website, no harm done to the Gay community.

Libs want to use the heavy hand of the government to compel others to accept conformity to what they consider to be their social norms no matter that they run contrary to the deeply seeded beliefs of a large portion of our society.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Blurryeyed wrote:

Funny how Kracken describes NPR as being non-biase... (show quote)

So, in the end, you're okay with someone lying to the Supreme Court.
That's an interesting stand.
Question: Does free speech include perjury?

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Frank T wrote:

So, in the end, you're okay with someone lying to the Supreme Court.
That's an interesting stand.
Question: Does free speech include perjury?

You have no proof that the web-designer lied, to my knowledge SCOTUS only took up the case after it had been adjudicated through the state court system. No, I don't think that people should lie to the court but I don't see that has been proven nor do I see it as having been pertinent to the case.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Blurryeyed wrote:

You have no proof that the web-designer lied, to my knowledge SCOTUS only took up the case after it had been adjudicated through the state court system. No, I don't think that people should lie to the court but I don't see that has been proven nor do I see it as having been pertinent to the case.

The person cited in the paperwork as the person who requested a Gay Wedding Website has identified himself and said that he did not make the request, nor did he ever contact the plaintiff. He also said that he is not gay, is married to a woman, and is a website designer himself, so he would never contact someone else to create a personal website.
Yet, here you write what basically comes down to, you don't care if she perjured herself and fabricated an incident that never existed as long as the outcome is something you agree with.
My position is that she should be investigated and if a prima-fascia case is established, she should be arrested and charged accordingly.
So exactly what constitution and/or set of laws are you working under that allows a perjured testimony to stand?
You might want to look up the phrase: "The fruit from the poisonous tree", and see what it means.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Frank T wrote:

The person cited in the paperwork as the person wh... (show quote)

Yes, the person cited says he never tried to commission her work, however someone did and we don't know who that was, there was an actual request and the owner of the website says it was not her. You are putting the cart before the horse Frank, there is no proof that it was the plaintiff in this case.

You are just pissy because the court ruled against liberal compulsion abridging the liberties of others. I do find it a bit curious that the case made it all the way through the federal court system to the SCOTUS without anyone taking exception to the origin of the case but as soon as f*****m loses then fraud is claimed.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Blurryeyed wrote:

Yes, the person cited says he never tried to commi... (show quote)

The reasons you state are the reason that it needs to be investigated.
If she in fact got an email, the email will disclose the IP address and then once they have the IP address they can trace it to a location.
I don't know, but I suspect, she generated the email herself.
Investigate it and if she didn't do anything wrong then don't charge her. If she did then she should be charged with perjury.
As to the case, it was decided on information that she alone provided and it needs to begin its journey through the entire court system.
If the Feds don't want to prosecute, she still has the state court to contend with.
Why do you defend her? If this ruling was in the opposite direction, you'd be losing your mind right now.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Frank T wrote:

The reasons you state are the reason that it needs... (show quote)

Why do you defend Biden when the circumstantial evidence against him is overwhelming... I am not really defending her so much as I am defending the SCOTUS decision. The decision defends freedom of speech and the individual against government compulsion, that I agree with, contrary to the cries coming from the left that it is a set back for the LBGT community because it is not, there are as I earlier said 10's of thousands of graphic designers who would gladly create their websites. What it does set back is government overreach and intrusion into our lives.

There is reason to believe it possible that she did create the email herself but as you suggested it should be investigated, the reports so far have not indicated that there has been any investigation into something that should be traceable. The case did work its way through the federal court system prior to being taken up by the SCOTUS.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Blurryeyed wrote:

Why do you defend Biden when the circumstantial ev... (show quote)

This thread is NOT about Biden.
If the case wound it's way through the state and federal court systems based upon false information, the case should be voided and started over again with t***hful information.
If she knowingly perjured herself, she should be prosecuted.
Why is that so difficult for your right-wing demented mind to understand?

Truth Seeker Loc: High Mountains of the Western US

Frank T wrote:

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-desi... (show quote)

Here, get someone to read this to you. They won't be able to help you comprehend it though.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/06/30/its-first-amendment-stupid-supreme-court-holds-free-speech-prevails-challenge-anti-discrimination-law/

Truth Seeker Loc: High Mountains of the Western US

Frank T wrote:

Lie-Believer,
You don't get it. You never will. Your iq and ego will not permit you to understand anything that you don't already believe.
You are a lost cause.
Now go out and play with your friends. They're practicing football and they need you to be the tackling-dummy.

Your right. I will NEVER understand your illogical bulls**t.

The Aardvark Is Ready

Frank T wrote:

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-desi... (show quote)

It wasn't made up. She said she received the request. Does she have receipts. If so, it's not made up.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Frank T wrote:

This thread is NOT about Biden.
If the case wound it's way through the state and federal court systems based upon false information, the case should be voided and started over again with t***hful information.
If she knowingly perjured herself, she should be prosecuted.
Why is that so difficult for your right-wing demented mind to understand?

Nice try Frank, has there ever in our country's history been a SCOTUS decision voided? I think that is a stretch and if it is shown that she was not the origin of the request for service then she herself has done nothing wrong. Regardless of where the request for the site came from she did receive a request and that is all that her plead to the court asserts.

You are convicting her without any evidence.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Frank T wrote:

Why is that so difficult for your right-wing demented mind to understand?

Well Frank, so much for you and I communicating without insults, I have to assume that your resorting to insults indicates you are now finally grasping at straws so you have to start throwing bombs... I have not insulted you throughout this thread, thought I would try something new with you but..... Didn't workout.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Blurryeyed wrote:

Nice try Frank, has there ever in our country's history been a SCOTUS decision voided? I think that is a stretch and if it is shown that she was not the origin of the request forI service then she herself has done nothing wrong. Regardless of where the request for the site came from she did receive a request and that is all that her plead to the court asserts.

You are convicting her without any evidence.

Why do you assume she received any request when it's obvious she didn't receive it from the person she alleges.
I would bet you'd be screaming if SCOTUS ruled against her.
In this case the Supreme Court made a ruling on something that never happened, but your okay with it.
Guess you really don't believe in law and order, honesty or the Constitution.
Pretty sad