Strange part of recent Supreme Court LGBT case

Very strange part of the case that was just decided. Part of it was made up?

1 Like

The guy that said he never called. Used to work at CNN. So most likely he is lying.

1 Like


Which guy?

A request he appeared to have made in 2016 to a Colorado artist to create designs and possibly a website for his same-sex wedding was now part of a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the reporter told him.

Except Stewart — who didn’t want his full name used out of fear of being harassed — is not gay. In fact, he has been married to a woman for 15 years, and he’s a web designer himself.

In subsequent court documents, her lawyers cited a query that they said was sent by an individual named Stewart with contact information that matches the person The Post interviewed. The request asked for Smith’s services for Stewart’s forthcoming wedding to a person named “Mike.”

“We are getting married early next year and would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website,” the message cited in the case read.

However, Stewart told The Post he had never contacted Smith.

Where do you get CNN on this?

Do you know what the queers are doing to the soil, Stuart?!?

Ok. I love The Dead Milkmen but that’s certainly off topic.

Ah, I misread. Stewart claims he is not gay. :wink:

So what the hell…did we get the story wrong…

was the business owner gay and he refused to do a straight wedding cake.?

Were they both straight and the customer didn’t want a gay cake?

I am confused by what the the whole web design thing has to do with cakes? Did the guy go into a web design office and order a cake and was told we don’t do cakes we do F’n web design and the guy said “that is so gay”.

Maybe we should all slow down go back to the original people and see what everyone is mad about.

I am worried that future litigation is going to this being overturned and web designers will have to bake cakes if the customer demands it.


The case that was decided had to do with wedding web design and not cakes but the cakes issue was related in the type of discrimination. Just a different wedding type of service.

1 Like

That’s pretty funny.


So there is a strong likelihood the S.C. court ruled on a hypothetical? Can they do that if there was no real harm/damage?

1 Like

I think the more important thing he the plaintiff basically lied to create standing. And these bums accepted the lie to put out this ruling.


Or no one challenged the lie since it was a preemptive lawsuit. Just odd.

I can see the use of free speech in this regard
to discriminate against other religions too if you
want. Just a real stretch ruling imho. If web designer wants to use his free speech to rail
against gays and gay marriage he can; the government can’t stop him. He can
ban them from his home. But if he is doing business with the public , he needs to not
discriminate and the court shouldn’t give preference to his religion. The bums bungled it.


Long story short. Colorado passed an anti-discrimination law. The plaintiff with the immense help of the ADF, a hard right-wing anti-lgbt legal and political org, filed suit saying the law infringes her freedom of speech. A lower court was going to dismiss the case because the plaintiff hadn’t actually been harmed by the law as she was in no such predicament of violating it. The plaintiff and ADF then claimed she had received a request from a man who was requesting her services to make a website for his wedding to a man in order to bolster the case. The request was provided to court as evidence and was made to out to be “see the gays are trying to make me do this and are out to get me!”. Fast forward to last week, an enterprising journalist looked at the court records, found this original request and contacted the man. He said he made no such request as he is straight, happily married for 15 years and has a kid. The plaintiff’s legal team is saying it must’ve been a troll submission but knowing the hijinks of the ADF it is extremely sus. Especially when considering the plaintiff doesn’t even make wedding websites (even for straights) to begin with as part of her services offered and never has.



This is all gay agitation. I’m sure there are plenty of web designers in that part of Colorado. Its just degenerate activism. They shot their wad. Now they have to come up with another angle to agitate because this angle is played out.


This is a take based in total ignorance of the facts and reality. Gay people didn’t do anything in this case as they were not even involved.

Sorry that gay people existing “agitates” you.


I am old enough to remember when the gays said they just wanted the right to marry and would not try to force thier beliefs on Christians who disagree with thier lifestyle. What a lie that was.

This is why we need to elect trump so that he can bring God back to our country.

Did I do it right? I’m trying to practice my Maga.

It’s a good start, but you’re not coming off as whiny and pretend agreived. You should work on that to really capture the MAGA.