General Discussion

Ocelot II

(131,581 posts)

40. Why? What did they do wrong?

Mon Jul 3, 2023, 01:15 PM

Jul 2023

No lawyer relied on the fake web inquiry; it was never even part of the case because the defendant (the state) stipulated to the facts - which didn't involve actual prospective customers at all. Filing a declaratory judgment action is a legitimate way of determining whether a law applies to you, and that's what this plaintiff did. What's wrong with the case is that a majority of the Supremes decided that you can discriminate in your business dealings as long as you can frame it as an exercise of free speech. Concentrate on that, not on procedural defects that didn't exist.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

54 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is Supreme Court's "Gay Wedding" Case Built on a Lie? Man at Center of the Story Says He's Straight [View all] cbabe Jun 2023 OP

Yes, and a lie on TOP of a lie. elleng Jun 2023 #1

The AG of the state where the lawsuit began needs to answer some questions. jimfields33 Jun 2023 #17

What questions would those be? Ocelot II Jul 2023 #39

Except that the web inquiry was never part of the case. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #38

This should go viral! GreenWave Jun 2023 #2

Absolute fraud. tanyev Jun 2023 #3

Why? What did they do wrong? Ocelot II Jul 2023 #40

Given that roughly 95% of all the right-wing's grievances are just phony made-up bullshit Hugh_Lebowski Jun 2023 #4

Yeah they make up shit, then they go on those damn talk shows 24 hours a day. Initech Jul 2023 #46

Kind inthewind21 Jul 2023 #48

Oh the irony Zeitghost Jul 2023 #51

Charge plaintiff with fraud and identity theft, at the very least. cbabe Jun 2023 #5

Well inthewind21 Jul 2023 #35

We'll have to lay the blame at the state's feet I'm afraid FBaggins Jun 2023 #6

i'll admit i'm not a lawyer, but have learned quite a bit on DU....... Takket Jun 2023 #7

That feels correct. Whoever this straight man is, he should file his own suit, Volaris Jun 2023 #8

The straight man was not at the center of the case; he wasn't even relevant. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #50

Thank you for clearing that up! But if there was no actual request made, Volaris Jul 2023 #53

The lawsuit was for declaratory and injunctive relief. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #54

Standing wasn't really an issue here FBaggins Jun 2023 #11

Yep Effete Snob Jul 2023 #19

Because the optics are that bad. shrike3 Jul 2023 #23

Yep. The mystery non-defendant Hortensis Jul 2023 #25

The plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action, a common way to determine Ocelot II Jul 2023 #42

Yes... 2naSalit Jun 2023 #9

They did nothing of the kind. Don't you think Sotomayor would have mentioned that Ocelot II Jul 2023 #43

Well... 2naSalit Jul 2023 #45

They knew this edhopper Jun 2023 #10

The decision in no way hangs on the website contact inquiry Zeitghost Jul 2023 #41

It's about as moot/premature/un-hearable as a case can get. elleng Jun 2023 #12

No, it wasn't. It was a declaratory judgment action Ocelot II Jul 2023 #29

Let's just call it..."Alternative Facts". Midnight Writer Jun 2023 #13

Was any or all of this brought up at trial? no_hypocrisy Jun 2023 #14

No, because it didn't matter Effete Snob Jul 2023 #18

Got it. no_hypocrisy Jul 2023 #21

There was no trial; it was an appeal from summary judgment. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #49

sorry decisis Qutzupalotl Jun 2023 #15

Legislating from the bench. n/t moondust Jun 2023 #16

I was assuming that the case was actually argued before the supreme court justices. but was it? msfiddlestix Jul 2023 #20

It went through two courts along the way Effete Snob Jul 2023 #22

interersting thank you. msfiddlestix Jul 2023 #24

Because the the plaintiff did have standing. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #44

Interesting. I was not aware this is a common practice msfiddlestix Jul 2023 #47

This ruling was rotten to the core... Hugin Jul 2023 #26

Most states have public accommodation laws Ocelot II Jul 2023 #30

There are a million reasons to decline a project... Hugin Jul 2023 #31

But the plaintiff's motivation was irrelevant to the legal issues. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #32

Yes, I agree. This case was constructed around a... Hugin Jul 2023 #34

The plaintiff is not hypothetical. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #36

My point is that yes free speech is fine... Hugin Jul 2023 #37

She's asking to he allowed go advertise in way that violates tyre law on public accommodations Ms. Toad Jul 2023 #52

They are allowing cert on hypotheticals where no actual damage can be proven Trenzalore Jul 2023 #27

Once again, it was a declaratory judgment action. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #33

Except that the inquiry was never used or considered in the case. Ocelot II Jul 2023 #28