General Discussion

Ms. Toad

(38,678 posts)

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

Mon Jul 3, 2023, 07:22 PM

Jul 2023

Without having to violate the law first and challenge the law by fighting the legal consequences of that violation. That's why it was a suit for injunctive relief - the relief is essentially a court order that says there are no legal consequences for designing wedding websites and stating up front that she will not design such a website for a same gender wedding. She was not seeking damages, nor was she awarded any.

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