Is Supreme Court's "Gay Wedding" Case Built on a Lie? Man at Center of the Story Says He's Straight

[Ocelot II]

54. The lawsuit was for declaratory and injunctive relief.

In order to have standing in a declaratory judgment action you have to claim that you need a court to declare what your rights are so you are not in danger of violating the law if you do a certain thing that you believe is or should be lawful, and for federal jurisdiction you need to tie that claim to a substantial federal question, e.g. the Constitution. As in many states, Colorado has a law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc., by a business that offers services to the general public. The plaintiff wanted to design and sell wedding web sites but she did not want to make them for same-gender couples because of her religious beliefs. But she didn't want to be penalized by the state if she refused to design wedding websites for same-gender couples, so she brought an action asking the court for a declaration that her web designs were an expression of free speech, and to enjoin the state from taking action against her under the anti-discrimination law. These same kinds of court procedures are used all the time by "our" side; nobody got an abortion in Roe v. Wade, for example; the case was brought to enjoin the future enforcement of states' stringent abortion laws. Nothing about this case was procedurally defective, and people are barking up the wrong tree instead of paying attention to the fact that the court made it possible in some cases for businesses to use "free speech" as an excuse to avoid the sanctions of state anti-discrimination laws while discriminating.