Current Events > R there any lawyers in CE? Curious about the anti-LGBTQ web designer SCOTUS case

(+) Yeah! (+)

Basically some karen out of CO has a pending SCOTUS case claiming that she has the right to deny services to LGBTQ clients (more concretely, websites) because she claims that web development is art and therefore being able to turn down LGBTQ clients is part of her freedom of speech:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/web-designers-anti-gay-marriage-stance-goes-us-supreme-court-2022-12-05/

I am no lawyer, but isn't this odd? Here is why:

1) There was already a SCOTUS decision about this, the anti-LGBTQ cake shop that denied services to LGBTQ couples

How is this case possible again, and why'd SCOTUS take it? Imagine being able to re-litigate SCOTUS decisions every couple months if you don't like the result. First anti-gay cakes, then anti-gay websites (we're here right now), then if the conservatives lose again, can they just bring up more cases perpetually? anti-gay sculptors, then anti-gay chefs, then anti-gay mechanics (because, "italian supercars are art"), etc.

This can't be the case, or else why aren't liberals re-litigating the anti-abortion decision, just with a slight twist?

2) This woman admits she isn't even doing wedding websites yet, and her website (which I won't link to here) shows she is basically an amateur, so how come she has constitutional standing? That'd mean there is some sort of judgment or damage done to her, but that is not the case here. I can't bring up a case as an "anti gay ironman suit designer" because no LGBTQ client has demanded I build them a suit, so how can this woman establish standing?

These are legal questions, not questions about how we feel about LGBTQ marriage.

Now finally a personal question:

3) How the fuck is some fat karen fiddling with Wix templates considered "art"? If she won, they *everything* will be art. Chefs could say their food is art. Doctors could say their surgery skills are art. What will keep conservatives from denying things to people under the guise of "it's art, lol" and then even extend their "free speech" idea to deny services on the basis of race, ethnicity and gender?

its the design of a website. Something designed to be looked at. calling that art isn't that ridiculous, imo.

if someone refuses to serve you, just take your money elsewhere, there are tons of people/organizations that will take happily take LGBTQ+ money and do a good job at just as reasonable a price as anyone else. why choose to work with someone who does not want to work with you when you have other options? Let them lose money if they want to, it's their loss.

Apple tried the art argument in the past and lost so if she wins expect another round of apple lawsuits.

famfam posted...

if someone refuses to serve you, just take your money elsewhere, there are tons of people/organizations that will take happily take LGBTQ+ money and do a good job at just as reasonable a price as anyone else

this is not a good reasoning.

This is not just about a karen pretending to be a web designer and taunting gay people about not doing websites for them. It's meant to get SCOTUS to rule so people and businesses can deny services to others based on "religious beliefs".

Sure, if you're in NYC you may be able to find someone else to serve you spaghetti, make a website for you or save your life if you got shot. What if you're in a small town in OH or FL? You know how many Trump/Kanye/Desantis/Fuentes supporters there are out there? Approximately 74 million people voted for trump in 2020. If only half of those were willing to deny people services based on "their beliefs" that's potentially 37 million people willing to deny you an apple pie, a wedding cake, a website or life-saving care at the ER.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Interesting. So why aren't liberals doing the same thing? They get an adverse SCOTUS ruling and go like "oh well lol"

The only question I have on these, is why make an obnoxious "morality" stand instead of bullshitting a "packed schedule" excuse?

famfam posted...

its the design of a website. Something designed to be looked at. calling that art isn't that ridiculous, imo.

if someone refuses to serve you, just take your money elsewhere, there are tons of people/organizations that will take happily take LGBTQ+ money and do a good job at just as reasonable a price as anyone else. why choose to work with someone who does not want to work with you when you have other options? Let them lose money if they want to, it's their loss.

yeah and keep perpetuating the bigotry, thats a great idea

Questionmarktarius posted...

The only question I have on these, is why make an obnoxious "morality" stand instead of bullshitting a "packed schedule" excuse?

I have seen this woman's website. Her "web development" is basically akin to grabbing weebly or microsoft's template maker for websites and changing the text and pics. If she is a web designer then duckbear is a pulitzer winning journalist (and vegy is a miss universe judge).

She did this so the case goes to SCOTUS and people can get denied rights legally. Do you remember abigail fisher from the affirmative action case? It's the same thing, they get approached by some bigotry activist and they get told to sue, costs covered pro-"bono" (more like pro-malum)

If I remember the cake shop case, didn't the supreme court basically decide that the state's handling of the matter was so botched it was impossible to find in their favour and the case could not set precedence?

The_shibe posted...

I have seen this woman's website. Her "web development" is basically akin to grabbing weebly or microsoft's template maker for websites and changing the text and pics. If she is a web designer then duckbear is a pulitzer winning journalist.

oof.

I'm a web-coder and ambiguous designer, who starts everything in a text editor.
<!doctype html>
<html>
<head></head>
<body></body>
</html>

...and away we go

Questionmarktarius posted...

oof.

I'm a web-coder and ambiguous designer, who starts everything in a text editor.
<!doctype html>
<html>
<head></head>
<body></body>
</html>

...and away we go

OMG LOOK AT THIS ART!!!

BTW your post here probably has more code than this woman's "websites", if she has ever had a client

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



New User
User Since: Nov 2022
Karma: 6

The_shibe posted...

BTW your post here probably has more code than this woman's "websites", if she has ever had a client

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/2/6/AAEhCpAAD9Ry.jpg

Oh, and keep in mind that she isn't even pushing forward this case because she denied anyone services. It's based on a hypothetical to allow her to in the future.

This is just another case pushed by the ADF in an attempt to not just allow people to discriminate, but outright protect the bigots who discriminate.

And the worst case is we know even if it somehow fails to enshrine discrimination into law, another similar case is only a few years away at most.

PS Alito can get fucked

Questionmarktarius posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/2/6/AAEhCpAAD9Ry.jpg

her scotus case is public record, so is the name of her company, since it's in the case. I am not sure I can say the name of her "web design" website, so I will err on the side of caution, but if anyone has seen it too let me know so we can laugh about how pathetic her "professional company" website is. It'd probably a weebly template and her "portfolio" is just mockups.

It took me a good three or four years to get my company off of purchased themes and into handcoded everything.
After entirely rebuilding a major client's website in two days, while the "theme" guy was floundering, I won.

sorry about hijacking the thread with nerd shit.

The_shibe posted...

There was already a SCOTUS decision about this, the anti-LGBTQ cake shop that denied services to LGBTQ couples

They were willing to make a cake, just not wedding-themed. Which is how they loopholed their bigotry. Right?

Simply saying "No gays" has no kind of leeway.

gunplagirl posted...

Oh, and keep in mind that she isn't even pushing forward this case because she denied anyone services. It's based on a hypothetical to allow her to in the future.

This is just another case pushed by the ADF in an attempt to not just allow people to discriminate, but outright protect the bigots who discriminate.

And the worst case is we know even if it somehow fails to enshrine discrimination into law, another similar case is only a few years away at most.

PS Alito can get fucked

yes yes and yes

as far as I knew, you need standing to even bring a case to SCOTUS, which means that you must have a specific right that has already been violated:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing

Standing in Federal Court
At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).
In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue:
The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury

There is literally no conduct or harm yet

Questionmarktarius posted...

It took me a good three or four years to get my company off of purchased themes and into handcoded everything.
After entirely rebuilding a major client's website in two days, while the "theme" guy was floundering, I won.

how'd u convince them? so ur a webdev? how did u learn?

This has apparently been bouncing around Colorado for a few years, so there's something going on.

The_shibe posted...

yes yes and yes

as far as I knew, you need standing to even bring a case to SCOTUS, which means that you must have a specific right that has already been violated:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing

There is literally no conduct or harm yet

Yep. Yet the SCOTUS took the case so we know even if they rule against it, it'll give concessions in the ruling.

Questionmarktarius posted...

This has apparently been bouncing around Colorado for a few years, so there's something going on.

Considering a certain politician from that state? Bigots are coming out in full force trying to destroy lgbt minorities now that they got the playing field they needed with the SCOTUS.

The_shibe posted...

yes yes and yes

as far as I knew, you need standing to even bring a case to SCOTUS, which means that you must have a specific right that has already been violated:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing

There is literally no conduct or harm yet

"imminent" is probably what they are going with

gunplagirl posted...

Considering a certain politician from that state? Bigots are coming out in full force trying to destroy lgbt minorities now that they got the playing field they needed with the SCOTUS.

lgbtq is only the beginning.

they will deny stuff to minorities too afterwards. "sorry, I can't take this bullet out of this black man, my surgery is so precise it's art, like Dr. Strange's"

gunplagirl posted...

Considering a certain politician from that state? Bigots are coming out in full force trying to destroy lgbt minorities now that they got the playing field they needed with the SCOTUS.

Isn't Colorado somehow more deep purple than even Ian Gillan?

What really gets me is she hasn't even been asked to make any sort of gay wedding site yet, this is entirely based on the notion that she should be able to reject potential gay customers in the future (like she's even going to get them in the first place) because the old "violation of faith" argument.

Again I say, don't worry lady, they're not going to be seeking your services anytime soon.

HylianFox posted...

What really gets me is she hasn't even been asked to make any sort of gay wedding site yet, this is entirely based on the notion that she should be able to reject potential gay customers in the future (like she's even going to get them in the first place) because the old "violation of faith" argument.

Again I say, don't worry lady, they're not going to be seeking your services anytime soon.

She just looks so hateful too

The_shibe posted...

lgbtq is only the beginning.

they will deny stuff to minorities too afterwards. "sorry, I can't take this bullet out of this black man, my surgery is so precise it's art, like Dr. Strange's"

Yep.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Isn't Colorado somehow more deep purple than even Ian Gillan?

It's more red than purple but isn't super horribly uh. That district manipulation thing to make the minority win control of the state even when they're less than 40% of the actual voters. Blanking on the word right now.

gunplagirl posted...

That district manipulation thing to make the minority win control of the state even when they're less than 40% of the actual voters.

dammit, Jerry Mander...