The Supremes Took A F**e Case, There Was No L***Q Client To Object to.. This was literally a f**e case, hypothetical...there was no gay person who asked this woman to create any...

woodguru

This was literally a f**e case, hypothetical...there was no gay person who asked this woman to create any website that violated her deeply held beliefs.

So then if the basis for the lawsuit was a lie, was a crime committed? This is fraud, and it is a crime to allege circumstances that never happened...

I'm kind of curious whether a challenge could be made to this because there was no real life incident to use for the hypothetical exercise of an incident that never happened.

woodguru

https://people.com/hypothetical-l***q-discrimination-case-preceding-landmark-scotus-decision-7555878

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

woodguru wrote:

This was literally a f**e case, hypothetical...there was no gay person who asked this woman to create any website that violated her deeply held beliefs.

So then if the basis for the lawsuit was a lie, was a crime committed? This is fraud, and it is a crime to allege circumstances that never happened...

I'm kind of curious whether a challenge could be made to this because there was no real life incident to use for the hypothetical exercise of an incident that never happened.

I wonder if the Supreme Court would rule in favour of a new litigation model that created cases based on fictional characters. Such similar cases could also resulted in new laws.

More work for lawyers.

Wonttakeitanymore

woodguru wrote:

This was literally a f**e case, hypothetical...there was no gay person who asked this woman to create any website that violated her deeply held beliefs.

So then if the basis for the lawsuit was a lie, was a crime committed? This is fraud, and it is a crime to allege circumstances that never happened...

I'm kind of curious whether a challenge could be made to this because there was no real life incident to use for the hypothetical exercise of an incident that never happened.

Set a precedent ! It was true and so was the baker in Colorado and florist in Oregon! Quit lying

Wonttakeitanymore

RascalRiley wrote:

I wonder if the Supreme Court would rule in favour of a new litigation model that created cases based on fictional characters. Such similar cases could also resulted in new laws.

More work for lawyers.

The lying demonrats keeping them busy!! Doj h****r B***n etc

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

Wonttakeitanymore wrote:

Set a precedent ! It was true and so was the baker in Colorado and florist in Oregon! Quit lying

Who was the defendant? There was none.

She and her backers brought the lawsuit just in itcase she was ever asked to create a web site for a gay wedding.

And now it is the law of the land.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

RascalRiley wrote:

Who was the defendant? There was none.

She and her backers brought the lawsuit just in itcase she was ever asked to create a web site for a gay wedding.

And now it is the law of the land.

That's right! Oh, wait!!
No, it's not! Unless you, or your other brother Woodrow can cite the bill that went through both houses of congress, and was signed by the President.

Or, am I wrong about how laws are passed in America?

Still, it might serve as a jerk on the reins of yalls q***r cult.

solarkin

woodguru wrote:

This was literally a f**e case, hypothetical...there was no gay person who asked this woman to create any website that violated her deeply held beliefs.

So then if the basis for the lawsuit was a lie, was a crime committed? This is fraud, and it is a crime to allege circumstances that never happened...

I'm kind of curious whether a challenge could be made to this because there was no real life incident to use for the hypothetical exercise of an incident that never happened.

wow ,thank goodness you cleared this up for us ,

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

woodguru wrote:

This was literally a f**e case, hypothetical...there was no gay person who asked this woman to create any website that violated her deeply held beliefs.

So then if the basis for the lawsuit was a lie, was a crime committed? This is fraud, and it is a crime to allege circumstances that never happened...

I'm kind of curious whether a challenge could be made to this because there was no real life incident to use for the hypothetical exercise of an incident that never happened.

It was a preemptive case testing the validity of her intentions. Ruled against, she was able to bring it forward to the Supreme Court where it was correctly ruled in her favor.

Ricktloml

archie bunker wrote:

That's right! Oh, wait!!
No, it's not! Unless you, or your other brother Woodrow can cite the bill that went through both houses of congress, and was signed by the President.

Or, am I wrong about how laws are passed in America?

Still, it might serve as a jerk on the reins of yalls q***r cult.

Yeah, I can't imagine why anyone would want to head off a bunch of frivolous lawsuits from triggered perverts. At first it was "tolerance"...what people did in the privacy of their own homes had to tolerated. Now it's in-your-face...like-it-or-not---and they openly proclaim they are coming after your children. It's way past time, (some of us were ahead of the curve), but even people who normally turn their heads and don't pay attention...are finally getting tired of this open/blatant/predatory in-your-face perversion

son of witless

woodguru wrote:

This was literally a f**e case, hypothetical...there was no gay person who asked this woman to create any website that violated her deeply held beliefs.

So then if the basis for the lawsuit was a lie, was a crime committed? This is fraud, and it is a crime to allege circumstances that never happened...

I'm kind of curious whether a challenge could be made to this because there was no real life incident to use for the hypothetical exercise of an incident that never happened.

Remember the Colorado baker Jack Phillips ? Remember how the Left went after him for not baking a gay wedding cake and then not baking a g****r t***sitioning cake ? Those certainly were real.

The Left is not just sitting around minding their own business. They are going out and attacking others who are minding their own business.

Big dog

woodguru wrote:

This was literally a f**e case, hypothetical...there was no gay person who asked this woman to create any website that violated her deeply held beliefs.

So then if the basis for the lawsuit was a lie, was a crime committed? This is fraud, and it is a crime to allege circumstances that never happened...

I'm kind of curious whether a challenge could be made to this because there was no real life incident to use for the hypothetical exercise of an incident that never happened.

Spoken like a true i**********nist.

Wonttakeitanymore

RascalRiley wrote:

Who was the defendant? There was none.

She and her backers brought the lawsuit just in itcase she was ever asked to create a web site for a gay wedding.

And now it is the law of the land.

Should be the law of the land! First amendment zombie! Stay in Canada the land of the socialists

Liberty Tree

RascalRiley wrote:

Who was the defendant? There was none.

She and her backers brought the lawsuit just in itcase she was ever asked to create a web site for a gay wedding.

And now it is the law of the land.

If the SCOTUS had decided the other way would you and the other libs care? No!!! You would be applauding the Court.

American Vet

RascalRiley wrote:

Who was the defendant? There was none.

She and her backers brought the lawsuit just in itcase she was ever asked to create a web site for a gay wedding.

And now it is the law of the land.

Good move.