Big Journalism's coverage of the wedding website ruling is missing a key element: the entire case is apparently built on lies if not outright fraud, as a single outlet -- the New Republic -- discovered at the last minute.
To acknowledge this, of course, would be to admit utter failure by news orgs (except one) to do even a tiny bit of due diligence.
And what about the plaintiff lawyers? Shouldn't there be sanctions at least in lower courts?
Not too late to do journalism on that, anyway.
There was recognition of issues with this case by some media months ago. This article is from December 1 2022
“A deep irony of this case because it should have been rejected because there is no live dispute,” Sepper said. “Because this business does not do wedding services, has never designed a website for a wedding and therefore doesn’t face a live circumstance where a same-sex couple has asked for a wedding website.”
The high court will hear oral arguments Monday on the most recent test to Colorado’s public accommodations law, weighing whether businesses claiming to be creative or artistic enterprises have the right to turn away customers based on what is requested of them.
Dan Gillmor
EllenJS
John Breen