Alex CharnerJul 1, 2023
Dan Gillmor

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.

Jul 1, 2023 at 12:50amWeb
Show threadKanaMaunaJul 1, 2023
@dangillmor This story is almost unbelievable. I’m willing to bet that some other news organizations did look into it and their editors squashed it because of their own political biases.
Show threadcathosJul 1, 2023
@[email protected] This one? https://newrepublic.com/article/174048/supreme-court-doesnt-care-gay-wedding-website-case-based-fiction
The Supreme Court Doesn’t Care That the Gay Wedding Website Case Is Based on Fiction

It still feels unnerving to some, even those caught in the crossfire, to see injuries invented wholesale and lies accepted by the highest court in the land.

The New Republic
Show threadEllenJSJul 1, 2023

@dangillmor

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.”

https://www.cpr.org/2022/12/01/this-colorado-web-designer-doesnt-want-to-make-wedding-sites-for-same-sex-couples-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-decide-whether-thats-legal/

This Colorado web designer doesn’t want to make wedding sites for same-sex couples. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether that’s legal

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.

Colorado Public Radio
Show threadJohn BreenJul 1, 2023
@EllenJS @dangillmor "Standing" had previously been a big issue. I argued with people when I claimed "I should be able to ask for an opinion on the law before I might violate it".
The response was "no, you have to show actual harm to have 'standing''"
Apparently, that's all BS. If the SCJs take your case, you have standing.
Show threadSpockoJul 1, 2023
@dangillmor
I'm curious to see how this information about the requestor not being real can be used to invalidate this ruling OR to charge the Alliance For Defending Straight White Christians with fraud.
#SupremeCourt
Show threadSpockoJul 1, 2023
@dangillmor
Lisa Graves to @nicolesandler "this court decided it doesn't matter whether there's an actual case or controversy if they want to rule against you. If they want to impose their personal political views as law, they're going to do it. And so we have a Supreme Court, a US Supreme Court that's out of control, but not just out of control from a sense of power, but a Supreme Court that is out of control and doing serious damage and harm to the interests of real people in this country."
Show threadeinfeldtJul 1, 2023
@dangillmor Good eyes, Dan. I am an attorney, and boy would I be sweating bullets if I had submitted a case based on falsified documents. Not only the court that heard the case, but also the state bar(s) in the state(s) where the plaintiff's attorney resides would not be amused.
Show threadeinfeldtJul 1, 2023
@dangillmor According to the Wikipedia article on this case, "In Federal District Court, Colorado sought dismissal because Smith had not received such requests for service and thus had no justiciable injury. Several months later, the ADF added a sworn statement that a same-sex wedding request had been submitted to Smith's website. However, the name, email, and phone number on the form belonged to a married heterosexual man who states he never submitted such a request." Link to follow.
Show threadDan GillmorJul 1, 2023

@einfeldt Yes, the New Republic reported this just 2 days ago.

If this is as bogus as it seems, I hope someone in Colorado files for sanctions against the lawyers who did this case.

Show threadeinfeldtJul 1, 2023
@dangillmor If the Wikipedia article on the case is aware of the sketchy nature of the factual basis of this suit, maybe the ball is rolling on uncovering the fraud in this case. The plaintiff's attorney should be concerned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis - Wikipedia

Show threadDoug GrinbergsJul 1, 2023
@dangillmor
Democracy Now! interview with Melissa Gira Grant
Is Supreme Court’s “Gay Wedding” Case Built on a Lie? Man at Center of the Story Says He’s Straight
https://www.democracynow.org/2023/6/30/fake_gay_marriage_website_scotus_case
Is Supreme Court’s “Gay Wedding” Case Built on a Lie? Man at Center of the Story Says He’s Straight

In one of the last cases in the Supreme Court’s current session, the justices ruled in favor of a wedding website designer who wants to be allowed to refuse service to same-sex couples. Lorie Smith of Colorado filed the lawsuit with help from the right-wing Alliance Defending Freedom as part of the group’s ongoing attempt to roll back the rights of LGBTQ people. But as reporter Melissa Gira Grant discovered, part of the case may be built on a lie. Smith has never actually built a wedding website; the lone request Smith claims to have received from a gay couple supposedly originated with a straight man in another state who told Grant he had never asked for a website and that he has been married to a woman for many years. “He had no idea that his information was in this case,” says Grant, who wrote about the case for The New Republic.

Democracy Now!
Show threadVoronJul 1, 2023
@dangillmor I’m sure it will be like George Santos thing where a smaller media outlet had the story but later a larger outlet tries to make it seem like “they broke the story”
Show threadDaily TwerX ✅Jul 1, 2023
@dangillmor @dangillmor

FWIW it was covered below. While most of the posts are satirical, we also cover stories that main news outlets have missed. We like to think that we've given it a bit of a twerk.

This was mostly based on the work of @melissagira

Today the Supreme Court ruled that a web designer who had never been asked to produce a wedding web site for a non-existent gay couple could refuse to do so. US legal system plays fantasy law. She doesn’t even produce websites

https://daily-twerk.com/politics/conservatives-make-up-al-case-that-ends-in-the-supreme-ourt/
Conservatives make up a case that ends in the Supreme Court – The Daily Twerk