Brock Penner

So lemme get this straight.

1. Lorie Smith, owner of 303 Creative, doesn't actually design websites. Her company doesn't actually provide that service.
2. Stewart (last name withheld) didn't ask for a wedding site for him and his husband from her.
3. Stewart isn't gay. He's married to a woman and they have a kid together.
4. AND what could possibly be the most ironic occupation for Stewart to have? He's a web designer.

You can't make this shit up. Or I guess you can. Because Lorie and the Supreme Court did.

Jul 3, 2023 at 2:12amWeb
Show threadtoxtethogradyJul 3, 2023
@brockpenner The only thing to get straight is that a fraud was perpetrated on the court. One they perhaps invited, but a fraud nonetheless. Smith should have been sanctioned, but since she hasn't been, her lawyers can be disbarred...
Show threadHumble Fan of Atty. WooJul 3, 2023

@brockpenner

My take is that she was paid by someone to bring that case to Scotus. why else.

Show threadZorro Notorious MEB šŸ˜”Jul 3, 2023
@brockpenner I hope the press is following the money on this decision. You don't get a whole federal court system, including Chief Justice Roberts, to look the other way from all these red flags without an organized effort. And the kind of people who do those things don't typically work for free. #SupremeCourt
Show threadOgie Ogilthorpe āœ…Jul 3, 2023

@brockpenner

Itā€™s called ingenuity, finding a solution for problem that wasnā€™t there.

Show threadJone LewisJul 3, 2023

@brockpenner

5. If I understand correctly, the date on the "request" is a day after she first filed the case.

Show threadHeebeegeebeeJul 3, 2023
@brockpenner I believe they are trying to push through as fast as they can these archaic laws. Truth isnā€™t a requirement for law case. Sure seems like that should be illegal.
Show threadBookJul 3, 2023
@brockpenner if all this were true, and Iā€™ve no reason to believe itā€™s not, how could the case possibly have gone as far as it has and undone so much legislation/increased democratic back-sliding? I feel Iā€™ve turned over two pages at once and Iā€™m being unintentionally dumb.
Show threadJustin CarinciJul 3, 2023
@brockpenner I keep dreaming that this is just some elaborate Punk'd prank show and at the end we all get our rights back.
Show threadTor KingdonJul 3, 2023
@brockpenner legal standing is so quaint
Show threadBrian PerryJul 3, 2023
@kingtor @brockpenner When rumor becomes truth, lies become evidence. "It didn't happen, but you know it would have!"
Show threadLeft Field FarmJul 3, 2023
@brockpenner No one did the least bit of due diligence. This was a cooked-up case to get to the eventual outcome. #SCOTUS are illegitimate.
Show threadWoodswalkedJul 3, 2023

@leftfieldfarm

all involved should be disbarred for perjury

cc: @brockpenner

Show threadnypintašŸŒ»Jul 3, 2023

@brockpenner Apparently, it doesn't matter to SCOTUS that it was completely made up as long as the person who brought the case, (Lorie Smith), "didn't know" the request wasn't true.

So basically, all they have to do is fake any scenario they want, find a dupe willing to sue about it, and SCOTUS will dismantle whatever protections they're targeting. Legislating via Strawman?

Show threadDolf van der Haven šŸ˜šŸ“Jul 3, 2023
@brockpenner
USA is a failed state.
Show threadNihl L'AmasJul 3, 2023
@brockpenner So did they forge a statement from the supposed complainant?
Show threadijwJul 3, 2023

@brockpenner @burritojustice

College Sophomores Getting High and Riffing on Wild Hypotheticals, SUPREME COURT EDITION

Show threadAviva GaryJul 3, 2023
@brockpenner The fix was in...šŸ¤‘
Show threadMikeasaServiceJul 3, 2023
@brockpenner
Iā€™m still wondering how this can be an ā€œactual controversyā€ required for the courts to take a case.