The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a web designer who had never actually designed a website, for a man who was not LGBTQ and didn't even know his name was involved in a Supreme Court case, for a wedding that never existed, and a solicitation that was completely manufactured by a group of far right lawyers, I guess so they could make discrimination legal. A very legitimate court.

ETA link to story.

https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

The Mysterious Case of the Fake Gay Marriage Website, the Real Straight Man, and the Supreme Court

In filings in the 303 Creative v. Elenis case is a supposed request for a gay wedding website—but the man named in the request says he never filed it.

The New Republic
@jencmars I'm baffled by the notion that appears to be the case in the USA, that if one offers to provide a service, it is mandatory that one has, under all circumstances, to provide that service. That just cannot be the case. In the UK I have on a number of occasions wanted an openly offered/advertised service and been told it wasn't possible for me to have it: they were booked up for months ahead; didn't in fact provide such a service even if mentioned in their website (very recently).
@DevraWiz @jencmars I'm baffled that you can't work out the difference between "we can't help you because we're booked up" and "we won't help you because you're gay."
@timjclevenger @jencmars I perfectly understand the difference between "we can't help you because we're booked up" and "we won't help you because you're gay." I'm just amazed that it seems to be mandatory in one or more States in the USA that if a potential customer says they want a particular service that the vendor offers, then the vendor is obliged to deliver that service. How can they be compelled to?
@DevraWiz @jencmars They're not... unless they're doing it for discriminatory reasons.