The changing definition of STANDING, and Article III injury.

[meaner gene]

The Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn't want to make wedding websites for gay couples

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with gay couples, a setback for LGBTQ+ people and another win for religious plaintiffs.

apnews.com

the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled on Friday that a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples.

The court ruled 6-3 for designer Lorie Smith, saying that she can refuse to design websites for same-sex weddings despite a Colorado law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender and other characteristics. The court said forcing her to create the websites would violate her free speech rights under the Constitution’s First Amendment.

Smith, who owns a Colorado design business called 303 Creative, does not currently create wedding websites. She has said that she wants to but that her Christian faith would prevent her from creating websites celebrating same-sex marriages. And that’s where she ran into conflict with state law.

Previously the supreme court required actual injury, not potential future injury in order to have standing before a federal court.

Supreme Court Narrows Article III Standing

SCOTUS held that plaintiffs lack Article III standing to seek damages unless they can can show real-world injury.

www.jonesday.com

Supreme Court Narrows Article III Standing in Damages Actions

On June 25, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 20-297, vacating a class-action judgment and holding that plaintiffs lack Article III standing to seek damages for a private defendant's statutory violations unless plaintiffs can show an actual—and not merely potential—real-world injury.

USMB original content requirement:

The recent case gave standing to someone who suffered no actual real world harm. Yet the court
previously required real world harm in order to have standing. Is this why people have lost confidence in the supreme court to actually follow the constitution.

 

[Dekster]

The Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn't want to make wedding websites for gay couples

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with gay couples, a setback for LGBTQ+ people and another win for religious plaintiffs.

apnews.com

the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled on Friday that a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples.

The court ruled 6-3 for designer Lorie Smith, saying that she can refuse to design websites for same-sex weddings despite a Colorado law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender and other characteristics. The court said forcing her to create the websites would violate her free speech rights under the Constitution’s First Amendment.

Smith, who owns a Colorado design business called 303 Creative, does not currently create wedding websites. She has said that she wants to but that her Christian faith would prevent her from creating websites celebrating same-sex marriages. And that’s where she ran into conflict with state law.

Previously the supreme court required actual injury, not potential future injury in order to have standing before a federal court.

Supreme Court Narrows Article III Standing

SCOTUS held that plaintiffs lack Article III standing to seek damages unless they can can show real-world injury.

www.jonesday.com

Supreme Court Narrows Article III Standing in Damages Actions

On June 25, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 20-297, vacating a class-action judgment and holding that plaintiffs lack Article III standing to seek damages for a private defendant's statutory violations unless plaintiffs can show an actual—and not merely potential—real-world injury.

USMB original content requirement:

The recent case gave standing to someone who suffered no actual real world harm. Yet the court
previously required real world harm in order to have standing. Is this why people have lost confidence in the supreme court to actually follow the constitution.

I think you misunderstand the facts of the website case. She is the one who filed the lawsuit. She wasn't sued. She wanted to adjudicate the issue to avoid being sued should she decide to do such websites.

 

[meaner gene]

I think you misunderstand the facts of the website case. She is the one who filed the lawsuit. She wasn't sued. She wanted to adjudicate the issue to avoid being sued should she decide to do such websites.

What you missed is that the supreme court has up until now required plaintiffs to suffer "actual harm" not hypotheticals.

The USSC website specifically says that federal courts do not give "advisory" opinions. Or rule on "hypotheticals"

Until NOW.

 

[meaner gene]

In short, the Supreme Court wanted to rule on the Colorado anti-discrimination law, and used the case of someone who wasn't harmed, to make that ruling.

 

[meaner gene]

Anyone want to comment on the standing issue?

 

[Dekster]

What you missed is that the supreme court has up until now required plaintiffs to suffer "actual harm" not hypotheticals.

The USSC website specifically says that federal courts do not give "advisory" opinions. Or rule on "hypotheticals"

Until NOW.

The actual harm was her not being able to do any websites because of the statute that would have compelled her to do something against her faith. She was suing the head of the state's civil rights division for harming her by restricting her religious freedom. This wasn't an advisory opinion. This was an appeal of any existing case from below.

 

[Vastator]

Freedom of association trumps anyone's desire to have an art, or service rendered on their behalf. We settled the compulsory labor issue in the mid 1800's...

 

[meaner gene]

The actual harm was her not being able to do any websites because of the statute that would have compelled her to do something against her faith. She was suing the head of the state's civil rights division for harming her by restricting her religious freedom. This wasn't an advisory opinion. This was an appeal of any existing case from below.

Reminder: Smith, who owns a Colorado design business called 303 Creative, does not currently create wedding websites. She has said that she wants to but that her Christian faith would prevent her from creating websites celebrating same-sex marriages. And that’s where she ran into conflict with state law.

There was no actual harm. Potential harm, hypothetical harm, or possible harm is not harm under previous interpretation of standing.

Yet the court granted standing to someone who's saying her future dreams were harmed.

 

[JGalt]

The Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn't want to make wedding websites for gay couples

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with gay couples, a setback for LGBTQ+ people and another win for religious plaintiffs.

apnews.com

the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled on Friday that a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples.

The court ruled 6-3 for designer Lorie Smith, saying that she can refuse to design websites for same-sex weddings despite a Colorado law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender and other characteristics. The court said forcing her to create the websites would violate her free speech rights under the Constitution’s First Amendment.

Smith, who owns a Colorado design business called 303 Creative, does not currently create wedding websites. She has said that she wants to but that her Christian faith would prevent her from creating websites celebrating same-sex marriages. And that’s where she ran into conflict with state law.

Previously the supreme court required actual injury, not potential future injury in order to have standing before a federal court.

Supreme Court Narrows Article III Standing

SCOTUS held that plaintiffs lack Article III standing to seek damages unless they can can show real-world injury.

www.jonesday.com

Supreme Court Narrows Article III Standing in Damages Actions

On June 25, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 20-297, vacating a class-action judgment and holding that plaintiffs lack Article III standing to seek damages for a private defendant's statutory violations unless plaintiffs can show an actual—and not merely potential—real-world injury.

USMB original content requirement:

The recent case gave standing to someone who suffered no actual real world harm. Yet the court
previously required real world harm in order to have standing. Is this why people have lost confidence in the supreme court to actually follow the constitution.

Sorry, bro. The right of a God-fearing Christian website designer to remain true to their faith, trumps the right of some Sodomites to force that Christian to go against his or her God's commandments. So the SC's decision was congruent with the US Constitution.

It says so right there in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Did you think sodomy was a "religion" or something? Better luck next time.

 

[meaner gene]

Freedom of association trumps anyone's desire to have an art, or service rendered on their behalf. We settled the compulsory labor issue in the mid 1800's...

True, there is no compulsory labor {except as punishment for crimes). But this is about an anti-discrimination law, where if someone offers their labor to the public, they can't selectively refuse without a legal reason to do so.

 

[Dekster]

Reminder: Smith, who owns a Colorado design business called 303 Creative, does not currently create wedding websites. She has said that she wants to but that her Christian faith would prevent her from creating websites celebrating same-sex marriages. And that’s where she ran into conflict with state law.

There was no actual harm. Potential harm, hypothetical harm, or possible harm is not harm under previous interpretation of standing.

Yet the court granted standing to someone who's saying her future dreams were harmed.

She had standing when she filed the lawsuit. You do not have to wait until you are prosecuted to challenge a law. She didn't. She won. Get over it.

 

[MisterBeale]

Anyone want to comment on the standing issue?

What was regan2's opinion of your argument?

 

[meaner gene]

Sorry, bro. The right of a God-fearing Christian website designer to remain true to their faith, trumps the right of some Sodomites to force that Christian to go against his or her God's commandments. So the SC's decision was congruent with the US Constitution.

It says so right there in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Did you think sodomy was a "religion" or something? Better luck next time.

You show why they made the decision, but to do so, they overstepped article III of the constitution. Which they previously religiously followed, until now. They threw out their "standing" requirement, because they don't have to follow the law.

 

[meaner gene]

She had standing when she filed the lawsuit. You do not have to wait until you are prosecuted to challenge a law. She didn't. She won. Get over it.

Actually she didn't have standing, according to previous supreme court decisions, refusing cases for lack of standing.

How it got to the supreme court has legal experts confused.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn't want to make wedding websites for gay couples

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with gay couples, a setback for LGBTQ+ people and another win for religious plaintiffs.

apnews.com

the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled on Friday that a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples.

The court ruled 6-3 for designer Lorie Smith, saying that she can refuse to design websites for same-sex weddings despite a Colorado law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender and other characteristics. The court said forcing her to create the websites would violate her free speech rights under the Constitution’s First Amendment.

Smith, who owns a Colorado design business called 303 Creative, does not currently create wedding websites. She has said that she wants to but that her Christian faith would prevent her from creating websites celebrating same-sex marriages. And that’s where she ran into conflict with state law.

Previously the supreme court required actual injury, not potential future injury in order to have standing before a federal court.

Supreme Court Narrows Article III Standing

SCOTUS held that plaintiffs lack Article III standing to seek damages unless they can can show real-world injury.

www.jonesday.com

Supreme Court Narrows Article III Standing in Damages Actions

On June 25, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 20-297, vacating a class-action judgment and holding that plaintiffs lack Article III standing to seek damages for a private defendant's statutory violations unless plaintiffs can show an actual—and not merely potential—real-world injury.

USMB original content requirement:

The recent case gave standing to someone who suffered no actual real world harm. Yet the court
previously required real world harm in order to have standing. Is this why people have lost confidence in the supreme court to actually follow the constitution.

how does that change the definition??

they suffered no harm,, just find another web designer,,

 

[meaner gene]

What was regan2's opinion of your argument?

I haven't seen her opinion on federal standing. But if she gives one, i'm sure she'll find the supreme court overstepped their constitutional authority.

 

[Vastator]

True, there is no compulsory labor {except as punishment for crimes). But this is about an anti-discrimination law, where if someone offers their labor to the public, they can't selectively refuse without a legal reason to do so.

That infringes upon freedom of association.

 

[Vastator]

PA laws are unconstitutional, as they violate the Constitutional right to freedom of association. If most people don't like you... That's your problem.

 

[meaner gene]

how does that change the definition??

they suffered no harm,, just find another web designer,,

There was no one suing her arguing they were not served, She was suing the state because she didn't want to follow a state law. But the problem is, the state never tried to enforce the law against her, because she never actually tested the law.
She wasn't even in the website business.

It's like someone suing Harvard over their admission policies, because one day they might want to go to Harvard.

 

[progressive hunter]

PA laws are unconstitutional, as they violate the Constitutional right to freedom of association. If most people don't like you... That's your problem.

what gets me is these alphabet people want to force people that dont agree with their lives to provide them a service,,

would you eat a cake from someone right after they said they dont like your lifestyle and dont want to make you a cake??

I sure wouldnt,