Thread by @RewireNewsGroup

What's up nerds!

@AngryBlackLady here live-tweeting #303Creative in which an evangelical Christian wants an advisory opinion about whether making a hypothetical wedding website for a hypothetical gay couple in the future violates her 1st Amendment rights.

https://twitter.com/AngryBlackLady/status/1599749228028624896?s=20&t=nA2tVv6M8n3WzweIye7G_Q

Thomas: Is this case ripe?

Waggonner, who is arguing for Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of Lorie Smith/#303Creative tries to answer and fumbles around.

She's claiming Colorado is chilling her speech.

(No they're not.)

Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor are making the point that the wedding website is the invitation of the customer, not the invitation of the wedding website designer. So why is the website the speech of the website designer?

So why is it 303 Creative's message?

(It's not.)

Sotomayor: Show me a page on your website that you attached to your petition for cert that is an endorsement of a marriage from 303 Creative as opposed to the story of a couple.

- Our special day
- Our photo gallery
- a funny dating story

None of this is 303 Creative's story

Waggonner tries to claim that when a ghostwriter writes a book for a customer it's still their speech.

Jackson says: Yeah but they're not public accommodations.

THANK YOU.

Waggonner claims that the compelled speech doctrine (as in speech cannot be compelled) also protects the gay web designer from having to make a website for a straight couple.

yeah because that's happening.

Sotomayor: What if this were a disabled couple? I don't think disabled people should be able to get married. I won't make websites for those people.

What's the difference between that and I don't believe Black and white people should get married?

Waggonner: If you don't want to tell their story, you shouldn't have to.

Sotomayor: So there's no line when it comes to public accommodations law?

Yikes.

Waggoner: No one on any side has to be compelled to express a message that violates their core convictions.

lmao.

So if you're against interracial marriage ,then you can discriminate. That's what she's saying.

This broad is FLOUNDERING.

Jackson with a hypo about a business taking pictures with Santa. The business won't take photos of Black kids with Santa. They'll take other photos of Black kids but not with Santa. They want to put a sign that says only white children can take a picture with Santa.

Can they?

Waggonner is dissembling.

"They are difficult lines to draw. That may be an edge case."

Waggonner keeps saying that the message isn't in the photograph. And even if it were, the Court would have to protect speech.

I don't know what this lady is talking about tbh.

Sotomayor: Tell me how to write this decision that draws the line just on gay marriage but that doesn't affect a disabled couple or an interracial couple.

Waggoner: No one should be compelled to speak a message.

Just keep repeating that, sweetie. You're doing great.

I can't take this seriously. It's hard to take anything this Court does seriously anymore and it's a tragedy that Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan have to sit here and pretend that this is a legitimate oral argument in a legit case rather than a ginned up test case for ADF.

They are not talking enough about the fact that this case is not ripe.

There's no justiciable controversy

Jackson is not letting the Santa photo hypothetical go:

I have a public business. I'm doing It's a Wonderful Life scenes. Only white kids and families can be customers for this product.

Can I do that?

Jackson is really arguing Waggoner into a corner and Waggoner keeps trying to get out of it because she knows it's RIDICULOUS to say that a photographer could refuse to photograph Black kids.

Absurd.

Colorado Solicitor General is up.

Colorado law regulates public accommodations.

303 Creative can issue a message that they disagree with same sex marriage but they can't refuse to serve them.

Colorado law regulates public accomodations. 303 Creative filed a preenforcement action because it wants to be able to refuse to serve gay couples identical websites they would provide for heterosexual couples.

It would allow all businesss to refuse service to customers because of their disability, sexual orientation, religion, or race.
What they're seeking would allow another web design company to say "no interracial couples served."
An ad agency could say "no women owned companies."

303 Creative stipulated that they are a public accommodation.

303 Creative wants total permission to turn away every same sex couple even if they seek the exact same website that an opposite sex couple wants.

That is status based discrimination.

DUH.

WHY ARE WE HERE.

There's no developed factual record. No one filed a complaint against Lorie Smith.

This isn't like other preenforcement actions where people who were discriminating against LGBTQ folks were subject to civil/criminal liability.

She's in no danger of ANYTHING.

I KNEW ALITO WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO RESIST BRINGING UP THE KU KLUX KLAN.

He asks if a Black Santa would be forced to take a photo with a kid dressed in a Klan outfit.

WHAT THE HELL, SAM.

Colorado SG: The KKK isn't a protected characteristic tho.

NO SHIT rewirenewsgroup.com/2017/12/06/kkk…

I wrote this five years ago. What is it about conservatives trying to make these ridiculous hypotheticals about Black business owners having to interface with the KKK in order to make some statement about bigots having to interface w/ gay couples. I can't.
rewirenewsgroup.com/2017/12/06/kkk…

SAM ALITO STOP TALKING ABOUT BLACK SANTA CHALLENGE 🎅🏾

Sotomayor: This would be the first time the Court would say a business open to the public—as this petitioner has said it is—could refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.

Colorado SG: Yep.

Jackson: This could have implications for other kinds of categorizations because religion was often used to discriminate against Black people, right?

(It was also used to justify slavery, by the way.)

Colorado SG: RIGHT.

Justice Jackson is such a gift.

It would be really great to have an LGBTQ justice on the bench right now. If Biden has another shot to appoint someone, that person should be LGBTQ and progressive for sure. An LGBTQ public defender?

*chef's kiss*

It won't stop with LGBTQ discrimination. We will backslide.

https://twitter.com/SIfill_/status/1599804747917459456?s=20&t=lIa73mGvByUuS8Gzmk3HXw

Can't stress enough that it won't be cabined to LGBTQ discrimination.

The US Deputy SG (Fletcher) agrees with Justice Jackson's Santa hypo. He says that a photographer could refuse to photograph female corporate executives because the photographer thinks women shouldn't work.👀

What happens if 303 Creative wins?

Then a private school could teach that segregation is amazing, AND could act upon it by excluding Black kids.

Right now that school can say what they want about segregation, but they can't refuse to admit Black kids based on that belief.

This case is a mess and they're really not focused enough on the fact that this lady is asking for an advisory opinion.

The factual record is undeveloped. But conservatives are treating the Supreme Court like a trial court these days so

This has been @AngryBlackLady live-tweeting oral arguments in #303CreativeVElenis.

If your head is still spinning, don't worry—@Hegemommy and I are going LIVE on YouTube at 2 PM EST for a rapid reaction episode of #BoomLawyered.

Join us here: