Ethical and Legal Questions Raised Over the Authenticity of ‘Customer’ in Supreme Court Gay Rights Case

In a Supreme Court case that ruled a Christian graphic designer has the right to decline creating wedding websites for same-sex couples, a request from a man named “Stewart” and his soon-to-be husband has come under scrutiny. The twist is that Stewart has denied ever making such a request.

The revelation has ignited debates on how the case of Lorie Smith was permitted to advance to the highest court of the nation despite this apparent discrepancy. It also questions whether Colorado, having lost the case the previous week, possesses any legal options.

RELATED STORIES
Man cited in Supreme Court’s gay rights decision denies requesting a wedding website
Supreme Court backs designer refusing to create wedding websites for same-sex couples
Supreme Court ruling sparks fear of wider discrimination amongst LGBTQ+ advocates
Affirmative action ruling spurs activists to challenge legacy admissions at Harvard

The case concluded a Supreme Court term marked by controversial decisions along ideological lines and ethical doubts. The term also saw the rejection of affirmative action in higher education and President Joe Biden’s $400 billion plan to cancel or reduce federal student loan debt.

Let’s examine the legal ambiguities surrounding the purported customer, “Stewart.”

WHAT ROLE DID THE CLAIM PLAY IN THE CASE?

According to the state, Smith — who hadn’t intended to begin designing wedding websites until after her case was concluded — needed to receive a request from a same-sex couple and reject it, possibly resulting in a complaint against her.

Smith’s attorneys, however, argued that she shouldn’t be punished for breaking the law before challenging it. They revealed in a February 2017 filing that Smith had indeed received such a request, even though it wasn’t necessary for the case. The filing included an affidavit from Smith and a website request form submitted by Stewart a few days after the lawsuit was filed.

Two Supreme Court filings from Smith briefly mention a request for a same-sex wedding website but lack detailed elaboration.

According to the request, Stewart and his fiancé Mike wanted design services for their upcoming wedding, including invitations and place setting cards, with a potential for a website.

Colorado’s attorneys argued in their Supreme Court brief that this did not amount to an actual website request, and no steps were taken to authenticate whether a real potential customer had submitted the form. It remains unclear if the state verified the authenticity of Stewart — whose contact details were included in court papers.

Stewart told The Big Big News that he was unaware his name had been used in the case until he was contacted by a reporter from The New Republic, which was the first to report his denial. Stewart, who did not disclose his last name due to concerns about harassment and threats, stated that he has been married to a woman for 15 years.

COULD THE REVELATION IMPACT THE CASE NOW?

It’s highly unlikely, as Smith’s lawsuit did not hinge on the customer’s request, nor did the Supreme Court cite it as a reason for ruling in her favor. Legal standing requires that the individual bringing the case demonstrate some kind of harm, but pre-enforcement challenges, such as Smith’s, are permitted in some cases if the individual can show a credible threat of legal repercussions if they don’t comply with the law.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found Smith had standing to sue, noting Colorado’s history of enforcement “against nearly identical conduct” and its refusal to promise not to pursue Smith if she broke the law.

Legal expert Jessica Levinson said that while the revelation might not affect the case legally, it could erode the credibility of Smith’s legal team and lead to potential sanctions if they knew Stewart’s request was false.

While the decision can’t be reversed, Berkeley Law dean Erwin Chem

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Supreme Court gay rights case

More about Supreme Court gay rights case

• Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn’t want to make wedding websites for gay couples
• Wider than websites? LGBTQ+ advocates fear broader discrimination after Supreme Court ruling
• Activists spurred by affirmative action ruling challenge legacy admissions at Harvard
• Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action in higher education
• Supreme Court’s rejection of President Biden’s plan to cancel or reduce federal student loan debts
• Analysis of the controversy surrounding the alleged ‘customer’ in the Supreme Court case