LOGIN

Man Named in Supreme Court’s Gay Rights Ruling Denies Request for Wedding Website

by Ethan Kim
0 comment
controversy surrounding cited request

A web designer from Colorado, whose right to refuse making wedding websites for gay couples was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, has cited a request from an individual who claims to have never approached her for services.

The disputed request, allegedly made by an individual identified as “Stewart,” was not the primary basis for the preemptive federal lawsuit filed seven years ago by Lorie Smith, the web designer. The request was brought up by Smith’s attorneys during the case’s progression when lawyers representing the state of Colorado questioned the grounds for her lawsuit.

This revelation has diverted attention from Smith’s legal victory at a time when she might have expected to celebrate, but instead finds herself entangled in a setback for gay rights.

In court documents from 2017, Smith named Stewart as the requester and included his contact information, such as his phone number and email address. However, Stewart informed The Big Big News that he never submitted such a request and was unaware of his involvement in the lawsuit until contacted by a reporter from The New Republic, the first to report his denial.

“I was extremely surprised, considering the fact that I have been happily married to a woman for the past 15 years,” said Stewart, who chose not to disclose his last name due to concerns of harassment and threats. His contact information, excluding his last name, appeared in the court documents.

Stewart, who identifies as a designer himself, stated that he could create his own website if necessary. He expressed his concern that no one had investigated the authenticity of the request attributed to him until recently.

Smith’s attorney, Kristen Waggoner, asserted during a news conference on Friday that the wedding request naming Stewart had indeed been submitted through Smith’s website and dismissed claims of fabrication.

Waggoner suggested that it could have been a troll who made the request, an occurrence she claimed to have encountered with other clients she represented. In 2018, her client, Colorado baker Jack Phillips, achieved a partial victory in the U.S. Supreme Court after refusing to create a wedding cake for a gay couple, citing his Christian faith.

“It is undisputed that the request was received,” Waggoner stated. “Whether it was a troll and not a genuine request, or if it was someone seeking that particular outcome, is irrelevant to the case.”

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser labeled the lawsuit as a “fabricated case” since Smith was not providing wedding website services when the suit was initially filed.

While Weiser was not aware of the specifics regarding Stewart’s denial, he expressed his belief that the Supreme Court should not have addressed the merits of the lawsuit “without any basis in reality.”

Approximately one month after the case was filed in federal court, challenging an anti-discrimination law in Colorado, the state’s lawyers argued that Smith had not suffered any harm from the law and sought to dismiss the case.

Smith’s legal team maintained that she did not need to face punishment for violating the law before challenging it. In February 2017, they stated that despite not requiring a request to pursue the case, Smith had indeed received one.

“Any assertion that Lorie would never receive a request to create a custom website celebrating a same-sex ceremony is no longer valid because Lorie has received such a request,” they asserted.

Smith’s filings to the Supreme Court briefly mentioned that she had received at least one request to create a website commemorating a same-sex wedding. However, there did not appear to be any reference to this issue in the court’s decision.


Rhonda Shafner, a researcher for Big Big News, contributed to this report from New York.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about controversy surrounding cited request

Q: What was the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding gay rights in this case?

A: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado web designer, stating that she could refuse to create wedding websites for gay couples.

Q: Who is the individual named “Stewart” mentioned in the text?

A: “Stewart” is a person whose name was invoked in the lawsuit, as a request for a wedding website was attributed to him. However, he denies ever submitting such a request and claims to have been unaware of his involvement until recently.

Q: Was the request from “Stewart” the primary basis for the lawsuit?

A: No, the request from “Stewart” was not the main reason for the lawsuit. It was referenced during the case’s progression when lawyers questioned the grounds for the web designer’s lawsuit against the state of Colorado.

Q: What implications does the denial from “Stewart” have on the case?

A: The denial from “Stewart” raises questions about the authenticity of the cited request and creates controversy around the evidence presented in the case.

Q: Was the lawsuit considered a setback for gay rights?

A: Yes, the lawsuit’s outcome is widely regarded as a setback for gay rights since it upheld the web designer’s right to refuse creating wedding websites for same-sex couples.

Q: Did the Supreme Court address the validity of the cited request in their decision?

A: There does not appear to be any reference to the issue of the cited request in the Supreme Court’s decision. The court focused on the broader legal implications rather than the specifics of this particular request.

Q: What explanations have been given for the disputed request?

A: The web designer’s attorney suggested that the request could have come from a troll or someone seeking a specific outcome, claiming that such occurrences have happened with other clients represented by the attorney. However, the authenticity of the request remains in question.

Q: What is the stance of the Colorado Attorney General on the lawsuit?

A: The Colorado Attorney General considers the lawsuit to be a “made up case” since the web designer was not offering wedding website services when the suit was initially filed. The Attorney General believes that the Supreme Court should not have addressed the lawsuit’s merits without any basis in reality.

More about controversy surrounding cited request

You may also like

Leave a Comment

logo-site-white

BNB – Big Big News is a news portal that offers the latest news from around the world. BNB – Big Big News focuses on providing readers with the most up-to-date information from the U.S. and abroad, covering a wide range of topics, including politics, sports, entertainment, business, health, and more.

Editors' Picks

Latest News

© 2023 BBN – Big Big News

en_USEnglish