Questions Over Authenticity of Plaintiff in Supreme Court Gay Rights Case Spark Ethical and Legal Debate

A Christian graphic designer, who was cleared by the Supreme Court to decline creating wedding websites for gay couples, alluded to a request from a man named “Stewart” and his fiancé during her lawsuit. However, Stewart insists this never transpired.

This revelation prompts queries on how Lorie Smith’s case was permitted to advance to the top court in the nation amid such an ostensible distortion, and whether Colorado, the defeated party in the case, has any legal options.

This situation has acted as yet another sideshow at the close of an intensely divisive term for a Supreme Court beset by ethical dilemmas and disputatious verdicts along ideological lines, rejecting affirmative action in higher education and President Joe Biden’s $400 billion proposal to eliminate or reduce federal student loan debts.

OTHER NEWS
Denver’s rapid growth appoints Mike Johnston as new mayor amidst rising major city issues
Clinic declares not enforcing abortion law insufficient
Progress seen in Colorado gun control bills; semi-auto ban unlikely
Colorado presents safe sanctuary for abortion, transgender care

Here’s an exploration of the legal concerns regarding the enigmatic supposed client, “Stewart:”

WHAT SIGNIFICANCE DID THE CLAIM HOLD IN THE CASE?

In the case’s progression, the state argued that Smith — who did not plan to begin crafting wedding websites until her case was settled — would initially need a request from a gay couple and reject it, leading to a possible charge against her.

Smith’s attorneys argued that she didn’t need to be penalized for contravening the law prior to contesting it. In a February 2017 filing, they disclosed that though a request wasn’t needed to advance the case, one had indeed been received. The filing’s appendix contained a website request form submitted by Stewart on Sept. 21, 2016, shortly after the lawsuit was initiated. It also contained a Feb. 1, 2017 affidavit from Smith stating she had received Stewart’s request.

Smith’s Supreme Court submissions briefly mentioned at least one request to create a website celebrating a same-sex wedding without elaborating.

Stewart and his partner Mike supposedly sought design work on items like invitations and place setting cards for their upcoming nuptials, according to the request. “We might also stretch to a website,” the form stated.

Colorado’s lawyers argued in their Supreme Court brief in August that it didn’t constitute an actual website request, and the company didn’t make efforts to confirm if a “genuine prospective customer submitted the form.” It remains uncertain whether the state attempted to verify if Stewart — whose contact details were part of court documents — was a legitimate potential client.

Stewart told The Big Big News last week that he was unaware his name was involved in the case until he was contacted by a reporter from The New Republic, which first publicized his denial. Stewart, who chose not to disclose his last name due to fear of harassment and threats, expressed his surprise, revealing that he has been married to a woman for 15 years.

COULD THIS DISCOVERY INFLUENCE THE CASE NOW?

It’s highly doubtful. The purported client’s request was not the foundation of Smith’s initial lawsuit, nor was it referenced by the Supreme Court as the basis for ruling in her favor. Legal standing, or the right to file a lawsuit, generally necessitates that the individual initiating the case demonstrates some sort of harm. But pre-enforcement challenges — such as the one brought by Smith — are permitted in certain situations if the individual can establish a credible threat of prosecution or penalties unless they comply with the law.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which reviewed the case before the Supreme Court, determined that Smith had the standing to

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Supreme Court Gay Rights Case

More about Supreme Court Gay Rights Case

• Supreme Court of the United States
• Lorie Smith’s Case Details (Note: This is a placeholder as I don’t have real-time access to specific case details post-2021.)
• Berkeley Law School
• Loyola Law School
• Affirmative Action in Higher Education
• President Biden’s Student Loan Plan
• ProPublica’s Review of Supreme Court Decisions