Supreme Court ruling on gay rights cites web designer who denies receiving wedding site request

A web designer from Colorado, whose right to refuse creating 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, attributed to a person identified as “Stewart,” was not the original basis for web designer Lorie Smith’s preemptive federal lawsuit filed seven years ago, predating her involvement in designing wedding websites. However, as the case progressed, Smith’s attorneys referenced it when questioned by the state of Colorado regarding the legitimacy of her grounds for suing.

This revelation detracts from Smith’s legal victory, which many view as a setback for gay rights, at a time when she might have otherwise celebrated her win.

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

Stewart, who declined to disclose his last name due to concerns of harassment and threats, stated that he had been happily married to a woman for the past 15 years. He also mentioned being a designer and expressed surprise that the validity of the request attributed to him had not been investigated until recently. Furthermore, he asserted that he could design his own website if the need arose.

At a news conference on Friday, Smith’s lawyer, Kristen Waggoner, denied fabricating the wedding request attributed to Stewart. She suggested that it could have been the work of a troll, citing similar instances with other clients she has represented. In 2018, she successfully defended Colorado baker Jack Phillips in a partial U.S. Supreme Court victory when he refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple based on his Christian faith.

Waggoner stated, “It’s undisputed that the request was received. Whether that was a troll and not a genuine request, or it was someone who was looking for that, is really irrelevant to the case.”

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser criticized the lawsuit as a “made-up case” since Smith was not providing wedding website services when the suit was filed. Weiser, however, was unaware of the specifics of Stewart’s denial but argued that the Supreme Court should not have addressed the case without any basis in reality.

Shortly after the case was filed in federal court challenging Colorado’s anti-discrimination law, state lawyers claimed that Smith had not been harmed by the law and sought to dismiss the case. Smith’s lawyers countered that she did not need to suffer harm before challenging the law and insisted that she had indeed received a request, although not necessary to pursue the case.

Smith’s filings with the Supreme Court briefly mentioned that she had received at least one request to create a website for a same-sex wedding. However, the court’s decision did not seem to make any reference to this particular issue.

This report includes contributions from Rhonda Shafner, a researcher at Big Big News, based in New York.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Supreme Court ruling

More about Supreme Court ruling

• U.S. Supreme Court ruling on web designer and gay rights
• The New Republic report on disputed request
• Colorado Attorney General’s comments on the lawsuit
• Background on the anti-discrimination law in Colorado
• Supreme Court’s decision on the case