Did Factual Revelations Undermine 303 Creative?

Recent reporting doesn't materially undermine, and could even strengthen, the case for standing.

This series of posts by Prof. Richard Re (Virginia) is based on his draft article, "Does the Discourse on 303 Creative Portend a Standing Realignment," which is forthcoming in the Notre Dame Law Review Reflection.

One of the most salient indictments of 303 Creative v. Elenis concerned allegedly false facts that supposedly undergirded the case. This post turns to those factual issues. Here's an excerpt from my paper:

Shortly after initiating suit, the designer [plaintiff Lorie Smith] supposedly received a terse request for web services in connection with a same-sex wedding. This asserted fact featured in the designer's briefing throughout the case. Why? Because it is very hard to view such requests as speculative if one has already taken place. Thus, this supposed fact tended to buttress the designer's claim of standing. Yet the district court doubted the significance of the asserted fact, and neither the Court of Appeals nor the Supreme Court explicitly mentioned it at all.

On the eve of the Supreme Court's decision, Melissa Gira Grant of The New Republic broke the news that she had contacted the individual who had supposedly made the request, and he denied doing so. This report was later confirmed. By then, the Supreme Court had issued its decision without commenting on the matter. And Grant's story had set off a firestorm.

Some reactions to Grant's story reveal an assumption that the attorneys in 303 Creative fabricated the apparently bogus request to help their case. Other commentators, however, have expressed doubt on that point, at least until specific proof comes to light. Clearly, any attempt to fabricate evidence—particularly by an attorney—would constitute unethical behavior.

For present purposes, the most relevant issue is whether this asserted factual revelation materially changes the standing analysis. For a skeptic of pre-enforcement review, the answer might be yes. Only an actual request for services, the skeptic might think, could possibly justify federal court review.

Yet we have already seen that, under governing case law, the case for standing was quite strong. And, in setting out that view, I didn't so much as mention that the designer had received a request for services. In that respect, I have followed in the footsteps of every appellate judge who found standing in the case.

The second alleged misrepresentation also comes from Grant, who has now earned a reputation for getting legal scoops. Grant's newer article was admirably careful about the import of her discoveries. For instance, Grant noted about her own earlier story debunking the services request: "the existence of the request was likely not going to be decisive in the ultimate outcome of the case."

However, Grant argued that her new discovery "strikes closer to the heart of the matter." As she explained: "In 2015, a web designer named Lorie Smith featured [a] wedding website in her portfolio of recent work …. But … [t]he page detailing her role in the wedding website's creation was removed some time before she filed a legal challenge [in 2016]." Grant therefore argued: "It is now clear that Smith [the designer] had, in fact, built a wedding website and advertised that work on her own website without, it appears, any of the adverse consequences she and her attorneys said could follow." Yet what the designer apparently did before wasn't the same as what she said she wanted to do going forward, such as posting a notice of the type that underlay her Communication Clause claim.

At any rate, Grant's piece candidly acknowledged: "in fact, if ADF [who represented the designer] had shared what had happened with Smith's first wedding website, it may have strengthened her case." Why? Because "ADF is now saying that Smith took the wedding website down because she feared the law, which could be a stronger argument for her speech being chilled." Grant's piece thus recognized that this allegedly buried fact could have helped the designer's case for standing. Yet it is unlikely that a plaintiff would illicitly conceal something that is helpful to her case. And it would be more than a bit strange to criticize the designer for not telling us that her case was even stronger than we'd thought.

But perhaps recent stories have uncovered only the tip of an iceberg. Much of the designer's case could be fabricated or exaggerated, even if those potential fabrications haven't yet come to light. Adding to that concern, some of the factual premises of other cases handled by ADF have also been questioned. Given what we currently know, however, another plausible view is that the litigants and courts in 303 Creative didn't explore the foregoing factual issues in detail simply because they didn't matter very much, if at all. The parties entered joint stipulations on the key facts, without expending limited time on side issues.

And the judicial system was entitled to rely on those stipulations. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized for the Court in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, a 5–4 liberal victory, "Factual stipulations are binding and conclusive."

We have now seen that both legal and factual criticisms of 303 Creative are uncompelling, at least as a matter of existing doctrine. In my next post, I'll discuss why those criticisms nonetheless proved so popular.

Comments

[ReaderY]

I’m going to move an inch closer to Dilan Esper here. Dilan might have done a better job persuading if he had simply calmly recited facts.

The issue here is credibility. The only evidence for standing was the plaintiffs’ statements and affidavits. If the plaintiffs lied about receiving the request, it makes it more probable that they lied about everything else, as Dilan has been contending. One ordinarily believes plaintiffs in cases like this, and one shouldn’t look at religious plaintiffs with hyper-scrutiny because one doesn’t like their views, as Dilan’s rhetoric suggested to me he was doing.

But if they lied about this, they might have lied about everything. And if they lied about everything, they had no standing by any standard.

[Lee Moore]

If the plaintiffs lied about receiving the request, it makes it more probable that they lied about everything else, as Dilan has been contending.

What's the evidence that they did though ?

1. First we need to accept that "Stewart" is telling the truth when he says he made no request.

2. Then we have to be able to pin the lie on Lorie Smith or her lawyers, as opposed to :

3. Someone who supported her case and imagined that it would be a useful "fact" or

4. Someone who opposed her case and imagined that it might be a killer way to explode her case, by revealing it was a fake later on

Of course if the Colorado authorities, suspecting fraud, decided to investigate and found a smokin' gun in her old emails or the emails of her lawyers that would be different.

But as it is, we have a whole universe of people with a motive to lie, starting with Lorie Smith, through Stewie, and on to anyone else with an opinion on same sex marriage.

[CommentMonkey]

Right. And it has been reported that Stewart's email and phone number were available on his website. So it would not have been difficult for a third party to send the inquiry using Stewart's information.

One could say Smith had the strongest motivation to lie, given her status as a litigant with a potential standing problem. But if the goal was to bolster standing, the timing is a little odd (a day or so after the case was brought and before standing was challenged). If she was going to fabricate an inquiry, why wait until right after the case was filed?

Based on the timing, it makes more sense that someone who saw the lawsuit and had a strong ideological stake in the outcome sent it as a means of strengthening standing (if the person supported her) or trying to tease out a response expressing anti-gay animus (if the person didn't). Such a person would not have bothered until the existence of the lawsuit became public.

The bottom line is anyone claiming certainty that Smith fabricated the inquiry (or that she didn't) is probably not looking at this thing objectively. To make the further leap that Smith's lawyers acted unethically is pretty irresponsible.

And it won't do to blame Smith or her lawyers for failing to investigate the inquiry. They had no obligation to do so. If she was concerned about the consequences of not providing services to the inquirer, it would have made more sense for her to ignore the inquiry than contact the inquirer and run the risk of a hostile interaction.

[Dilan Esper]

The bottom line is anyone claiming certainty that Smith fabricated the inquiry (or that she didn’t) is probably not looking at this thing objectively. To make the further leap that Smith’s lawyers acted unethically is pretty irresponsible.

You know there's this thing called an evidentiary hearing?

[CommentMonkey]

It would be up to the opposing party to ask for an evidentiary hearing on the website inquiry. It isn't the court's role (or ours) to develop a factual record. The Colorado attorney general, with no shortage of investigative resources, evidently has no interest in chasing this down.

Interestingly, Colorado made a ripeness argument in its Supreme Court merits brief, but not on this issue. If there was any chance of an evidentiary hearing making a material difference as to standing, one would expect an argument for remand to have been made.

[Dilan Esper]

The Court can do it sua sponte. It literally does not matter what the state says.

Article III jurisdiction can't be stipulated by parties. I realize "Colorado did it" is your side's excuse for everything, but Colorado's stipulations are completely irrelevant to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.

[CommentMonkey]

I get that a party can't stipulate to Article III standing, and even stipulated facts aren't binding on the court if there are reasons to doubt their accuracy. But here neither party, in an otherwise hotly contested case, seems to believe that holding an evidentiary hearing on Ms. Smith's truthfulness/sincerity/motives is worth doing. The 10th Circuit didn't think a remand on standing was necessary and neither did any of the Supreme Court Justices, despite sharp disagreement on the merits.

So the argument isn't "Colorado did it." The point is that no one actually connected with this case believes there's any value in holding an evidentiary hearing. I suspect that is because the "fake inquiry" theory is too speculative. Or maybe it is because, as a practical matter, it's extraordinarily difficult to catch a witness lying about her future intentions.

I don't love the "credible threat" standard. This case illustrates some of the subjectivity and difficulty of applying it. But I agree with the judges and litigants that an evidentiary hearing in this case would almost certainly have been a waste of time.

[Dilan Esper]

Yes, courts and parties dropped the ball here. It happens. But at the end of the day, that doesn't make the decision correct; it just means a lot of people dropped the ball.

[Dilan Esper]

That's exactly the issue.

[Martinned]

Factual stipulations are binding and conclusive, but should they be? Because in some circumstances it seems like there's a risk that parties could stipulate facts in order to engineer a case or controversy where there isn't one, in order to obtain an advisory opinion. I'm not so interested in whether that happened here, but it does seem like something worth worrying about in general.

[Lee Moore]

It's only a problem if the parties are on the same side (not the case here.) And otherwise it's a valuable way to avoid time proving things that don't need proving.

There's no particular reason to police fake cases by preventing the stipulation of facts rather than by some other method, such as allowing interested third parties to intervene in the case.

[Martinned]

It's also a problem whenever parties are on opposite sides but agree that they want an advisory opinion.

[Dilan Esper]

FWIW they are never binding on subject matter jurisdiction (which Article III standing is). If SCOTUS had wanted to say "we're going to remand so the lower court can hold a factual hearing on standing", they absolutely could have, and the stipulations in no way could preclude that hearing.

[Martinned]

Thanks, that answers my question.

[ReaderY]

Professor Re raises a second issue tending to corroborate the plaintiffs, that Ms. Smith had a previous wedding website but dropped it out of concern the law would be enforced on her. That does tend to countermand the first issue.

But nonetheless, it makes it a different case from the case that was decided. There is new evidence on both sides that has to be weighed. The result may ultimately end up in favor of standing. But a district court should decide the question, not the Supreme Court.

[Dilan Esper]

For present purposes, the most relevant issue is whether this asserted factual revelation materially changes the standing analysis.

The standing issue depends almost entirely on whether Lorrie Smith and her lawyers are liars. They are claiming, SOLELY on their say-so, that she plans to open this business, and that she intends to have the policy (not common among homophobes) of serving gay couples equally but just not doing wedding announcements for them, and she's afraid to do so because of Colorado law.

If she and her lawyers are liars, then there's no reason to credit any of these things she is saying.

And the false claim of a customer inquiry is powerful evidence that in fact her and the ADF lawyers are dishonest.

Which means yes, it makes a HUGE difference for standing. At the very least it means we should cross examine Lorrie Smith and see if her testimony stands up before we give her access to a federal court to undermine an important anti-discrimination law.

All the people who love this case want desperately for all of us to take Smith's word on the things she says. But we shouldn't.

[Rossami]

Do you have any evidence that she (or her lawyers) are lying? Or is your argument entirely based on circumstantial inferences?

Standing for lots of cases are decided on the basis of the parties' mere say-so about their intentions. 'I challenge Company A's ADA practices because I intend to (and can't) shop there.' 'I challenge Township B's gun law because I intend to (and can't) buy a gun.' Absent actual evidence (not mere speculation) that they are lying, courts accept plaintiffs' clearly-stated intentions at face value.

[Dilan Esper]

I do realize that a lot of times we take litigants say-so. But we aren't required to- evidentiary hearings are a thing. And as I said, the fake inquiry casts real doubt on these particular folks' credibility.

[David Nieporent]

The thing is, it doesn't make a lot of sense that Smith (let alone her lawyers) did it to fabricate standing. Why on earth pick a real, random person (and use the person's actual contact info), rather than just making someone up who couldn't be verified?

The closest thing I can get to a rational explanation for any of it is that the lawyers were talking amongst themselves (or to Smith) and said, "We think we have a good case on the merits, but we're vulnerable on standing; if someone had actually tried to hire 303 Creative for a gay wedding website the case would be much stronger," and some nitwit non-lawyer heard this and thought s/he could "help" by faking this inquiry. But I still can't get past the fact that it was a real, straight person's name. Why would someone trying to help take that approach?

It seems to me that a more likely explanation is that someone who knew the guy heard about the lawsuit and was pranking him by signing him up for a gay website, with no agenda.

[Dilan Esper]

Be nice if we held a hearing and actually found out.

[David Nieporent]

Setting aside what you think a hearing would reveal ("Ms. Smith, did you fabricate this inquiry?" "No." "Um, okay. Now what?") why would anyone bother to hold such a hearing when the court did not rely on the inquiry to establish standing?

[Dilan Esper]

Because they relied on the affidavits of a potential liar making dubious claims and represented by potentially dishonest counsel to establish standing.

[Rossami]

Everyone is a "potential liar" (including you, me and every participant in any litigation ever). That alone is not and never has been a sufficient basis for spending judicial resources. You still haven't established anything beyond rank speculation.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You still haven't shown any evidence that she's dishonest.

The fake inquiry doesn't show that. As has been pointed out, if she were lying to establish standing, she wouldn't have used an easily verifiable straight guy, she would have used a fake name or a verifiable gay guy.

[Lee Moore]

The fake inquiry doesn’t show that.

Don't be accepting Dilan's insistence that the inquiry was "fake."

There is exactly as much evidence that Stewart's denial is a lie as there is that Lorie Smith made it up - ie none, in either case.

[Bored Lawyer]

They are claiming, SOLELY on their say-so, that she plans to open this business, and that she intends to have the policy (not common among homophobes) of serving gay couples equally but just not doing wedding announcements for them, and she’s afraid to do so because of Colorado law.

You really are clueless about what religious people think, which may be why you are so incredulous. In fact, in EVERY case in which the issue has come up, the religious person has taken exactly the same position as the plaintiff here. The fact that you cannot even wrap your head around their position, and resort to labelling it homophobic, is the root of your problem.

Let's see if we can outline their position:
1. Homosexual behavior is a grave sin.
2. Same-sex marriage is an enabler of that grave sin, since a core purpose of marriage is intimate relations.
3. We are required to love the sinner but hate the sin.
4. In our ordinary business life, we don't check into the person's level of sin when dealing with them. If a gay person, or an adulterer, or an idolater or any other known sinner walks into a bakery, for example, and wants to buy a donut, there is no reason not to do business with them. Their sin is between them and God, and the baker's selling them a donut in no way encourages or approves their sin.
5. If they ask for a custom item whose production calls for approval or support of their sin, then the religious person objects. That is the right that was asserted in 303 Creative. It's the same right not bake a cake celebrate Adolph Hitler's birthday, or celebrating a Hindu god, or celebrating Roe v. Wade.

And spare me your disagreement with any of the above. I assure you that millions of religious people think like that. 303 Creative stated that if a gay person wanted to hire her to design a website unconnected to same-sex marriage (e.g., a commercial website for a store or restaurant) she would do it. No reason to believe that is false.

[Dilan Esper]

I am not, in fact, clueless about religious homophobes.

Here's the reality. You are correct that there are a ton of people out there who still think men having sex with other men is sinful. That is quite true and I never denied that.

But you know what? The vast, vast, vast majority of that set of people do not discriminate against gays. If they own businesses, they serve all comers. If they have gay friends in their personal lives, they treat them equally, attend their weddings, celebrate their life achievements, treat their spouses as their spouses, etc.

Then there's a tiny rump of people who want gay people to know that they do not accept them, that their alleged God doesn't approve of them, that they are committing grave sin, etc. This is a tiny percentage EVEN OF RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS WITH CONSERVATIVE BELIEFS. You are trying to portray this as the mainstream but it is not. Belief that men having sex with men is sinful is perhaps a mainstream belief-- but the belief that one must discriminate against and express disapproval at all times of what gay people are doing is a fringe belief, a homophobic and bigoted one. That's the difference.

And my experience absolutely is that the kind of people who want to do that are not getting from their religion, because literally NOTHING in Christianity says "don't service a gay wedding". It's not there. It comes from bigotry- from a virulent hatred of gays and desire to remind them at all times that in your heart, they are second class citizens and sinners.

[Bored Lawyer]

Then there’s a tiny rump of people who want gay people to know that they do not accept them, that their alleged God doesn’t approve of them, that they are committing grave sin, etc. This is a tiny percentage EVEN OF RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS WITH CONSERVATIVE BELIEFS. You are trying to portray this as the mainstream but it is not. Belief that men having sex with men is sinful is perhaps a mainstream belief– but the belief that one must discriminate against and express disapproval at all times of what gay people are doing is a fringe belief, a homophobic and bigoted one. That’s the difference.

Further proof that you don't get it, or are posting in bad faith. No one said that one must express disapproval of sin "at all times."

What is being said is that if you ask a religious person to do some act, even a commercial act, that expresses approval of sin, then they don't want to do it. There is a big difference between walking around and telling gays they are sinning ("at all times" acc. to you), and refusing to express approval of sin when they come to you.

When these issues arose a few years ago, I posted a hypothetical of a gay print-shop owner being asked by members of the Westboro Baptist Church to print up 100 signs that say "God hates F--GS." The owner, IMO, should be free not to do so, because he finds such the message of such a sign abhorrent.

[Randal]

Then why did she want to conspicuously post “No gay weddings!” on her website? That’s the equivalent of your print shop owner putting up a “No Baptist slogans!” sign. Why single out gay people when there are lots of other sorts of weddings she wouldn’t condone? Why single out Baptists when there are lots of other slogans the print-shop owner wouldn’t print?

Obviously, the answer is what Dilan says: there’s a small set of these religious types who feel like public disapproval of this particular sin is really really important to them which makes them fundamentalist bigots.

[Dilan Esper]

Exactly. The desire here is not to simply maintain a belief that homosexuality is sinful. That's absolutely protected and as I said, I even think it's probably still a fairly widely-held belief.

It's to say it loud and proud-- it's to put that No Irish Need Apply language in the ad, to put up that Whites Only sign. It's to advertise that she thinks gays are Second Class Citizens.

[David Nieporent]

Then why did she want to conspicuously post “No gay weddings!” on her website?

So that she wouldn't have to turn away inquiries from gay people, which would be worse for them and her?

[Randal]

"Conservative Christian Weddings by Lorie" would've done the trick.

[Lee Moore]

No, it wouldn't, precisely because not all "conservative Christians" have identical religious views. "conservative Christian weddings" is not definitive of the question as to whether you are willing to supply goods and services for a gay wedding. "No gay weddings" is.

[Randal]

Why does it need to be "definitive" when it comes to gays but not other groups like satanists, "red weddings" and the like?

Oh I know! Because she wants to make a big public display of her bigotry. Can't leave that ambiguous! That's the whole point Dilan and I are making.

[Dilan Esper]

When these issues arose a few years ago, I posted a hypothetical of a gay print-shop owner being asked by members of the Westboro Baptist Church to print up 100 signs that say “God hates F–GS.” The owner, IMO, should be free not to do so, because he finds such the message of such a sign abhorrent.

It's telling that you think a person expressing virulent and irrational hatred against gays is analogous to a couple who is getting married and wants to celebrate that happy day. It shows a lot about your value system.

[Lee Moore]

It's telling that you can't focus on the logic of the analogy, without being drowned by a tide of emoting.

[Rossami]

The fact that you reflexively call anyone who disagrees with your position a "homophobe" is all the evidence we need that you either still don't or are actively unwilling to understand them. It also indicates that you either don't know or don't care what a phobia really is and are likely just trying to score cheap rhetorical points rather than trying to have an honest conversation.

By the way, your "NOTHING in Christianity says don’t service a gay wedding” is a nullity. The Bible also doesn't say 'don't service a robot wedding'. The reason is the same - neither existed at the time. Your assumption that the motivation must be bigotry and "virulent hatred" says a lot more about you than it does about the people you are fighting.

[Dilan Esper]

Again, I don't consider everyone who has a technical belief about the morality of a certain sex act a homophobe. I also don't think anyone who thinks that Lorrie Smith has a First Amendment right to do what she did is a homophobe either.

Those are all people I disagree with that I don't consider homophobes.

I think that Lorrie Smith herself, however, is a homophobe. See the difference?

And the reason she's a homophobe is not because she differs with me on sexual morality or the First Amendment-- it's because she wants to refuse service to gays and lesbians in her business, and to declare that prejudice on her website, and litigated a case to establish her right to do that.

[Randal]

There are other grave sins. Why are religious people so preoccupied with homosexuals?

That's why she should've lost. Her First Amendment claim basically comes down to "I should be allowed to advertise my illegal business in an illegal way" where her illegal business is "services for straight people."

If her business was "services that align with my religious beliefs" it wouldn't be an illegal business. She's going out of her way to single out homosexuals. Why????? That's the question no one has ever answered.

[Dilan Esper]

The last paragraph of your post is quite correct.

And again, this is why it would be good to force her through discovery and put her under the pressure of testifying under oath before we grant her standing. Find out exactly what her beliefs on sexual morality are- is the only form of sex God prohibits sex between men? And if not, what steps she takes to ensure her business isn't celebrating all those forms of sex.

[Cheerio]

I think that might make sense if this case were being decided on religion grounds rather than speech grounds. But for "speech" purposes, I don't think sincerity actually matters...

[David Nieporent]

That’s why she should’ve lost. Her First Amendment claim basically comes down to “I should be allowed to advertise my illegal business in an illegal way” where her illegal business is “services for straight people.”

No; she raised two claims. The first was that her business was legal; the second was that she should be able to advertise this legal business.

If her business was “services that align with my religious beliefs” it wouldn’t be an illegal business. She’s going out of her way to single out homosexuals. Why????? That’s the question no one has ever answered.

What? She made it quite clear why. Because she doesn't agree with gay marriage.

I don't even understand your first sentence. You can't escape antidiscrimination law by saying that it's against your religious beliefs to not discriminate. (I mean, she raised that argument also, but SCOTUS did not hear that case and courts have almost uniformly rejected it.)

[Randal]

I see you still haven't read the dissent, or perhaps you just haven't understood it.

You can't escape anti-discriminstion law by claiming a religious right to discriminate.

But you don't have to advertise your business as discriminatory when it isn't just as a way to flaunt anti-discrimination law and intentionally throw sand in the eyes of gay people. Advertising your non-discriminatory business as discriminatory should have remained illegal. But at least this way we all know who the assholes are.

[Davy C]

If her business was “services that align with my religious beliefs” it wouldn’t be an illegal business. She’s going out of her way to single out homosexuals. Why?????

Why? Because as a wedding services person, that's like the ONE thing that (a) automatically makes the wedding itself a sin, (b) is knowable by her, and (c) is currently legal.

What other services would violate her religious beliefs? A wedding involving someone she knows to be a sinner? Nothing says sinners in general can't get married. A marriage where one person plans to murder the other? She has no way of knowing that. A marriage where one of the parties is 8? She doesn't expect many of those requests because the law would weed them out.

[Randal]

https://www.misfitwedding.com/blog/ralis-and-katies-satanic-wedding/

There are lots of legal wedding ceremonies that are inherently sinful other than gay ones.

[Randal]

https://unconventionalwedding.co.uk/red-wedding-in-the-forest/amp/

[Lee Moore]

She’s going out of her way to single out homosexuals. Why????? That’s the question no one has ever answered.

Because no one has - yet - lobbied the Colorado legislature to seek a law requiring anyone in business, including Christians, to supply goods and services for Piss Christ parties.

The issue with same sex weddings is that those are the things (providing compelled services thereto) which offend certain religious belefs, and which legislative pals of Dilan are compelling this week. But wait for next week - there'll be more !

[Randal]

That doesn’t explain why she would want to shine an anti-gay spotlight on herself.

Totally the opposite, actually.

Consider too that most people in this situation just say something bland like "We reserve the right to deny service to anyone." Not "God hates gay weddings and I won't do them!"

[damikesc]

Well, Masterpiece Bakery certainly showed how well that works out...

[TwelveInchPianist]

If the plaintiff or her lawyers were going to fabricate a request, why would they use the real name of a straight guy. You'd think they'd use a fictitious name, or the real name of a gay guy.

[Randal]

Sorry I’m late to the party.

My take on standing analysis is that the court failed to account for the additional leaps of logic required to get to the “credible threat” of enforcement compared to a typical pre-enforcement challenge.

Usually, a speaker is afraid to say something for fear of being punished. Pretty straightforward, and the chilled speech is a clear First Amendment injury which has already occurred.

Here, a speaker is… afraid to say something? That’s generous, but that’s a different conversation… not for fear of being punished, but for fear of being compelled to say something else, which if she then declined to do, she’d have a fear of being punished.

I have to think that extra step makes a (big) difference to pre-enforcement standing, but it wasn’t addressed at all by the court.

[not guilty]

Separate and apart from whether Lorie Smith received a request from "Stewart," what if she lied about her intention to offer website design services to heterosexual couples at all? Has she designed any such websites since SCOTUS ruled in her favor on June 30 of this year?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

No, she has not.

Her website still does not advertise that she offers wedding websites at all, to anyone.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Separate and apart from whether Lorie Smith received a request from “Stewart,” what if she lied about her intention to offer website design services to heterosexual couples at all?"

Then somebody should prove that.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You should pay attention to what other people say if you want proof, considering I mentioned almost an hour before you posted that she still does not offer wedding websites.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yes, I'm aware of that. But you get that that doesn't prove that she lied about her intentions, right? People's intentions change.

[Davy C]

What about the one she did the year before she filed the case? Maybe she just wants to do, like, one per year.