Text from post:

So lemme get this straight.

  1. Lorie Smith, owner of 303 Creative, doesn’t actually design websites. Her company doesn’t actually provide that service.
  2. Stewart (last name withheld) didn’t ask for a wedding site for him and his husband from her.
  3. Stewart isn’t gay. He’s married to a woman and they have a kid together.
  4. AND what could possibly be the most ironic occupation for Stewart to have? He’s a web designer.

You can’t make this shit up. Or I guess you can. Because Lorie and the Supreme Court did.

Link to original post

  • Tvkan@feddit.de
    61·
    1 year ago

    That’s just the result of the inability to challenge laws unless you’re personally affected.

    In Germany we have something called abstrakte Normen-Kontrolle, which does exactly what it sounds it does: Federal or state governments or a quarter of members of parliament can ask the Consitutional Court to review a law in the abstract and decide wether it’s compatible with the constitution.

    This saves a lot of headaches when it comes to laws that are on the books but unenforced, or are new and so far unchallenged.

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
      41·
      1 year ago

      The whole idea of “standing” is to prevent contrived arguments about chipmunks and candycanes from driving jurisprudence. I think it’s a reasonable bar to have, as long as it is enforced evenly, which in this case it obviously was not.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        5·
        1 year ago

        Standing is important to maintain to keep courts from being completely overrun, but it’s also important to have a way to get cases heard without standing in extraordinary circumstances. A handful of times laws get passed that negatively affect many people, but not enough to qualify for standing, effectively making the law above reproach, which is bad for everyone.