this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2023
15 points (94.1% liked)

Best of Mastodon

2221 readers
1 users here now

Share the best posts you find on mastodon. Add a link to the original toot

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
15
Supreme Court... (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What is this referring to?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Driving me crazy that I didn't find an answer so while this is old, this is the first article that popped up when I searched "Lorie Smith Court"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Thank you so much, came across this by chance and was completely and utterly lost what this was referring to.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So they made their decision based on a fucking lie ? What the hell is that.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

That's US "democracy" Bought and paid for, wholesale.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 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.