In a shocking twist, the recent Supreme Court decision permitting business owners to refuse service to LGBTQ customers based on religious beliefs appears to have been influenced by a fabricated story.
The ruling, which favored a Colorado web designer’s refusal to create websites for same-sex weddings due to religious objections, is now raising alarms about potential repercussions for minority groups and the erosion of civil rights protections across the United States.
The web designer, Lorie Smith, had argued in court filings that she was approached by a man seeking her services for his same-sex wedding. However, the individual at the center of this claim has come forward to vehemently deny any involvement. Referred to as “Stewart” in the court documents, he asserts that he never reached out to Smith and, in fact, identifies as heterosexual and happily married to a woman for 15 years, CNN reports.
“I don’t know Mike,” Stewart told the network. “I’ve never asked anybody to design a website for me, so it’s all very strange. I certainly didn’t contact her, and whatever the information in that request is, is fake.”
Don't Miss
Stewart, a web designer himself, expressed astonishment upon discovering his inclusion in the court records without any attempt to verify the accuracy of the communication described. He criticized the lack of fact-checking throughout the six-year-long case and stressed the need for corroboration in such high-stakes matters.
“It is concerning that nobody connected with this case over the last six years has ever thought to call me, email me, text me to try and corroborate that communication in any way,” he said, adding: “I don’t necessarily think that would be a tipping point in this case at all, but at the very least … a case of this magnitude should be corroborated, should be fact checked along the way.”
CNN revealed that Stewart never made a request to the web design company, 303 Creative, challenging the credibility of Smith’s claim. He emphasized that, as a web designer, it would make no sense for him to hire external services when he possesses the necessary skills to design websites himself.
As news of the fabricated story broke, concerns about the Supreme Court’s decision and its potential impact on civil rights protections began to mount. Advocates worry that this ruling could set a dangerous precedent, allowing further chipping away of protections for marginalized communities. The decision’s ramifications extend beyond LGBTQ individuals, potentially affecting other minority groups seeking equal treatment under the law.
Despite the revelations casting doubt on the veracity of Smith’s claims, she remains silent on the matter, as CNN’s request for comment went unanswered.
Kellie Fiedorek, a senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, the organization representing Smith, argued that whether the request was legitimate or falsified is irrelevant, contending that no one should have to endure punishment to challenge what they perceive as an unjust law.
Meanwhile, Stewart, deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s ruling, labeled it as disgraceful and suggested that the case might have been orchestrated to achieve a predetermined outcome. As a fellow designer, he firmly believes that professionals should not have the right to deny service based on factors such as sexual orientation, gender, or race.
The controversy is raising more questions about the integrity of the Supreme Court’s decision-making process and the potential consequences for the ongoing fight for equality and civil rights in the United States.
