under the colorado public accommodations law. so right, what we kind of fill the void of having no parties on the other side. only one aggrieved party this had no harm, it s a bunch of hypotheticals, and you said it in your intro, it led to some awkward comedy stylings. i m assuming justice alito didn t quite realize what he was doing. what i was doing materially harming gay couples around the country and instead, he substituted think that was of a silly, trivial, and demeaning of the seriousness of this case that for a lot of us who are watching, it felt kind of insulting. i feel, like for such a long, time we ve held the supreme court in this country we put it
way, because we are talking about democracy and political rights, the other case i wanted to talk to about was more about of civil rights, and that is 303 creative, do have designer in this case have never made a wedding website for at any one, it certainly is not over someone s sexuality this is a case that was entirely hypothetical, there s no harm done, an unlikely masterpiece cake shop, case which folks will i do want to make a wedding cake for same sex couple, there is no same-sex couple here, because no one s been denied services, no inside relief under the colorado public accommodations law. so right, what we kind of fill the void of having no parties on the other side. only one aggrieved party this
Supreme Court heard arguments on whether wedding website creator may legally refuse to make sites for same-sex couples based on First Amendment grounds. 303 Creative v. Elenis asks where to draw line between religious freedom and antidisrimination public accommodations law.
Massachusetts attorney general Maura Healey made another move involving the automotive space last week, alleging more misdeeds involving how vehicles are financed.