the justices ruled 6-or three in favor of lori smith, who sued over the state's discrimination law. she did not want to create websites for same-sex weddings. justice neil corbett schrote saying, the first amendment envisions the united states as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. in her dissent, justice sonia sotomayor wrote, for the first time in its history, we have a constitutional right to serve members of a protected class. now, critics worry that could open up the door to wide-spread discrimination. kenny choi is in the studio with us and has been getting reactions on the potential impact. >> this undermines nondiscrimination laws. it took so long to establish. it is a fact-specific case has one my professor told me today, but there are concerns for marginalized groups who feel like they are being treated like second-class citizens. >> reporter: on the last day celebrating pride, the lgbtq community faces the reality of the supreme court decision it says will embolden efforts to chip away at deca

the court's conservative supermajority declaring that denver-area website designer lorie smith has a constitutional right to refuse to design wedding websites for gay couples. the court holding that colorado's public accommodations law, which requires businesses that serve the general public to serve all equally, does not apply in cases where the product or service being offered expresses a message. and forcing smith to serve gay couples, the court reasoned, would be compelling her to speak a message she does not believe in, violating her first amendment rights. justice neil gorsuch, writing for the court's conservatives, declaring, "the first amendment envisions the united states as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands." upholding the colorado law in this case, gorsuch added, would mean that the government could force "an unwilling muslim movie director to make a film with a zionist message" or compel "an atheist muralist to accept a commission celebrating evangelical zeal." in dissent with her outnumbered

let's start with lori smith. obviously the short and simple answer is she says that she is willed with the decision. the supreme court siding with her on this. we all had a chance to speak with the legal director, gender justice in minnesota. you're gonna hear from them in just a moment. you are going to hear two very opposing opinions. satsuma actions to this. one of joy, of course, from lori smith and her legal team in those who side with her. of course, one that was described to me as not surprising but nonetheless disappointing. take a listen. >> since the start of my business many years ago i have served people from all walks of life. i've clients who identify as lgbt she. what i would say to them is this, this case is always been about speech. one speech is concerned, speech should be protected. >> no one really wants to go about their lives thinking, if i go to this place. if i go to this restaurant, if i go to the store, and we're gonna be turned away for who i am? the court seems to say, well, that is ju

. >> lori smith owns a company called 303 creative in littleton. she wants to make wedding websites, but not for same sex couples. she and her attorneys claim that colorado's antidiscrimination law violates hearst free speech rights. now her case has gone to the u.s. supreme court. >> she has not actually developed a website and refused to serve lgbt people, but she said if she does weddings which is where she is going to, she doesn't want to have to do that for same sex couples. >> okay. this case is, frankly, ridiculous. a woman who might want to start making wedding websites one day, but doesn't, and wasn't when she filed the suit. wants the right to refuse service to a hypothetical gay couple that wants her to design their website on these grounds, should they were masked trigger maker. what no one's answer to make her one. it's almost as if his case was designed for the express purpose of moving this issue up to the courts for the supreme court could rule on, it almost like an advisory opinion. now, to the fair, lori smith did eventually cite

of colorado was fake. >> in 2016, this website designer named lorie smith, whose business is calledve, she believed that a colorado anti-discrimination ordinance that protects people from discrimination -- among other things, from discrimination based on sexual orientation -- she believed that that precluded her from entering into the wedding website business. now, she has never created a wedding website for anybody, and including a same-sex couple. so in the course of making this argument, she claimed two things -- one, that this law meant that she couldn't post an announcement on her website saying that she wouldn't make these websites for any couple that wasn't in a biblical marriage that she approved of, and additionally, in a later filing in the original case in 2016, she claimed that an actual same-sex couple sought to have her build a website for them, that an inquiry -- it doesn't seem that it was a legitimate inquiry, but it remained in the case. it came up in the district court ruling that ruled against her. it came up in their appeal. it's even been included in filings to

well, five miles from the colorado baker is a graphic artist named lorie smith who will join me momentarily. she said she didn't want to create any same-sex wedding message at odds with her religious beliefs. she said she had never received a request to design a same-sex couple site, nor had she turned anyone down. smith won. a majority of the court saw colorado's public accommodation laws an unconstitutional attempt by the state to compel her speech. the minority cast the outcome as the first time the court permitted a commercial business to refuse service to a protected class. justice neil gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in which he stated this t all manner of speech from pictures, films, paintings, drawings and engravers, to oral utterance and the printed word qualify for the first amendment protections. no less can hold true when it comes to speech like miss smith's conveyed over the internet. lawyers and law schools love hypotheticals and both sides came well armed. justice gorsuch's majority warned if the state were successful, the government could similarly require an unwilling mu

it turns out militias call was the very first time stewart had heard of the case or lori smith. to a woman. stuart told melissa, quote, i wouldn't want anyone to make a wedding website, i'm married, i have a child, i am not really sure where that came from. somebody is using false information in the supreme court filing document. so, this case was based purely on the imagination of a would-be christian web designer. there was no injured party involved. the supreme court still ruled in favor of the web designer. now, colorado's antidiscrimination law is toast, making it easier for religious conservatives to outwardly discriminate against gay people. joining me now is the reporter who broke the story for the new republic, melissa jared grant, also joining us is neil, the man of the week, former actor u.s. solicitor general, msnbc legal analyst, and this term, he argued and won the landmark -- before the supreme court. welcome to you both. melissa, i'm gonna start with you, i just want you to tell us more about what unfolded after you discovered that stewart, who is listed in the c

this is what the lawyer for lori smith argued on her behalf at the supreme court. bout it after, you can take a listen. >> lori received a website request, design requests from a third party. even colorado agreed, is not her responsibility, nor she able to do background checks on those who she is receiving these requests from. colorado has told her that if she declines, and anyway, a request like this, she put herself in the crosshairs of this law. so again, it's undisputed that the request we received, received by a third party, whether that was a troll, and not a genuine request, or whether it was someone who was looking for that -- >> whether that was a troll and not a genuine request. iain, i know it took a reporter one phone call based upon that information on the third-party requests, to find out that not only was the gentleman who was reportedly, allegedly requesting the website married to a woman, but that he had never made the request at all. is there no, kind, of backstop? is there no checks and balance system that exist to be able to make sure that a case

that designer, owning lori smith, has not started her wedding website business yet, but this her christian prevents her from doing work that celebrates same-sex marriage. smith wants to post a statement explaining that her policies actually based on her beliefs. so, she sued. she sued to get an exemption from colorado's antidiscrimination law that prohibits discrimination against lgbtq plus people buy businesses that serve the public. now, as this case was making its way through the judicial process, all the way to the supreme court, laurie smith's lawyers argued in a brief to the tenth circuit court of appeals that she had received a request from a prospective customer named stewart, inquiring about a celebrated celebrate his wedding tsv on say, a person named mike. this week, supreme court justices were sent to decide whether lorries missed should be able to turn someone like that alleged perspective customer name stewart, turned him away. a reporter decided to get his contact information from the publicly bailable filing. and reach out to him, to hear what he has to say. find out what w

in the lori smith case that the supreme court decided today, the court essentially said that lori smith who said that she would make a website for anybody. all customers were welcome, but she said she didn't want to be required by the government in colorado to create a website that violated her deeply held religious beliefs. it was the same in the cake-baker case, jon, where he said, we'll sell a cake to anybody. we'll sell cookies. the bakery's open to anybody, whatever their background, whatever their lifestyle, but he could not be compelled -- the court held in that case. he could not be compelled to create a product that violated his conscience. it's a real victory for religious liberty, and a real victory for freedom of religion that is the first freedom in our country. >> jonathan: i want to get to ukraine. you met with president zelenskyy in ukraine. president trump in a recent interview said that territorial concessions would be a matter subject to negotiation. speaking with zelenskyy, did you get the sense he's ready to consider territorial concessions to russia to get peace? >

that said, this ruling is very specific to lorie smith and her case. not greenlight blanket discrimination against lgbtq+ people immediately. john: you are right, it does narrow this to services that express creative content, expression. could businesses try to frame their businesses in those terms? kate: that's what a lot of experts and advocates are expressing concern over. this remains to be seen. the way we would like to describe it, it creates a new opening, so it signals the supreme court and lower courts will now entertain this question of whether or not you can turn away an lgbtq+ person because of your beliefs. theoretically, based on this decision alone, it shouldn't. however, we've never had a decision where we say your religious beliefs allow you to turn away lgbtq+ people and so cracking the door open, a lot of people feel like could be the start of an avalanche. john: what is the current climate for lgbtq+ rights? kate: there are two answers. the first is the political climate, which i think a lot of us know has been really hard for lgbtq

the case was brought by evangelical christian web designer lori smith. >> the court affirmed today thatcannot force anyone to say something it doesn't believe. >> reporter: justice neil gorsuch writing for the conservative majority, "the first amendment envisions the united states as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands." in dissent, justice sonia sotomayor warning about the broad scope. "a website designer could equally refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, for example." the court also striking down president biden's student debt relief program. now the 43 million americans who borrowed more than $400 billion from the federal government will have to resume payments in october. >> i can't say i'm shocked. i can say that i'm furious. >> reporter: the conservative majority saying biden didn't have legal authority to implement such a sweeping program without congressional approval. today the president vowing a plan "b." >> a new path consistent with today's ruling to provide student debt r

against the right to be free from discrimination the court ruling in favor of a graphic designer, lorie smith, who says she wants to make wedding websites, but not for gay couples. >> whether you share my beliefs or completely disagree with them, free speech is for everyone. >> reporter: the six conservative justices concluding colorado state law prohibiting businesses from discriminating against customers would force smith to create speech she does not believe drawing a line between what the state conceded was smith's artistic expression and a more basic business like a restaurant open to all. the state blasting the decision >> this decision is not what our constitution, what our democratic republic stands for our work to protect equality and to limit the damage from this decision will start today. >> reporter: justice sotomayor for the second time this week reading her dissent from the bench for nearly 20 minutes calling the decision profoundly wrong saying, the effect is to mark lgbtq citizens as second class status. >> and, laura, the court has indicated it is going to take u another hot

the supreme court friday cited with web designer lori smith who said the antidiscriminatio n law violated her right to free speech and religious freedom. she did not want to create websites for same-sex weddings. >> no one should be forced to create a message that goes against his or her conventions. >> reporter: justice neil gorsuch wrote that the first amendment imagines the united states as a rich and complex plays were all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. in the dissent, content commented. >> part of my good or service is expression and it violates my genuinely held beliefs to have to serve you. >> reporter: gay rights advocates note this ruling by the new conservative majority court comes eight years after the high court ruled in favor of marriage equality. >> eight years later, here we are being legally discriminated against because of who we are marrying. who is not to say that down the line there are going to be signs and storefronts that say, we do not serve gays or the lgbtq community. >> reporter: critics worry it could open the d

would still respect the freedom of religion and freedom of conscience of every american and in lorie smith'she made it very clear that she would take all customers in her website design but said she could not create a website that would celebrate something that violated her religious beliefs, and as you know, i'm a bible believing christian, i believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and i believe every american is entitled to live and to work and worship according to the dictates of their conscience. >> i understand you see this as religious freedom but in other words you say you would not refuse services to people on the basis of their sexual orientation? >> no, look, i think this is not about the law of public accommodation, and this is -- both of these cases came from colorado where the heavy hand of government came in and said, look, if you have a public accommodation, whether you're a cake baker or a web maker, that you're required to take all customers. that's what a public accommodation is, margaret, but what the supreme court said here and as they did in the jack smith

. >> reporter: the court's majority decided that as a creative professional lori smith's first amendment rights shielded her from punishment under colorado's anti-discrimination law because, quote, colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. the dissenting liberal justices argued the first amendment does not protect the act of discrimination, noting this is the first time the high court has granted a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class, and saying that will, quote, mark gays and lesbians for second class status. after a series of major rulings that in many cases overturned decades of precedent, a number of progressive lawmakers are now calling for a variety of supreme court reforms, though president biden made clear again yesterday he does not support expanding the court, arguing that would only further politicize the process. in washington, alice barr, nbc news. >> okay. thank you, alice. >>> our coverage of the latest monument

lorie smith, a web designer from colorado, wanted to create specialized web pages for weddings, but notng so would violate her first amendment rights. >> i'm a a christian.. i believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and i want to create messageges that e consistent with that faith. >> reporter: in a 6-3 opinion, the court sided with smith, ruling that her free speech rights superseded state antidiscrimination laws. writing for the majority, justice neil gorsuch said, "colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views, but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance." >> nobody should be forced to create a message that goes against the core of who they are and what they believe. >> reporter: justice sonia sotomayor wrote in a dissent, "today, the court for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class." >> it sets precedent moving forward that it is okay to discriminate against lgbtq people in america. >> reporter: back to the student loan d

the supreme court ruled in favor of a colorado web designergner named lorie smith who sued the statef colorado ov a

primarily, the lori smith case.led that an amazing moment for fwree speech, the website designer ruled in favor to deny services to whoever she wants to deny services to, a gay couple. concern this means anybody can be denied services based on their race, even those in interracial marriages. is that danger real, is that something that people should be concerned about? >> well, the coverage of that case in my view is other worldly. it is so disconnected with what the case actually said. it is a major victory for free speech. it was a case written by justice gorsuch who said we have to be able to tolerate the views of others, have to be able to speak those views, cannot be forced to give the views that they don't believe in. now, that protection applies to lgbt people. so if you are an lgbt web designer or a baker, you cannot be forced to say things that you find are deeply offensive. this is speech neutrality. it means that we are going to allow this protection regardless of the inherent views. these justices weren't

colorado web designers claim of free speech and religious freedom, the justices ruled 6-3 in favor of lori smithwho sued over the antidiscrimination law. some legal experts and advocates say the decision could open the door to discrimination and marginalize groups who may feel they are being treated as second-class citizens. >> this decision is really a very specific decision, but it creates a zone of immunity for people in the commercial sector to be able to discriminate. >> we know there are actors out there who want to strip lgbtq people of our rights including the ability to get married, that is why we continue to be vigilant. >> the human rights campaign is tracking 500 bills they consider hostile to lgbtq rights across 41 states. >>> the fight over student loan debt is not done, even as the supreme court struck down the loan forgiveness plan. the conservative majority said the debt plan exceeded the president's authority and that congress also needed to sign off. the administration said they had the power to act during national emergencies like covid, president biden now promising a new pl

. >> shannon: play something from lori smith talking about it after the win for her. >> i have clientsl walks of life, including clients who identify as lgbtq, i want everyone to work and design consistently with what they believe, free speech is for everyone. >> shannon: she says it is a win for everyone who believes in free speech. >> i hear that, i sort of disagree with doug. the court has been unanimous with many issues. issues that stand up for the vulnerable, the court rules one way versus the other. in the limited ruling of this court, using artistry, they open up the flood gates for everybody to claim artistry. is person who rents chairs at a wedding, i create chairs, this is my artistry. a person who pours concrete, i don't make tombstones. so many groups are concerned about this decision and the affirmative action decision, african american community and the student loan plan. african american women hold debt, they are educated and you have isser most under student loan debt. >> shannon: this is something that could allow any business owner to say they won't serve certain peo

as you say, lori smith, the website to find her here, was never approached by a same-sex couple to provide services for a same-sex wedding. this was a purely hypothetical dispute. so there was no actual case or controversy, and this was really discussed at length in oral arguments. many individuals felt that the court had no business even getting to the merits of this case, because electors diction because this was not an actual case or controversy between two people with an injury. and so that's the first thing. this was the court that was determined to hear this issue, and so it spurred this entire requirement that there actually be standing in jurisdiction to hear this case. and then it went on to determine that whenever a state like colorado has an anti discrimination law, that anti discrimination law actually acts as a compelled speech mandate to those who may not agree with the antidiscrimination message. and as you say, that has real ramifications throughout the country for the other states who have also decided through their democratic processes to provide antidiscrimination protec

plaintiff lori smith backed by the far right christian group alliance defending freedom sued the statecolorado because she wanted to make wedding websites some day, but didn't want to make them for gay couples because it goes against her religion. but here is the catch, no gay couple ever asked her to make a website for them. according to court filings from the plaintiff, a man named stewart contacted smith in september 2016 about his wedding to mike. he wrote that they would love some design work done for our in viets, place names, maybe even a website. well, the new republic reached out it this stewart to learn that he never once asked smith for any of this, he's not even gay. he's been married to a woman for 15 years. and that call with the new republic was the first time he had even heard about the case. meaning, what is now the law of the land was all completely based on a hypothetical, whether or not they had standing was competely irrelevant, however, and this is a pattern. the case ending affirmative action for example was brought by another far right group. led by conservative

so, this woman, lori smith, brought a case trying to ensure that she would not be -- fall victim to the law if she essentially hung out a sign saying, same sex couples need not apply. and the justices by that 6-3 division that you talked about right at the top of your opening, john, bore out in the courtroom as justice gorsuch really stressed that this was about not discrimination but about free speech. he's liking the kind of action that could be taken by colorado here to state action against children who want to fight saying the pledge of allegiance or saluting the flag. he went back to those kinds of free speech cases. and he said the first amendment envisions the united states as a rich and complex place, where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. now, dissenters, as you know, sonia sotomayor spoke for the dissenters quite passionately this morning at the supreme court. she said, this is the first time the supreme court was going to allow a business to discriminate against a set of customers based on any kind of characteristic. here it

this woman, lori smith had not really designed websites for couples. she theoretically said, if i were to put myself out as a marriedag website designer and f someone were to ask me, will you design something for me and my same-sex partner, then, may be, i would be told that i have to say yes and that would violate my free speech rights. it is all hypothetical. quite apart from the fact that apparently in the record there was not anyone who actually asked her to design a same-sex couple website. quite apart from that, it was all hypothetical. this is the first time that the court has ever said that a neutral general rule against discriminating against people based upon race or religion or sexual orientation, anything, can give way to somebody's claim that if i actually open myself to serveve the public and serve these people, that will be speech on my part. like the guy that ran a famous place called ollie's barbecue back in the 60s. he said i do not want to serve blacks and the supreme court said you have to under the antidiscrimination law. but if th

questions about the origin of the supreme court's ruling that sided with colorado web designer, lori smitht smith can refuse to serve lgbtq customers and the man who smith says contacted her for her services and says he never did, that the request was cited by her attorneys when the state of colorado questioned whether she had grounds to sue. and what's more, the man who goes by stewart says that he was not in a same-sex marriage. telling cnn, i have 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. joining us now, also, is cnn senior legal analyst, eli honig. rahel is staying with us. i feel like on the way to a supreme court ruling, someone would have fact checked whether the names and places are who they say they are, et cetera. tell us what happened here? >> one would think that the opposing party would do that. that the state of colorado would do that. this is why the supreme court does not or did not, i should say, until last week, take hypotheticals. because the facts alw

the high court ruled the christian website designer lori smith is not required to make websites celebrity gay marriages, due to her religious objections. the washington post reports the man she cited as a potential client is, in fact, a straight man with a wife and a kid, who had no knowledge of his involvement in the case. conservatives claimed to oppose judicial activism and legislation from the bench, but doesn't this case seem to be a prime example of both of these things? >> well, there is no question about that, rev. what we are seeing happening playing on the court, now that you see the 62 majority and the supreme court and very conservative district of appellate court judges that donald trump wanted. you are seeing these kinds of things. you are seeing cases to try to get through the agenda. folks on the far-right have been trying to for years, and years. i wish that there were something that could be done about this particular case. it is just appalling how they voted on this, but it is also appalling how even got to the court. unfortunately, i am not sure that there is. i think

a christian woman named lori smith brought the case.ired about her services for his same-sex wedding. here's the rub. the man at the center of that request says he never reached out to smith. in fact, the man says he's straight and has been married to a woman for the past 15 years. he told cnn he didn't submit a request for a web design for a same-sex wedding and he was unaware of his information being part of the court record until he was contacted by journalists, namely the first republic this week. he called the ruling disgraceful. legal representatives for the web designer says smith doesn't do background checks on incoming requests to determine if the person submitting is genuine, but said the legitimacy of the request is genuine, saying no one should have to wait to be punished by the government to challenge an unjust law. she's speaking of the colorado law. >>> now that the supreme court ruled against affirmative action as well, the future of racial diversity across college campuses is unclear. higher education in california can

should be narrowly interpreted, that it's limited to very specific facts of this case involving lori smitht we're seeing already from these cases that you just talked about is that certainly litigators out there are going to try to be arguing to courts that this should be interpreted very broadly, and we're going to at the very least be faced with having to deal with that in courts across the country in coming months. >> in courts and in real life because shades of gray creates confusion. >> yes, absolutely. this is the problem, is that people are -- the three cases that you talked about, we're talking about a judge down in texas who with the support of jonathan mitchell, the former solicitor general of texas, is arguing that under texas's religious freedom restoration act, that this should be looked at differently now, that her case should be looked at differently now, and we've got the same situation in michigan where a salon owner is saying i don't need to provide services to transgender people because i don't want to and the law can't make me. that is a real effect of real people even

and the majority said it amounts to forced speech, to force people like lori smith, this would-be website to design a website for a same-sex couple. as we laid out, the question is but when does that stop. well, virtually every seller says part of what i sell is expressive, has this sort of expressive content, and then say i can also be exempted from anti-discrimination laws. >> now of course the other major ruling yesterday was the court striking down president biden's student debt forgiveness plan. in light of the fact that most student loan forgiveness has been granted through laws passed by congress, was this decision a surprise? >> i don't think it was a surprise. the real question is whether or not the court was going to say anybody has standing, basically if anybody is injured enough to walk into federal court and bring this case. but once you decide, once this court says, yes, it's missouri, they have standing. then i don't think it was a surprise that they're looking at that 2003 statute, they're looking at the heroes act, and they're trying to determine if the secretary of educa

came along last term. 303 creative is a custom website and design business run by a woman named lorie smith. she designs websites for groups and causes and decided he wanted to expand her business to make custom wedding websites. she is a devout christian and she is unwilling to do websites for same-sex wedding's on the basis of her religious beliefs. what's stipulate a by the parties on both sides is that they should serve any customer regardless of sexual orientation. if someone wanted to promote animal rescue shelters or other charitable organizations, she would say yes regardless of how they were identified but she would -- was unwilling to use her creative talents to create a website that expressed a message supporting same-sex marriage regardless of who the actual customer was requesting that website to be made. it was pretty clear from the way colorado had applied its public accommodations law in past cases that this was going to present a problem for her so she brought the lawsuit arguing that to apply the law and force her to create wedding websites for same-sex marriages would vio

lawyers for the state said it should be dismissed because the graphic artist lori smith had not been harmed by the anti discrimination law. smith later added an appendix saying that a man named stuart and his husband to be asked her to work on their upcoming wedding. a reporter recently contacted the customer who said he did not make that request and in fact is married to a woman lawyer. loyola law school professor jessica levinson said these revelations are not likely to affect this case. while this is problematic and while potentially her attorney could face sanctions if he knew that this was a false affidavit, again, a big potentially and we don't know facts to indicate that i don't think that this changes the case at all. levinson also said the rules of legal standing are not stringent in these types of cases. and an appeals court found that smith did have standing to sue. apart from that added affidavit at a civil rights legal group is challenging legacy admissions at harvard. lawyers for the boston nonprofit civil rights filed the complaint today on behalf of black and latino g

. >> reporter: lori smith who runs 303 creative lost in the lower courts but prevailed before a supreme court that has repeatedly ruled in favor of religious groups in recent years. >> i want to design in a way that's consistent with my faith. but colorado is censoring and compelling my speech and forcing me to create custom artwork, cu custom expression that goes against what i believe. >> reporter: justice sonia sotomayor saying this could lead to other discrimination. today the court for the first time in its history grandparents a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. a website designer could equally refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, for example. while the majority disputed that notion, colorado's attorney general warned -- >> this case will have the impact that cause considerable mischief undermining the principle that once you open up the doors to the public as a business you have to serve all comers. >> reporter: the supreme court also handing a stinging defeat to the biden administration's

let's start with 303 creator llc versus -- the woman at the center of it, lori smith by now i'm sure that she is the website to decide who in 2016 filed a suit arguing that free speech protections should entitle her to deny services to a gay couple seeking to hire her ahead of their wedding. what you may not have heard is that it appears with smith and the activists lawyers representing her that they may have invented, fabricated, manufactured an imaginary gay couple, presumably to secure standing before the court. stuart, one of the men whose name and contact information appears in court filings, number one has never met smith, number two straight, not gay, has been happily married to a woman living in oregon, not colorado for the past 15 years. and number three, happens to be a website design himself. so not even sure he ever needed her services. those outrageous revelations came to light the day before its ruling on trial to recreate of. meaning that the concern of justices no pay no heed to the fact that they were about to use a fraudulent case to effectively make queer americans

even imaginary ones, because at the time that she brought the suit, petitioner lori smith did not provideer her services had been asked to provide wedding services to no one existed that wanted her to provide wedding services to a same-sex couple. i am not been penalized. she had not been penalized from the state of colorado for her intent to the 90 services. what i am saying is that the supreme court completely obscured it -- i did not know that they could do that. according to the initial petition, smith received an email at the day after she originally sued colorado in 2016, and the email read, quote, my name is stewart and my fiancÉe is mike. we are getting married early next year and we have some design work done for our invites, places, -- place names, et cetera. we also my stretch to a website. but journals at the new republic tracked down a stewart who had information that was the same as the state said in the filing, a heterosexual man already married. stewart told them, quote, i wouldn't want anyone to make me a wedding website. i married, i have a child, i am not sure where tha

. >> lori smith, the colorado web designer at the center of the supreme court ruling, said in her courtired about his services -- her services for his same-sex wedding. but as cnn has previously reported, the man in question says that he never reached out and is married to a woman. the court ultimately decided that case protecting her free speech rights. and it appears that turmoil at twitter is not going away anytime soon. this weekend, thousands of users are complaining of glitches and having trouble accessing the site. yesterday, elon musk announced new limits on the number of tweets people can view. that's just one of the many changes taking place at the struggling social media site. joining us now, cnn business producer and host of cnn's "night cap," jon sarlin. all right, jon, what the heck is going on over at twitter? >> chaos, right? when elon musk took over twitter, we saw significant layoffs of the company. the majority of the staff were laid off. and there was a lot of speculation that the site wouldn't be able to operate normally. that we would begin to see glitches and we d

lawsuit was filed, lawyers for the state said it should be dismissed because the graphic artist lori smith had not been harmed by the anti discrimination law. smith later added an appendix saying a man named stuart and his husband to be asked her to work on their upcoming wedding. a reporter recently contacted that customer who said he did not make the request and is married to a woman. loyola law school professor jessica levinson told us these revelations are not likely to affect the case. while this is problematic and while potentially her attorney, she could face sanctions if he knew that this was a false affidavit. again, a big potentially and we don't know facts to indicate that i don't think that this changes the case at all. jessica levinson also said the rules of legal standing are not strict in these types of cases. and an appeals court found that smith did have standing to sue. a civil rights legal group is challenging legacy admissions at harvard university. lawyers for the boston nonprofit civil rights filed the complaint on behalf of black and latino community groups in new en

what the court says that lori smith has a constitutional free speech right not to serve same-sex couplesse complying with the inequality law in colorado forced her to speak for express the message that she did not agree with. so, she didn't need to have a religious reason, but that wasn't necessary. this is a much broader exemption from laws that regulate all the rest of us. if you just happen to not agree with the law and there is some way you can make up that your work, the kind of work that you do is expressive the nature. then you don't need to comply with the law. because it's forcing you to express some message you disagree with. i'm thinking about applebee's family restaurants, or romantic hotel in the poconos. or plantation destinations where they have theme parks, restaurants, hotels. all of them are expressing, curating a kind of experience for their customer, there's something creative in all those things. and having to comply with human rights laws, or really any laws. they don't have to then because it could violate their first amendment rights. we don't even need a religiou

the woman, lori smith, hadn't yet started to make a wedding website.cted by a same-sex couple. but there may be more to the story. as a staff writer with the new republic reports according to an early court filing the man who rejected smith inquiring about potential web design work, including a website for his wedding to his male partner. but when contacted the man said not only had he not set the inquiry he was married to a woman. it comes as the lgbtq community worries that this ruling could exasperate discrimination amid a heightened political climate. joining me now is david johnson, executive director of the national black justice coalition decades of black algae too -- good to see you, thank you for being with us. i want to read to you know some of gorsuch's opinion. here he said instead of addressing party stipulations what the case actually before. as the dissent spends much of its time adrift on a sea of hypotheticals. that being the wider potential ramifications of this. but he also says that the -- doesn't endorse something like straight-up