Birdwatch Note
2023-07-02 04:54:29 UTC - NOT_MISLEADING
Tweet is correct: Court upheld a (hypothetical*) person's use of a religious objection to serving a gay individual as protected under the First Amendment. Using a 'religious belief' to create a de facto 'straight-only' business is now legal directly b/c of this ruling. NNN. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf *https://newrepublic.com/article/174048/supreme-court-doesnt-care-gay-wedding-website-case-based-fiction
Written by 41BCAED9AB399AE6C1F23C0563DE8BC3B8022B897846EAFC9784F9DD13428087
Participant Details
Original Tweet
Tweet embedding is no longer reliably available, due to the platform's instability (in terms of both technology and policy). If the Tweet still exists, you can view it here: https://twitter.com/foo_bar/status/1674833857969782794
Please note, though, that you may need to have your own Twitter account to access that page. I am currently exploring options for archiving Tweet data in a post-API context.
All Information
- ID - 1675367317453111297
- noteId - 1675367317453111297
- participantId -
- noteAuthorParticipantId - 41BCAED9AB399AE6C1F23C0563DE8BC3B8022B897846EAFC9784F9DD13428087 Participant Details
- createdAtMillis - 1688273669958
- tweetId - 1674833857969782794
- classification - NOT_MISLEADING
- believable -
- harmful -
- validationDifficulty -
- misleadingOther - 0
- misleadingFactualError - 0
- misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
- misleadingOutdatedInformation - 0
- misleadingMissingImportantContext - 0
- misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 0
- misleadingSatire - 0
- notMisleadingOther - 0
- notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 1
- notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
- notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
- notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 1
- trustworthySources - 1
- summary
- Tweet is correct: Court upheld a (hypothetical*) person's use of a religious objection to serving a gay individual as protected under the First Amendment. Using a 'religious belief' to create a de facto 'straight-only' business is now legal directly b/c of this ruling. NNN. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf *https://newrepublic.com/article/174048/supreme-court-doesnt-care-gay-wedding-website-case-based-fiction
Note Status History
| createdAt | timestampMillisOfFirstNonNMRStatus | firstNonNMRStatus | timestampMillisOfCurrentStatus | currentStatus | timestampMillisOfLatestNonNMRStatus | mostRecentNonNMRStatus | participantId |
| 2023-07-02 04:54:29 UTC (1688273669958) |
1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC (-1) |
2023-07-03 02:10:07 UTC (1688350207262) |
NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS | 1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC (-1) |
Note Ratings
| rated at | rated by | |
| 2023-07-02 06:31:24 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-02 03:27:04 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-02 02:36:29 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-02 01:49:06 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-02 01:42:53 -0500 | Rating Details | |
| 2023-07-02 01:04:35 -0500 | Rating Details |