Law US Supreme Court OKs gay marriage in all 50 states

[UpaLoompa]

It's funny how in reality the opposite is true.

Even if you are suspected of holding "anti gay" views n by "anti gay" I mean not supporting ssm, you can get your ass fired.

So give me a break

You mean the reality made up in your head? Yeah, that's pretty funny.

What I wrote is accurate, in many states discrimination against homosexuals is legal.

 

[dontsnitch]

Are people getting fired for being Christian? I'm not sure I'm getting your objection.

People are fired for holding beliefs, for acting in certain ways outside of work. You either accept this or you don't. I don't, but, it's up to the employer.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

And who decides what the hell that means?

That's just it; the courts have ruled on these issues before - they just simply ignored them this time.

This case was decided based on Due Process - even the majority opinion said that historically marriage has always been men and women and precedent (Hernandez v. Robles; Shields v. Madigan; Baker v. Nelson and others) had already made that argument moot.

 

[grimballer]

grimballer is a special breed of stupid, which is saying something given the overall level of stupid in the WR.

Child plz.

For you I might be Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton n nikola tesla all rolled in one.

So do yourself a favour n stfu

 

[UpaLoompa]

That's just it; the courts have ruled on these issues before - they just simply ignored them this time.

Precedent is not the only basis on which to rule. There also was precedent for this ruling, quite a bit in fact, albeit precedent you likely also disagree with.

 

[Kiddo716]

Child plz.

For you I might be Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton n nikola tesla all rolled in one.

So do yourself a favour n stfu

but you're not. more like 1/2 the intellect of sara palin.

 

[Bukowski82]

but you're not. more like 1/2 the intellect of sara palin.

That's being generous...

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Except, you know, you're wrong.
The majority decision very early cites both precedent and the equal protection clause and that's clearly the basis of the decision. Kennedy waxes a bit much but the 14th is still the basis.

The dissents are worse and are legally useless.

1-A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. (Loving)


Baker v. Nelson - says this doesn't apply to same sex marriage.



2-A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. This point was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception.


Really? I don't even know how this speaks to ssm except the court needed to cite a case somewhere.



3-A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and edu-cation. See Pierce v. Society of Sisters


Did no one in the majority opinion take pause when bringing procreation into the argument?



4-Fourth and finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order. Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this truth on his travels through the United States almost two cen-turies ago:



This tradition they are waxing about and that they cite here is traditional marriage which they themselves cite: From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent im-portance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life.......

It cannot be denied that this Court’s cases describing the right to marry presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners

 

[UpaLoompa]

So them using precedent doesn't count because they didn't stick 100% with precedent. If that's how things worked, why even have a SC?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

delete

 

[PainIsLIfe]

So them using precedent doesn't count because they didn't stick 100% with precedent. If that's how things worked, why even have a SC?

I really don't care about ssm - I care more about the potential for anti-bigotry laws that may follow and how they may or may not impact religious institutions.

 

[Francis Rossi]

but you're not. more like 1/2 the intellect of sara palin.

I can has foreign policy. Look, there is Russia.

I can has passport now pls?

 

[dontsnitch]

I really don't care about ssm - I care more about the potential for anti-bigotry laws that may follow and how they may or may not impact religious institutions.

Over the last year people have been fired for ridiculous things. The Ontario Hydro guy was fired from a Government job for saying "dildo in your ear" on TV. The Florida Principal was fired for making a FB post about the pool party cop. The firefighter was fired for writing a religious pamphlet. A few years ago a guy was fired for berating the Chick-fil-A cashier and posting it on YT.

All these firings are justified by saying that the employer may lose business. So where does it end? If a Christian makes you lose business, can you fire him? If a black guy or gay guy makes you lose business?

You either accept random dismissals, or you don't.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I really don't care about ssm - I care more about the potential for anti-bigotry laws that may follow and how they may or may not impact religious institutions.

White churches in the south weren't forced to conduct inter-racial marriages in the South in the wake of Loving v Virginia. The Catholic Church hasn't been forced to recognize civil divorce. The Mormon Church hasn't been forced to recognize civil marriages. Hell, it was only 15 years ago that the favorite hang out of Republican nominees stopped formally censuring students in mixed-race relationships. Anti-bigotry laws have not impacted religious institutions and there's no reason to think they will in the future (bakeries aren't religious institutions).

Anyway, the 14th amendment provides the basis of the ruling and there's considerable precedent supporting ssm laid out in the majority ruling. Tying together Loving, Lawrence, Windsor, etc. with the equal protection clause is far more solid than the arguments made in the dissents which were basically about nothing.

 

[UpaLoompa]

delete

I'm curious...

 

[grimballer]

You mean the reality made up in your head? Yeah, that's pretty funny.

What I wrote is accurate, in many states discrimination against homosexuals is legal.

You mean like that gay couple that didn't get a cake of their choice n now are 130k $ richer?

Poor souls!

Life must be so hard...

Get outta here

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I'm curious...

Just a rabit hole, but at my employer they brought in a gay rights advocacy group to hand out literature. I work with a lay-minister that told them he take 1 of their tracks if they took 1 of his.

They asked what his track was - he said it's about my lord and savior Jesus Christ - to which they replied that you can't promote religion at work.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

White churches in the south weren't forced to conduct inter-racial marriages in the South in the wake of Loving v Virginia. The Catholic Church hasn't been forced to recognize civil divorce. The Mormon Church hasn't been forced to recognize civil marriages. Hell, it was only 15 years ago that the favorite hang out of Republican nominees stopped formally censuring students in mixed-race relationships. Anti-bigotry laws have not impacted religious institutions and there's no reason to think they will in the future (bakeries aren't religious institutions).

Anyway, the 14th amendment provides the basis of the ruling and there's considerable precedent supporting ssm laid out in the majority ruling. Tying together Loving, Lawrence, Windsor, etc. with the equal protection clause is far more solid than the arguments made in the dissents which were basically about nothing.

Curious - if there had been 1 more conservative judge and this got tossed would you agree with the ruling?

 

[afrdzak]

You mean like that gay couple that didn't get a cake of their choice n now are 130k $ richer?

Poor souls!

Life must be so hard...

Get outta here

Clearly, that is not a state that Dochter was referencing as Oregon has added sexual orientation to its protected classes.

But you knew that already....

 

[UpaLoompa]

Curious - if there had been 1 more conservative judge and this got tossed would you agree with the ruling?

No, I wouldn't. My argument would remain the one that it is now about the case for SSM. Specifically that given the existence of marriage as a legal construct, failure to recognize SSM violates the 14th.

What I've posted is that your assertion that there was no precedent for the ruling nor a legal basis in the equal protection / due process clause is incorrect. I have not posted some silliness to the effect that the courts are always right.