Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

I'm late to the party, but, congrats to all you LGBT folks out there and welcome to the first of what I hope are many rights promised to every American that you've been denied.

I found an interesting quote in Thomas' dissent.

"Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally," Justice Clarence Thomas said in his dissent, "and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice."

He's saying that civil restraints imposed on religious freedoms narrow their scope, allowing less free exercise of religion.

But his statement also states the obvious: there ARE civil restraints on the free practice of religion. One generally accepted civil restraint on religion we've held forever is that it's not ok to kill someone as an act of expressing your religion. What we need to come to, and what the entire body of legal jurisprudence has pointed to for the last 100 years, is that not discriminating is also a valued and necessary civil restraint for a healthy, functioning and just society, just as much as not murdering each other is.

The ruling on housing that came along with this points to non-discrimination as a value the court still believes is necessary, even if they didn't come right out and say it applies to LGBT rights as well.

But I believe the next question before the court will come down to: is discrimination a constitutionally protected free expression of religion. When it comes to the business of law, rights and privileges I think the answer, eventually one day, will be no, it's not. You can discriminate against someone to the degree you don't talk to them, be friends with them, invite them to your social events and gatherings. At a maximum, the right to refuse service in a private business to anyone you want for any reason you want will probably stay.

[Darkmere]

At a maximum, the right to refuse service in a private business to anyone you want for any reason you want will probably stay.

I had someone mention this to me in a discussion last night. That's going to cause a lot of problems in short-term if people actually try and use this to refuse service to (pick a group), because it's basically hanging a huge sign over your front door that reads "ACLU STOP BY HERE FOR FREE PUBLICITY."

[Graknorke]

One generally accepted civil restraint on religion we've held forever is that it's not ok to kill someone as an act of expressing your religion.

Is it any more illegal than any other murder though?

[wierd]

Usually the "Right to refuse service" only gets invoked against entitled assholes that are there causing a scene.

You know, the kind of people that call 911 because they ran out of ketchup at McDonalds, and have dry fries-- Or who insist on *trying* to invoke the race card on trumped up allegations. "You are racist because you don't carry %popular ethnic personality% branded merchandise!" etc.

It is almost never used to tell people of a certain ethnicity to get lost.

[nenjin]

There's the "No shirt, no shoes, no service" rule as well, which is made on the grounds of decency and public health.

Is it any more illegal than any other murder though?

I knew someone was going to latch on to that. Damn my lack of parenthetical statements.

[Graknorke]

Well the issue is that murder is something that's bad anyway, so it's not specifically an issue of restricting religion. Banning non-heterosexual marriage is only for and only affects its own issue.

[Leafsnail]

It is almost never used to tell people of a certain ethnicity to get lost.

It's almost like there was a long and difficult legal struggle to make it so you can't do that.

[Darkmere]

Usually the "Right to refuse service" only gets invoked against entitled assholes that are there causing a scene.

Sure, but people near here are already screaming about being "forced to perform same sex marriages" and demanding "protection" from having to do what's legally mandated now.

The right to refuse service is the foremost argument I've seen used in that defense. Sorry, "defense".

[Truean]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bobby-jindal-lets-just-get-rid-the-court

Wow. And finally it comes out. The far right republicans are just openly hostile to the constitution whenever it does anything they don't like. What's amazing, where was all this backlash 5 years ago when citizens united became the crock giving corporations person status (when it is to their liking)?

When people find out that NO, they are not the be all end all for what the constitution says, they go nuts. What they're essentially doing is trying to set themsevles up as "normal" and "right" and anybody who disagrees with them is dead bang wrong. It's bullshit propaganda and incredibly insulting.


That's the problem with modern religion in many cases. It has become the notion that shutting your eyes and ears to anything outside of what people tell you is in a book you've probably never even read all the way through works. It doesn't.

I've read several religious texts all the way through and nobody follows half of the stuff in them and they'd look at you like you were nuts if you said they should. There's a lot about helping he poor in the bible, for instance. Not a one of the hard right wingers likes the idea of paying for any of that. Frankly, it's amazing.

The economy and the world in general are going to hell in a handbag, but please by all means, let's blame it all on the gays for doing... what has been going on for thousands of years without a hitch?

I am tired of being the world's scapegoat.

[Rolan7]

Well of course extremist conservatives have been saying all sorts of insane stuff about this.  Particularly claiming churches will be forced to betray their blatantly selective beliefs and give gay marriages.  Don't worry, they still enjoy protected tax status AND freedom to discriminate...

But, woah, this guy's a governor.  Yeah I know it's Louisiana but...  As a North Carolina resident that's still shocking.  Even as hyperbole, suggesting the dissolution of the supreme court is unbelievably crazy for a governor of a state.

And I'm still not sure that this was a constitutional issue.  I'm still examining the possibility that the supreme court overstepped its power while doing a very good, overdue, basic civil rights thing.  But for a governor to suggest removing a branch of our government... wow.

Edit: Replaced NC with North Carolina.  I don't know every state abbreviation, maybe other people don't either.

[Frumple]

*shrugs* If they did, it's an overstep that's been performed repeatedly in the past (read: It almost certainly isn't.). The court decision is precisely in line with several other similar cases that have included stuff under the 14th's protection.

Which is actually sorta' the problem. Little bit more reading has shown it was actually a kinda' shitty decision,* primarily because of how little it actually did, as well as being a kinda' poor bit of actually... judge-y stuff. Instead of actually solving the goddamn issue on a judicial level (like, say, making sexual orientation a strict scrutiny issue, which could have been done years ago and nipped a whole hell of a lot of bullshit in the bud), the SCOTUS has just sorta' brought SSM whole cloth and singularly into the 14th (very roughly paraphrasing, and with a very much lay understanding of the legal stuff involved). One of the more insightful bits I've read so far was this post, on another forum (you'd be fairly well benefited mostly ignoring the rest of the thread it's in :V), decently detailing a fair amount of the actual issues involved.

It almost certainly wasn't constitutional overreach, though. Bit on the bad side of craft, but historically well within the court's power, insofar as I've been able to tell, if a power they've been fairly careful about exercising.

*Mind you, the consequence of SSM being legal is goddamn golden. It could have just been done significantly better.

[alway]

Meanwhile, the KKK is ramping up recruiting, hailing the terrorist attack as a 'victory.' http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/kkk-tries-to-reel-in-new-members-by-handing-out-candy-and-praising-charleston-terrorists-victory/

And arson attacks against southern black churches. http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2015/06/26/string-of-nighttime-fires-hit-predominately-black-churches-in-four-southern-states/

[Frumple]

Mm. There's pretty good odds I've actually been by (though not in) the church that burnt down in Tallahassee... that actually could have been incidental, for what it's worth -- we've been having some pretty good storms for the last bit down here, and a tree limb coming down on the power line is definitely a thing that happens from time to time in this region. Wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't, though

[Reelya]

"Save our land, join the Klan" has a nice ring to it. But it's just not as good as "Don't be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Nazi Party".

[Sheb]

I think you're reading too much into this, what we have here is a presidential candidate that, despite being a governor, has struggled to get enough name recognition to get more than a couple percents of the votes in a overcrowded primary, and is ready to shout any amount of insanities to get his name in the papers.