Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They said they needed to limit the ruling in order to deal with the religious liberty problems. There wasn't a hint of overturning the ruling.
"Activist conservative" judges is a non-sequitur.
True.
Thomas and Alito revived part of their dissent from the gay marriage case by pointing out the religious freedom problems. Still, they voted with the six other justices to not hear the appeal. Roberts dissented from Obergefell and voted to reject the appeal and Not join the Thomas/Alito comments in this case. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh did not join the Thomas/Alito comments. So, all 5 so-called conservative Justices decided this case on the law, not personal feelings.
'Conservatives' Roberts and Gorsuch gave lgbtq+ the ruling on no discrmination in employment and Kavanaugh practically apologized for ruling against it because he believed the majority was rewriting the law and usurping legislative authority.
All this Kim Davis case amounts to is Thomas and Alito repeating a little of what the dissent mentioned five years ago.
All your example shows is both men and women suffering discrimination based on sex. If Bob can marry Jane, but not Jim why not? Because Bob is the same sex as Jim. That’s the issue not that it’s “fair” if both sexes are discriminated against equally.
Wrong. Sue and Jane is still discrimination based on the sexes of the people involved. Good lord!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
Not sure if folks are being willfully obtuse?
I think it's likely some are attempting the same or similar legal argument as in Loving v. Virginia.
To clarify: the legal issue or question before the SCOTUS was: Did Virginia's antimiscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
The lame legal argument in the Lovings' case was to claim it was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because both Mr. Loving (white) & Mrs. Loving (non-white) were punished equally for the crime of miscegenation.
To use your example: the lame legal argument is to claim it is not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because both Joe & Jim are being punished equally by not allowing them to marry someone of the same sex.
To clarify:
The same & lame legal argument contends that Joe, Jim, Sue, & Jane are all being punished equally by denying same sex marriage to all of them.
You were doing great till the last sentence. There's a difference between a theoretical understanding of the country's foundations, and having a life-long, multi-generational and WASP cultural understanding. Many Americans would say America hasn't been very recognizable in over 20 years.
Like I said, you have the choice of addressing the criticism or its source.
Like I said, you have the choice of addressing the criticism or its source.
I'm still trying to figure if "having a life-long, multi-generational and WASP cultural understanding" of the United States is meant to be a good thing or a bad thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
