[Gay] Gay News from Around the Gay World That is Gay

[Sheilbh]

Three votes against banning workplace discrimination? Unbelievable.

Three votes against finding workplace discrimination prohibited by the constitution.  Not exactly the same thing.

Actually it wasn't constitutional I don't think - I think it's just applying the Civil Rights Act.

[crazy canuck]

Three votes against banning workplace discrimination? Unbelievable.

Three votes against finding workplace discrimination prohibited by the constitution.  Not exactly the same thing.

No, it wasn't a constitutional argument.  Rather whether your Civil Rights Act applied.

In other countries politicians have specifically amended the applicable legislation.  Your country passed the decision to the judiciary.  Mine and yours did the same thing with abortion.

[viper37]

GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1272529876080381954

The religious zealots are alarmed: their bargain didn't work the way they intended.

[...]

The bargain has never been explicitly articulated, but religious conservatives know what it is. The bargain is that you go along with the party establishment, you support their policies and priorities—or at least keep your mouth shut about it—and, in return, the establishment will put some judges on the bench who supposedly will protect your constitutional rights to freedom of worship, to freedom of exercise. That's what we've been told for years now.

We were told that we're supposed to shut up while the party establishment focuses more on cutting taxes and handing out favors for corporations, multinational corporations who don't share our values, who will not stand up for American principles, who were only too happy to ship American jobs overseas. But we're supposed to say nothing about that. We're supposed to keep our mouths shut because maybe we'll get a judge out of the deal. That was the implicit bargain.

We're supposed to keep our mouths shut while the party establishment opens borders, while the party establishment pursues ruinous trade policies.

We're supposed to keep our mouths shut while those at the upper end of the income bracket get all of the attention. While working families and college students and those who don't want to go to college but can't get a good job, while they get what? What attention?

Workers? Children? What about parents looking for help with the cost of raising children? Looking for help with the culture in which they have to raise children? Looking for help with the communities, rebuilding the communities in which they must carry out their family life?

What about college students trying to find an education that isn't ruinously expensive and then figure out some way to pay back that enormous debt? What about those who don't have a college degree and don't want one, but would like to get a good job? What about them?

No, we're supposed to stay quiet about all of that, and more, because there may be pro-Constitution, religious liberty judges. Except for that there aren't. Except for that these judges don't follow the Constitution. Except for these judges invoke "textualism" and "originalism" in order to reach their preferred outcome.

Now I want to be clear, I am not personally criticizing any justice who joined the majority opinion or wrote it. I believe one hundred percent that the justices—the justice—who principally authored this opinion, Justice Gorsuch, and those who joined him are sincere and who were writing to the best of their ability, reasoning to the best of their ability. And the opinion is, whatever else you might say about it, is not sloppily reasoned. No, I think that they were doing what they thought was best and using all of the skills and gifts that they had.

No, I question how we got here. I question how judges who hold to this philosophy ended up on that bench. I question the bargain that people of faith have been offered and asked to hold to for all of these years.

And the truth is, to those who have objected to my own questioning of judicial nominees in this body, to those who said I was wrong to question judges who came for the Judiciary Committee, to those who chided me for asking tough questions even of nominees by a Republican president, for those who said that I was slowing the process down, that I was out of line, for the supposedly conservative groups who threatened to buy television time in my own state to punish me for asking questions about conservative judges, I just have this to say: this is why I asked questions. This is why I won't stop. And I wish some more people would ask some harder questions. Because this outcome is not acceptable. And the bargain which religious conservatives have been offered is not tenable.

So, I would just say, it's not time for religious conservatives to shut up. No, we've done that for too long. No, it's time for religious conservatives to stand up and to speak out.

[...]

[The Brain]

Conservatives are so fucking weird creatures.

[merithyn]

The religious zealots are alarmed: their bargain didn't work the way they intended.

Who said this? I'm curious.

[Valmy]

Man it is amazing how much they sacrificed just to keep gays discriminated.

[Barrister]

Three votes against banning workplace discrimination? Unbelievable.

Three votes against finding workplace discrimination prohibited by the constitution.  Not exactly the same thing.

No, it wasn't a constitutional argument.  Rather whether your Civil Rights Act applied.

In other countries politicians have specifically amended the applicable legislation.  Your country passed the decision to the judiciary.  Mine and yours did the same thing with abortion.

This is not accurate.  The Morgentaler decision from the SCC clearly envisioned that Parliament could enact legislation around abortion.  It was just that the Mulroney government of the day couldn't find anything close to a consensus, and so just decided not to pass anything.

The government could ban certain forms of abortion tomorrow if they wanted to.

[crazy canuck]

Three votes against banning workplace discrimination? Unbelievable.

Three votes against finding workplace discrimination prohibited by the constitution.  Not exactly the same thing.

No, it wasn't a constitutional argument.  Rather whether your Civil Rights Act applied.

In other countries politicians have specifically amended the applicable legislation.  Your country passed the decision to the judiciary.  Mine and yours did the same thing with abortion.

This is not accurate.  The Morgentaler decision from the SCC clearly envisioned that Parliament could enact legislation around abortion.  It was just that the Mulroney government of the day couldn't find anything close to a consensus, and so just decided not to pass anything.

The government could ban certain forms of abortion tomorrow if they wanted to.

Keep telling yourself that if you want.

[viper37]

The religious zealots are alarmed: their bargain didn't work the way they intended.

Who said this? I'm curious.

I had forgotten the link, sorry:
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/06/65043/

Senator Josh Hawley, Missouri Senator.

[11B4V]

Those bigoted fundies deserve it. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"  what don't they understand.

[viper37]

Keep telling yourself that if you want.

Legally, they could.

It's up to the majority on the Commons to decide if it's worth pissing off 90% of Canada with this silly act.

[garbon]

Good to see the Vatican has clarified they are still bigoted. After all we wouldn't want to think the Pope's comments in favor of same sex unions are an official church position...

[merithyn]

Good to see the Vatican has clarified they are still bigoted. After all we wouldn't want to think the Pope's comments in favor of same sex unions are an official church position...

Took longer than I thought it would. There was no way anyone in Vatican City was going to let that stand as it was.

[Valmy]

That would have been awfully embarrassing for Poland though. Here they are oppressing gays and suddenly one of their main excuses for doing so might have been threatened.

[11B4V]

Welcome to the present day Vatican. Fucking wankers.