The Gay Legal Rulings Thread

[Malthus]

Not really. All this means is that if you publicly claim someone's gay in a publication and they aren't, that person can't turn around and sue you for harming his reputation - because being called gay doesn't actually harm a reputation any more. It's like claiming someone is Anglican when they are really Episcopalian or something, rather than (say) like claiming someome is a rapist pedophile.

What if though they make their living from being attractive and having female fans?
Though being gay wouldn't be a big deal for most people's living, doctors or lawyers or journalists or whatever; for someone who trades off their theoretical availability it could be quite damning, actors and singers and the like.

I haven't read thge ruling, but from the description what it stands for is that an imputation of homosexuality isn't per se defamatory - meaning, if you call any Tom, Dick or Harry "gay" he can't sue.

Dunno if you have a star who is famously attractive to the opposite sex.

Rule should be that if you could sue if (say) you were famously a gay star who is called hetero or bi, then you should be able to sue in the reverse situation.

[Duque de Bragança]

I wouldn't say Turkey is a Middle Eastern country.

Right, it's a Near Eastern country. 

[garbon]

Not really. All this means is that if you publicly claim someone's gay in a publication and they aren't, that person can't turn around and sue you for harming his reputation - because being called gay doesn't actually harm a reputation any more. It's like claiming someone is Anglican when they are really Episcopalian or something, rather than (say) like claiming someome is a rapist pedophile.

What if though they make their living from being attractive and having female fans?
Though being gay wouldn't be a big deal for most people's living, doctors or lawyers or journalists or whatever; for someone who trades off their theoretical availability it could be quite damning, actors and singers and the like.

Gay rumors swirl around all the time about actors and singers. I don't think that hurts them.

[dps]

Not really. All this means is that if you publicly claim someone's gay in a publication and they aren't, that person can't turn around and sue you for harming his reputation - because being called gay doesn't actually harm a reputation any more. It's like claiming someone is Anglican when they are really Episcopalian or something, rather than (say) like claiming someome is a rapist pedophile.

What if though they make their living from being attractive and having female fans?
Though being gay wouldn't be a big deal for most people's living, doctors or lawyers or journalists or whatever; for someone who trades off their theoretical availability it could be quite damning, actors and singers and the like.

I haven't read thge ruling, but from the description what it stands for is that an imputation of homosexuality isn't per se defamatory - meaning, if you call any Tom, Dick or Harry "gay" he can't sue.

Dunno if you have a star who is famously attractive to the opposite sex.

Rule should be that if you could sue if (say) you were famously a gay star who is called hetero or bi, then you should be able to sue in the reverse situation.

My understanding was that before the ruling, claiming that someone was gay, if untrue, was considered harmful in and of itself, with no need to actually demonstrate any damages.  Now, it still might be libel or slander, but the you'd have to demonstrate actual damages.

[Grinning_Colossus]

So the penalty for sodomy is... being sent to a Turkish prison. 

[Admiral Yi]

 

[Sheilbh]

The High Court started hearing about this earlier today:

Christian group challenges ban on gay poster campaign
Boris Johnson will this week face claims in the High Court that he failed to respect a Christian group's right to free speech by banning their posters from the side of London buses.


Mr Johnson's role puts him in charge of Transport for London, which is responsible for approving advertising on buses in the city Photo: Alamy
By David Barrett, Home Affairs Correspondent8:20AM GMT 24 Feb 2013326 Comments

The Mayor of London refused to run the advertisements which promoted the group's view that homosexuals can be "reoriented" through therapy and prayer.

Mr Johnson said the ads by the Core Issues Trust were offensive to gays, and said they could even spark retaliation against the wider Christian community.

The posters said "Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get over it!" and was in response to a previous poster campaign by Stonewall, the gay rights group, which said: "Some people are gay. Get over it!"

Mr Johnson's role puts him in charge of Transport for London, which is responsible for approving advertising on buses in the city.

On Thursday Dr Mike Davidson, the head of the trust, and his supporters will go to the High Court to claim Mr Johnson's ban on their poster campaign should be reversed on the grounds that he unlawfully stifled free speech.

They are bringing a judicial review and Dr Davidson is hoping Transport for London (TfL) will be forced to accept the advertisements.

They argue that other advertising campaigns - including Stonewall's, and campaigns for underwear - have been allowed TfL.

"This is all about being free to talk about these issues," said Dr Davidson, who himself has a homosexual past, but has been attracted controversy for suggesting gays can become heterosexual through counselling and prayer.

"It was a mistake to assume these views we were expressing came from entrenched homophobia, and failed to recognise that people who want to walk away from their homosexual feelings are a group in their own right."

He has instructed Paul Diamond, the human rights barrister, in this week's case.

Stifling debate by banning their advert amounted to discrimination, the trust will argue.

They will point in particular to one poster which some Christians found offensive. Funded by Richard Dawkins, the academic, and the British Humanist Association in 2009, it said: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying. And enjoy your life."

Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, which is supporting Dr Davidson's case, said: "The ban on these advertisements was the beginning of a kind of reverse discrimination which threatens to obliterate debate in the public sphere.

"Boris Johnson needs to realise his mistake and ensure there is freedom for all in the marketplace of ideas. He cannot prefer one group over another."

A Transport for London spokesman said: "The advertisement breached TfL's advertising policy as in our view it contained a publicly controversial message and was likely to cause widespread offence to members of the public."

[Martinus]

Even if you argued that advertisements on city buses offer full freedom of speech (a rather unusual claim), I don't think fraudulent medical advertising is protected speech by anyone's standards 

[garbon]

America is looking pretty sad:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22114599

Congress in Uruguay has voted to legalise same-sex marriage, becoming the second country in Latin America to do so, after Argentina.

The bill was approved by an overwhelming majority of the lower chamber, sparking scenes of celebration in the public galleries.

Despite opposition from some groups, the proposal has already been backed by the upper house and is expected to be signed into law within weeks.

[Valmy]

America is looking pretty sad:

Not sure what you mean.  We have had same sex marriage in this country for years.

[fhdz]

America is looking pretty sad:

Not sure what you mean.  We have had same sex marriage in this country for years.

Not federally, which is I think what he's getting at.

[Barrister]

America is looking pretty sad:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22114599

Congress in Uruguay has voted to legalise same-sex marriage, becoming the second country in Latin America to do so, after Argentina.

The bill was approved by an overwhelming majority of the lower chamber, sparking scenes of celebration in the public galleries.

Despite opposition from some groups, the proposal has already been backed by the upper house and is expected to be signed into law within weeks.

There are many arguments to make in favour of gay marriage, but "we need to follow in the lead of Argentina and Uruguay" is not not a particularily powerful one.

[Valmy]

Not federally, which is I think what he's getting at.

They probably should appeal DOMA and will at some point.  But beyond that I do not think that is Constitutional is it?

[fhdz]

Not federally, which is I think what he's getting at.

They probably should appeal DOMA and will at some point.  But beyond that I do not think that is Constitutional is it?

To what do "that" and "it" refer?

[Valmy]

To what do "that" and "it" refer?

The thing I thought you were talking about.  Pass a law legalizing gay marriage at the federal level.