The Gay Legal Rulings Thread

[sbr]

My favorite one was 'what if my kids were watching, what would I tell them!?!'  Any parent who can't answer that question in 2.2 seconds should have their kids impounded.

That fun Louis CK bit.

I know who he is but I don't know any of his bits.

[garbon]

My favorite one was 'what if my kids were watching, what would I tell them!?!'  Any parent who can't answer that question in 2.2 seconds should have their kids impounded.

That fun Louis CK bit.

I know who he is but I don't know any of his bits.

http://youtu.be/eb-JZSyhWSc?t=1m4s

[garbon]

Oregon struts in.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Oregon Same-Sex Marriage Ban, Weddings Can Start Immediately
State officials have said they will not appeal the ruling. Judge's order is effective immediately.

[Admiral Yi]

How is Teh Gay Community going to react when Sam gets cut?

[garbon]

Probably wouldn't be hard to fall back on the general "we don't care about sports" narrative.

[garbon]

Penn too!

Oh and Yi I guess we'll just switch to WNBA now that they are marketing to LGBT.

[Sheilbh]

Fat lady waddling onto the stage

[sbr]

I saw an article that said Pennsylvania is the 19th state where gays can marry.  Does that mean that the other 31 states have laws banning it that just haven't been overturned yet?

[garbon]

Fat lady waddling onto the stage

We are not even at half the states as was just pointed out.

Though I think I'll still demonize the opposition like I do racists.

[garbon]

I saw an article that said Pennsylvania is the 19th state where gays can marry.  Does that mean that the other 31 states have laws banning it that just haven't been overturned yet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

Map on that with status.

[The Minsky Moment]

There are now 7 appeal petitions before the Supreme Court relating to gay marriage issues.

[Jacob]

We are not even at half the states as was just pointed out.

Though I think I'll still demonize the opposition like I do racists.

Seems reasonable.

[Syt]

So with Indiana's "Freedom of Religion Restoration Act," I have couple of questions:

- If a business owner refuses service to someone (say, someone he believes is gay) because it would be an undue burden on his religious conscience, how does the burden of proof work? After all, many times you can't tell from someone browsing your store whether they're gay or not.
- How far can this law go? If you think adulterers are sinners, can you refuse service? If you're devout Hindu and come into contact with an "untouchable" caste? Or as devout Muslim, can you refuse service to women who are not dressed appropriately or wear no hijab?
- And what if you feel you've been wrongfully denied service?

[grumbler]

So with Indiana's "Freedom of Religion Restoration Act," I have couple of questions:

- If a business owner refuses service to someone (say, someone he believes is gay) because it would be an undue burden on his religious conscience, how does the burden of proof work? After all, many times you can't tell from someone browsing your store whether they're gay or not.

I don't believe that anyone has ever used FRRA to justify denial of service.

- How far can this law go? If you think adulterers are sinners, can you refuse service? If you're devout Hindu and come into contact with an "untouchable" caste? Or as devout Muslim, can you refuse service to women who are not dressed appropriately or wear no hijab?

None of those have ever been successfully justified under any version of FRRA.

- And what if you feel you've been wrongfully denied service?

FRRA doesn't change this at all.

And that's three questions, not "a couple." 

The Indiana version of the FRRA is the same as the federal version, which passed the HoR unanimously and the Senate 97-3.  It has been enacted in something like 20 states. It is hardly controversial in actual fact, and hasn't lead to denial of service on religious grounds.  I find the widespread belief that it is something new and controversial to be a powerful condemnation of the American media system.

[Sophie Scholl]

I was under the impression that the Federal version applied only to governmental interactions, whereas the Indiana version is about private citizens/businesses.  The Federal version has also lost a lot of its original clout in a series of SCOTUS decisions.