Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[Czernobog]

I never thought the Supreme Court would rule on any of these cases. They learned their lesson with Roe v Wade. They won't repeat it with same sex marriage.

It looks like the activists that wanted a ruling legalizing same sex marriage in the whole of the US are just out of luck.

Well...not really. It's just going to be a slower process. The courts are letting it be done circuit by circuit. Guess what? That's working, too. It's just taking longer. That's fine with me. The activists who want to keep gays from enjoying the same rights, and privileges as everyone else are clearly losing this fight. Marriage equality will now clearly be the law of the land in well over half of the country. The rest is bound to follow.

 

[Katzndogz]

States are now free to replace judges and legislatures and make a different decision if they wish.

 

[Stephanie]

I never thought the Supreme Court would rule on any of these cases. They learned their lesson with Roe v Wade. They won't repeat it with same sex marriage.

It looks like the activists that wanted a ruling legalizing same sex marriage in the whole of the US are just out of luck.

please stop commenting about things you haven't an ounce of understanding about.

Coming from YOU? Really. YOU?

I understand you're one of the stupidest people on the board. you should probably back away from your keyboard now. you're getting drool over it.

and your insanity does not diminish me in the least.

but thanks for playing.

you need to stop while you're ahead

 

[martybegan]

wonderful news for individual rights

Unless you are a baker or a photographer.

bakers and photographers are subject to the same public accommodation laws as everyone else. they can be bigots in their own homes, however.

your individual rights end at the nose of others.

So basically you have to hide in your hole if your belief structure is different from the ruling class.

Got it.

I have to think the next fight has to be removing public accommodation laws, or at least limiting them to necessary commerce, not "everything"

 

[R.D.]

Oh, shit! I'm hearing a commentator suggesting that this doesn't become the law of the land in those states, but in the entire district that each of those federal district court holds jurisdiction over. That means, the bans still in place in 11 other states in those district also become invalid!

Which is why it's better to understand what things mean before acting like a faith bashing ass

 

[jillian]

wonderful news for individual rights

Unless you are a baker or a photographer.

bakers and photographers are subject to the same public accommodation laws as everyone else. they can be bigots in their own homes, however.

your individual rights end at the nose of others.

So basically you have to hide in your hole if your belief structure is different from the ruling class.

Got it.

I have to think the next fight has to be removing public accommodation laws, or at least limiting them to necessary commerce, not "everything"

you don't have to hide your bigotry at all. in fact, I think bigotry should be out in the open so others know what they're dealing with.

they simply have to abide by the law. and the law provides that public accommodation should not be denied based on discriminatory reasons.

or should we go relitigate the entire end of jim crow?

 

[Stephanie]

Someone needs a lesson on STATES RIGHTS

 

[jillian]

Oh, shit! I'm hearing a commentator suggesting that this doesn't become the law of the land in those states, but in the entire district that each of those federal district court holds jurisdiction over. That means, the bans still in place in 11 other states in those district also become invalid!

Which is why it's better to understand what things mean before acting like a faith bashing ass

what do you *think* it means?

 

[jillian]

Someone needs a lesson on STATES RIGHTS

states don't get to violate the federal constitution

you're welcome steffie baby.

 

[rightwinger]

When given a chance to rule on one of the most significant issues of their tenure, our justices decide to punt

Looks like they will allow the issue to slowly work its way out before they rule after it is already a done deal

 

[mdk]

wonderful news for individual rights

Unless you are a baker or a photographer.

If you are baker or photographer and have a business in a state that covers gays in Public Accommodation Laws then you have to follow the law. You can't offer a public service and then deny service for those covered under PA laws.

Several years ago Muslims cabbies refuses fares on the grounds that it violated their faith. They were violating PA law and ordered not to do so again. That was seen a slap against "creeping sharia" and radical Islam. Christian bakers were told they also can't use their faith as an excuse to deny a public service in states where gays are protected. Some of those same people that cheered the outcome against Muslims cabbies are now hypocritically crying about how their religious freedoms are stomped on. They can't have it both ways.

 

[Stephanie]

Someone needs a lesson on STATES RIGHTS

states don't get to violate the federal constitution

you're welcome steffie baby.

and you call yourself an attorney. just awful

 

[Czernobog]

States are now free to replace judges and legislatures and make a different decision if they wish.

Except these weren't state courts. These were federal circuit courts, and federal appeals courts. Nice thought thought. And, I'm glad to see right-wing activists admitting that they want to install activist judges that will be more interested in supporting an agenda, than they are the law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It should also be noted that the Court said it will not hear any of the cases during this session. As I understand it, this still leaves them the option to pick any of the cases up at a later time...

Regarding: "As I understand it, this still leaves them the option to pick any of the cases up at a later time..."

That is incorrect. Once cert is denied, that is the end of the case. There is no "case to pick up later".

Now a different case under different conditions could be "picked-up" under different legal considerations, but these cases are dead.


As an example of what would be "different legal conditions", the current requests were from the 10th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Courts. The 6th Circuit Court has heard arguments but has not issued an opinion. **IF** they were to uphold a ban and that ruling was appealed you would then have a split in the Circuit Courts, the losing side of the 6th Circuits case could appeal to the SCOTUS and you would then have a "split" in the Circuit Courts the SCOTUS would have to address.



>>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

Someone needs a lesson on STATES RIGHTS

It was accepted long ago that the Supreme Court made a very bad decision when it legalized abortion with the decision in Roe v. Wade. That decision is what set every subsequent battle over abortion rights. That's why they refused to hear these cases and left it to the states. If they had left abortion as a decision to be made by the states none of that would have happened. These justices weren't about to repeat that mistake which would drag every same sex marriage challenge to the federal level just like abortion has been dragged to the federal level.

 

[Czernobog]

Oh, shit! I'm hearing a commentator suggesting that this doesn't become the law of the land in those states, but in the entire district that each of those federal district court holds jurisdiction over. That means, the bans still in place in 11 other states in those district also become invalid!

Which is why it's better to understand what things mean before acting like a faith bashing ass

Not once did I bash a faith. I bashed fanatics who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their faith as a matter of law. The only people who don't know the difference are the fanatics. Are you a fanatic R.D.?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Someone needs a lesson on STATES RIGHTS

States don't have "rights". Under the 9th Amendment people have rights, under the 10th Amendment States have "powers".



>>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

>




It always been one of the possibilities (accept writ, reject writ, and delay review to a later conference).


But I didn't think they had to balls to flat out refuse to review the case.


Under the "Rule of Four" it takes only 4 Justices of the 9 to accept a case for review. That means at least one of the 4 "conservative" Justices (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, or Scalia) had to vote against review leaving the Appeals Court decision in place.



>>>>

 

[Czernobog]

Clearly, those who oppose marriage equality are losing this fight.

We have not yet begun to FIGHT. Let's see how many churches, Justices of the Peace, Town Clerks, etc.... are willing to be involved in thus when they start turning up like abortion doctors..... dead.

Wow...so now the Extreme right wing is, as always, advocating violence, and murder when they don't get their way. Thanks ever so much for demonstrating your complete lack of respect for the law, the Constitution, and this nation.

 

[martybegan]

wonderful news for individual rights

Unless you are a baker or a photographer.

bakers and photographers are subject to the same public accommodation laws as everyone else. they can be bigots in their own homes, however.

your individual rights end at the nose of others.

So basically you have to hide in your hole if your belief structure is different from the ruling class.

Got it.

I have to think the next fight has to be removing public accommodation laws, or at least limiting them to necessary commerce, not "everything"

you don't have to hide your bigotry at all. in fact, I think bigotry should be out in the open so others know what they're dealing with.

they simply have to abide by the law. and the law provides that public accommodation should not be denied based on discriminatory reasons.

or should we go relitigate the entire end of jim crow?

Jim crow was government and community pressure enforced segregation, it was not up to the people in the stores to decide if they could serve who they wanted. Either they got fined for doing it, or they got flaming molotov cocktails flung into their windows.

Jim crow was also the result of systemic discrimination, which required the Civil Rights laws to correct. Where public accommodation laws overreach is into non necessary services/goods, where the State has zero compelling reason to force acquiescence.

I always thought this was about equality, not acceptance. Public accommodation laws force acceptance via government fiat.