Could Hobby Lobby Ruling Extend To Cause Problems For GLBT Americans?

[PoliticalTorch]

This is a great article. To read a bit more on what I am talking about in this thread, be sure to also check out the next to the last paragraph. That's not to say that it Will happen but the door seems to have been left cracked just enough to unfortunately allow for the possibility of it. And the writer of this article is entirely correct in that the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't help humans anymore it helps Business. But then isn't that what the Conservative philosophy is all about. Big Business Wins -- ordinary people lose!

Opinion: Court helps companies, not humans - CNN.com

You aren't getting the message. No one but other gay people care. Not only that, but normals have had a gut full of gay. If gays are as obnoxious in Iran as they are here I don't blame muslims for hanging them from lamp posts.

Well brother get ready to get a Big dose more of it from now on because Gay people exist and they are here in this board and even those who are still in the closet. So the articles are not just purely for your benefit.

 

[hazlnut]

There are some now thinking that the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Hobby Lobby could extend to possibly exclude GLBT groups by some businesses. Even Justice Ginsburg believes it could be possible. And given the anti-Gay climate that runs rampant like a high fever in most Conservative circles, it could unfortunately happen. But that's the price one has to pay, unfortunately, when we have a Conservative Supreme Court that believes in siding with those who would take away citizen's rights. Remember that they have also recently ruled to allow people to protest right close to abortion clinics, a first also.

Why LGBT Americans Are Leery of Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby Ruling | Advocate.com

I understand the decision was very specific and would not effect LBGT Americans -- that doesn't mean "closely held" corps won't try.

 

[PoliticalTorch]

There are some now thinking that the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Hobby Lobby could extend to possibly exclude GLBT groups by some businesses. Even Justice Ginsburg believes it could be possible. And given the anti-Gay climate that runs rampant like a high fever in most Conservative circles, it could unfortunately happen. But that's the price one has to pay, unfortunately, when we have a Conservative Supreme Court that believes in siding with those who would take away citizen's rights. Remember that they have also recently ruled to allow people to protest right close to abortion clinics, a first also.

Why LGBT Americans Are Leery of Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby Ruling | Advocate.com

Oh and blacks will be forced back into slavery, American Indians will be forced to root for the Redskins and all Latinos will be forced out of the country regardless of citizenship. Those dirty, racist, evil Conservatives!

Hey, don't make light of it. With a Conservative Supreme Court it may just happen and that's a very scary thought.

 

[bendog]

The court had a way out on this one. On LGBT rights its stuck, and it knows it. The bigots will simply have to be sneaky in how they deal with employment and civil rights laws. They do that well enough now so no changes should be expected.

I sorta agree. Imo, Hobby Lobby was outcome oriented, but really may have had no more to do with religious expression than any other right secured by the BoR. The Court had an out, because Obama already carved out true religious employers. They just forced the admin to lump the Hobby Lobby type small family/closely held types in with the Catholic Bishops employing female housekeepers.

I hadn't thought of it until today, and seeing the scotus blog folks on tv, but really what the decision is just a continuation of the Court finding more rights applicable to corporations .... and the very wealthy having more rights that you or I because they can buy rights.

Say I don't like the same contraceptives the Hobby Lobby people don't like, but I own a hundred shares of P&G or GE instead of Hobby Lobby. My rights end at the boardroom door. Theirs don't.

 

[OKTexas]

It will protect businesses from being forced to provide them ceremonial services they can easily get elsewhere, like photographers and bakers.

Actually no. The Hobby Lobby decision does not address the Civil Rights Act.

The civil rights act has nothing to do with compelling a company to involve themselves in associations or provide services they find religiously objectionable. If by some chance this decision doesn't cover this, the next one will.

 

[PoliticalTorch]

There are some now thinking that the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Hobby Lobby could extend to possibly exclude GLBT groups by some businesses. Even Justice Ginsburg believes it could be possible. And given the anti-Gay climate that runs rampant like a high fever in most Conservative circles, it could unfortunately happen. But that's the price one has to pay, unfortunately, when we have a Conservative Supreme Court that believes in siding with those who would take away citizen's rights. Remember that they have also recently ruled to allow people to protest right close to abortion clinics, a first also.

Why LGBT Americans Are Leery of Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby Ruling | Advocate.com

I understand the decision was very specific and would not effect LBGT Americans -- that doesn't mean "closely held" corps won't try.

Well you could be right, yet there are some Justices who were on the court minority who have their misgivings but you're also right in that their "closely held" corps won't try. Their minions are trying right here already or is it just their anti-Gay, self-loathing hate.

 

[KNB]

Businesses aren't churches. Businesses can serve money or God, not both.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Could Hobby Lobby Ruling Extend To Cause Problems For GLBT Americans?

Not with this court. HL does not provide grounds for excluding employment opportunities.

 

[Silhouette]

What is a "GLBT American"?

You mean Americans who practice the LGBT dogmatic behavioral/cultural system of behaviors?

Short answer is "yes". If churches cannot be forced to support a behavior then neither can secular folks and the question of "yes or no" on gay marriage will be rightfully and retroactively returned to the states.

See Windsor for details.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What is a "GLBT American"?

You mean Americans who practice the LGBT dogmatic behavioral/cultural system of behaviors?

Short answer is "yes". If churches cannot be forced to support a behavior then neither can secular folks and the question of "yes or no" on gay marriage will be rightfully and retroactively returned to the states. See Windsor for details.

Sil is wrong, because her thesis is untenable with our Constitution and with Windsor.

I encourage all to read Windsor in full and the commentary.

Readers will discover that Sil is in the far small minority of hetero-fascists trying to twist American law.

And continues to fail.

 

[Silhouette]

What is a "GLBT American"?

You mean Americans who practice the LGBT dogmatic behavioral/cultural system of behaviors?

Short answer is "yes". If churches cannot be forced to support a behavior then neither can secular folks and the question of "yes or no" on gay marriage will be rightfully and retroactively returned to the states. See Windsor for details.

Sil is wrong, because her thesis is untenable with our Constitution and with Windsor.

I encourage all to read Windsor in full and the commentary.

Readers will discover that Sil is in the far small minority of hetero-fascists trying to twist American law.

And continues to fail.

I'll do the Jake version of "people won't google Windsor and hopefully they'll buy my lie" act and up the ante.

Here's the link to Windsor. The pages in the Opinion where it discusses precisely how the Court feels about state's sovereign rights to weigh in on gay marriage via the broad consensus of the citizens there are 14-22: United States v. Windsor

Read it. Read it and see if Jake is lying to you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is the pertinent info from the link.

013The State of New York recognizes the marriage of New York residentsEdith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who wed in Ontario, Canada, in2007. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire estate to Windsor.Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviv-ing spouses, but was barred from doing so by §3 of the federal De-fense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which amended the Dictionary Act—alaw providing rules of construction for over 1,000 federal laws andthe whole realm of federal regulations—to define “marriage” and“spouse” as excluding same-sex partners. Windsor paid $363,053 inestate taxes and sought a refund, which the Internal Revenue Servicedenied. Windsor brought this refund suit, contending that DOMA vi-olates the principles of equal protection incorporated in the Fifth Amendment. While the suit was pending, the Attorney General noti-fied the Speaker of the House of Representatives that the Depart-ment of Justice would no longer defend §3’s constitutionality. In re-sponse, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives voted to intervene in the litigation to defend §3’sconstitutionality. The District Court permitted the intervention. Onthe merits, the court ruled against the United States, finding §3 un-constitutional and ordering the Treasury to refund Windsor’s taxwith interest. The Second Circuit affirmed. The United States hasnot complied with the judgment.
Held
:1. This Court has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case

 

[Noomi]

Of course you don't care about other people.

 

[Kosh]

So how is this decision going to affect two male partners?

 

[SuMar]

There are some now thinking that the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Hobby Lobby could extend to possibly exclude GLBT groups by some businesses. Even Justice Ginsburg believes it could be possible. And given the anti-Gay climate that runs rampant like a high fever in most Conservative circles, it could unfortunately happen. But that's the price one has to pay, unfortunately, when we have a Conservative Supreme Court that believes in siding with those who would take away citizen's rights. Remember that they have also recently ruled to allow people to protest right close to abortion clinics, a first also.

Why LGBT Americans Are Leery of Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby Ruling | Advocate.com

The LGBT can, just as well, start up their own businesses and run them how they darn well please.

 

[jon_berzerk]

So how is this decision going to affect two male partners?

it is not going to according to the opinion itself

 

[Jarlaxle]

This is a great article. To read a bit more on what I am talking about in this thread, be sure to also check out the next to the last paragraph. That's not to say that it Will happen but the door seems to have been left cracked just enough to unfortunately allow for the possibility of it. And the writer of this article is entirely correct in that the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't help humans anymore it helps Business. But then isn't that what the Conservative philosophy is all about. Big Business Wins -- ordinary people lose!

Opinion: Court helps companies, not humans - CNN.com

You aren't getting the message. No one but other gay people care. Not only that, but normals have had a gut full of gay. If gays are as obnoxious in Iran as they are here I don't blame muslims for hanging them from lamp posts.

Not surprised that you support hanging gays by a rope. How conservative of you. That's why you pathetic fucks are slowly losing more and more support. Normal people can see what pathetic fucks you are.

She is not CONSERVATIVE. She is PSYCHOTIC!

 

[Peach]

Disgusting idea; I am not gay, and am concerned with the rights of gay humans.

Gays are basically 'sub-humans' based on their animalistic lifestyle. ..

And oral sex is an abomination. Torture is ok though......................