June 25, 2015
By Mark Sherman
By Mark Sherman
WASHINGTON - Same-sex couples (click here) won the
right to marry nationwide Friday as a divided Supreme Court handed a
crowning victory to the gay-rights movement, setting off a jubilant
cascade of long-delayed weddings in states where they had been
forbidden.
"No longer may this liberty be denied," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The vote was narrow - 5-4 - but Kennedy's majority opinion was clear: "The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry."
The ruling will put an end to same-sex marriage bans in the 14 states that still maintain them, and provide an exclamation point for breathtaking changes in the nation's social norms in recent years. As recently as October, just over one-third of the states permitted gay marriages...
Equality in the work place exists within federal jobs and the military. That means there are career paths already in progress. When professionals have experience within government structure they have an open path to the private sector because of their credentials and competency alone.
Where marriage discrimination (assuming married LGBTQ) will carry brevity is primarily the south. Some discrimination will occur in the Midwest simply because of the demographic. A small percentage of LGBTQ isn't going to have an impact and in fact might be ignored as social convenience.
There were 34 states that have already decided to permit same sex marriage, that is a viable population to a constitutional amendment. I don't think either those that oppose same sex marriage or allow it have a case for a constitutional amendment. The marriage of different races is tolerated by the social environment. That facilitated work and family life, not really the law. There was law that at one time prohibited mixed racial marriages. All that disappeared within social acceptance. The laws became irrelevant. It would be surprising to most Americans how antiquated laws are still on the books.
The only place there is going to be problems is the south. There is that whole Chick-fil-a thing. Senator Lindsay Graham, a president nominee candidate, see himself carrying a campaign to protect religious rights. Considering how hostile the Supreme Court is about contraception I don't see them enforcing employment where this religious overlay is suppose to be paramount to the US Constitution. Under this court there is a preference to allow religious discrimination/bigotry.
The best avenue to challenge that is for a current employee(s) to get married and be open about it and then be fired. Any employee with a significant and good record in employment suddenly fired because of who they married would result in a disrupting legal case.
But, this court is very odd in their idea of what is constitutional when religion is believed to uphold the soul. There are innumerable topics that can be drawn on, including deliberate social oppression, where an entire class was disdained and caused hardship in the face of having religious sameness with employers. Racism cut across religious definition. What makes an employer oppressive to an American citizen? In the case of race, it is immoral to cast hate on a different race, yet southern Christians carried that hatred for decades if not more than a century, even into today and the confederate flag. It is so very obvious that white men hate others enough to even defy god and kill people in their own sanctuary. So, the whole religion thing with the Supreme Court is pure hatred itself.
The Supreme Court is out in right field presuming it has the right to be a religious authority. They don't. There is suppose to be separation of church and state which demands the courts to maintain it. To allow discrimination in contraception and being pregnant because employed by a religious preference employer is completely unconstitutional. How can Roe v. Wade exist and have a woman forced into pregnancy because of who they work for? It is ridiculous and Un-American. No employer short of a church itself has the right to force pregnancy because someone needs an income in a capitalism based country. It's hideous. And considering the fact the confederate flag is still endeared the idea people are forced into any kind of employment that discriminates along social preference is not legal.
Under any other political paradigm members of this court would have been removed from their position through legislative procedures. This tell tale social Bush doctrine is UnAmerican. Completely.
The only reason contraception was chosen as a measure the southern Christians wanted to have control over is because they can't police abortion. What were they going to do, have women employees take a pregnancy at the time clock BEFORE they punched in? As a matter of fact there would be question as to whether they were allowed on the property, then within the town and then what's next, "The South Shall Rise Again?"
The decision about contraception by the Supreme Court is based in paperwork and the fact health insurance would be used for it's purchase. It didn't impact condoms. So, where are they going with all this?
There is absolutely nothing prohibiting a woman working for wackos to purchase birth control. So long as it doesn't show up on the companies balance sheet it isn't a problem. What are they going to do send in the police with a search warrant to find the contraception pill or have a GYN at the personnel office? It's nonsense. It is stepping stone to some sort of ideology.
In the USA personal conduct and choice is a cornerstone. These decisions taints that and is UnAmerican.
John Roberts stated same sex marriage was allowed because it would discriminate along gender lines. Hello?
The vote was narrow - 5-4 - but Kennedy's majority opinion was clear: "The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry."
The ruling will put an end to same-sex marriage bans in the 14 states that still maintain them, and provide an exclamation point for breathtaking changes in the nation's social norms in recent years. As recently as October, just over one-third of the states permitted gay marriages...
Equality in the work place exists within federal jobs and the military. That means there are career paths already in progress. When professionals have experience within government structure they have an open path to the private sector because of their credentials and competency alone.
Where marriage discrimination (assuming married LGBTQ) will carry brevity is primarily the south. Some discrimination will occur in the Midwest simply because of the demographic. A small percentage of LGBTQ isn't going to have an impact and in fact might be ignored as social convenience.
There were 34 states that have already decided to permit same sex marriage, that is a viable population to a constitutional amendment. I don't think either those that oppose same sex marriage or allow it have a case for a constitutional amendment. The marriage of different races is tolerated by the social environment. That facilitated work and family life, not really the law. There was law that at one time prohibited mixed racial marriages. All that disappeared within social acceptance. The laws became irrelevant. It would be surprising to most Americans how antiquated laws are still on the books.
The only place there is going to be problems is the south. There is that whole Chick-fil-a thing. Senator Lindsay Graham, a president nominee candidate, see himself carrying a campaign to protect religious rights. Considering how hostile the Supreme Court is about contraception I don't see them enforcing employment where this religious overlay is suppose to be paramount to the US Constitution. Under this court there is a preference to allow religious discrimination/bigotry.
The best avenue to challenge that is for a current employee(s) to get married and be open about it and then be fired. Any employee with a significant and good record in employment suddenly fired because of who they married would result in a disrupting legal case.
But, this court is very odd in their idea of what is constitutional when religion is believed to uphold the soul. There are innumerable topics that can be drawn on, including deliberate social oppression, where an entire class was disdained and caused hardship in the face of having religious sameness with employers. Racism cut across religious definition. What makes an employer oppressive to an American citizen? In the case of race, it is immoral to cast hate on a different race, yet southern Christians carried that hatred for decades if not more than a century, even into today and the confederate flag. It is so very obvious that white men hate others enough to even defy god and kill people in their own sanctuary. So, the whole religion thing with the Supreme Court is pure hatred itself.
The Supreme Court is out in right field presuming it has the right to be a religious authority. They don't. There is suppose to be separation of church and state which demands the courts to maintain it. To allow discrimination in contraception and being pregnant because employed by a religious preference employer is completely unconstitutional. How can Roe v. Wade exist and have a woman forced into pregnancy because of who they work for? It is ridiculous and Un-American. No employer short of a church itself has the right to force pregnancy because someone needs an income in a capitalism based country. It's hideous. And considering the fact the confederate flag is still endeared the idea people are forced into any kind of employment that discriminates along social preference is not legal.
Under any other political paradigm members of this court would have been removed from their position through legislative procedures. This tell tale social Bush doctrine is UnAmerican. Completely.
The only reason contraception was chosen as a measure the southern Christians wanted to have control over is because they can't police abortion. What were they going to do, have women employees take a pregnancy at the time clock BEFORE they punched in? As a matter of fact there would be question as to whether they were allowed on the property, then within the town and then what's next, "The South Shall Rise Again?"
The decision about contraception by the Supreme Court is based in paperwork and the fact health insurance would be used for it's purchase. It didn't impact condoms. So, where are they going with all this?
There is absolutely nothing prohibiting a woman working for wackos to purchase birth control. So long as it doesn't show up on the companies balance sheet it isn't a problem. What are they going to do send in the police with a search warrant to find the contraception pill or have a GYN at the personnel office? It's nonsense. It is stepping stone to some sort of ideology.
In the USA personal conduct and choice is a cornerstone. These decisions taints that and is UnAmerican.
John Roberts stated same sex marriage was allowed because it would discriminate along gender lines. Hello?
