Homosexual bill passed by OKC Council

[Dave70968]

A little more on Romer v. Evans:

Facts of the case

Colorado voters adopted Amendment 2 to their State Constitution precluding any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on their "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." Following a legal challenge by homosexual and other aggrieved parties, the state trial court entered a permanent injunction enjoining Amendment 2's enforcement. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed on appeal.

Question

Does Amendment 2 of Colorado's State Constitution, forbidding the extension of official protections to those who suffer discrimination due to their sexual orientation, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

Conclusion

6–3 decision
majority opinion by Anthony M. Kennedy

Yes. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that Amendment 2 of the Colorado State Constitution violated the equal protection clause. Amendment 2 singled out homosexual and bisexual persons, imposing on them a broad disability by denying them the right to seek and receive specific legal protection from discrimination. In his opinion for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that oftentimes a law will be sustained under the equal protection clause, even if it seems to disadvantage a specific group, so long as it can be shown to "advance a legitimate government interest." Amendment 2, by depriving persons of equal protection under the law due to their sexual orientation failed to advance such a legitimate interest. Justice Kennedy concluded: "If the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."

 

[henschman]

That law specifically singled out homosexuals. What I'm talking about is a law providing that the State of Oklahoma intends to occupy and preempt the entire field of legislation regarding discrimination laws, other than those already in place in federal law, and that no municipality may make any law in that area which is more strict than Oklahoma State law. It would be in the interests of decreasing uncertainty by businesses and promoting the freedom of association of Oklahomans, not a desire to harm a politically unpopular group.

 

[grwd]

I know a homosexual bill, but he prefers to be called William.

 

[Sanford]

I know a homosexual bill, but he prefers to be called William.

Does he run slow enough to be passed by the OKC Council?

 

[grwd]

Beats me, Way over my head man, I'm just good for an occasional one liner.

 

[druryj]

It really isn't much worse than when a male-female couple does it, I find it just as annoying.

Hell I don't. Sorry, just being straight. (No pun intended).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[vvvvvvv]

If I had rentals I might only only rent to gay guys.

That would be discriminating against people based on both gender and sexual orientation and illegal under that law.

 

[TedKennedy]

Of course. People should be free to be as discriminating as they see fit in their interactions with others.

What I want is a voluntary society where nobody threatens force against anybody else unless somebody first starts its use. The good old non-aggression principle. That leaves people as free as possible to live their own lives as they see fit, and for each individual to maximize his own happiness. The current system, where anybody with enough pull can get his way forced on everybody, breeds conflict and uncertainty, as nobody's freedom is really ever safe.

This law is wrong for the exact same reason the law against gay marriage was wrong -- because it threatens force against people for engaging in a completely peaceful activity (choosing who they wish to interact with). It's a blatant violation of the non-aggression principal, and is completely immoral.

This seems to complicated for a lot of folks.