Mod-Sanctioned LGBT Rights & Issues Thread

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Okay back to the issues. Arizona is stirring up the hornets nest that was Katzenbach v. McClung. If this goes to SCOTUS, we might see that decision revisited.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

THE TOPIC. KINDLY KEEP TO IT.

Which means this is not a racial thread.
It is not a white pride thread.
It is not a nationality thread.
It is not anything but a place to discuss LGBT Rights and Issues.

If you aren't here to discuss (opposition with civility is fine)
- which means do not flame/bait/troll -
then go somewhere else and stop wasting everyone else's time. Thanks.

[Divair]

On a far more interesting note.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/ ... MC20140221
A federal judge has decided that Cook County (Chicago's county) shouldn't have to wait until June for SSM. It's legal right now.

[Vareiln]

On a far more interesting note.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/ ... MC20140221
A federal judge has decided that Cook County (Chicago's county) shouldn't have to wait until June for SSM. It's legal right now.

Nice.

[Othelos]

Okay back to the issues. Arizona is stirring up the hornets nest that was Katzenbach v. McClung. If this goes to SCOTUS, we might see that decision revisited.

That would be a good thing, imo. People need to realize discrimination is discrimination.

[Regnum Dominae]

On a far more interesting note.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/ ... MC20140221
A federal judge has decided that Cook County (Chicago's county) shouldn't have to wait until June for SSM. It's legal right now.

Excellent. Hopefully the rest of Illinois soon follows.

[Neutraligon]

On a far more interesting note.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/ ... MC20140221
A federal judge has decided that Cook County (Chicago's county) shouldn't have to wait until June for SSM. It's legal right now.

I saw that. Does this mean that people from the rest of the state can go there to get married?

[Divair]

On a far more interesting note.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/ ... MC20140221
A federal judge has decided that Cook County (Chicago's county) shouldn't have to wait until June for SSM. It's legal right now.

I saw that. Does this mean that people from the rest of the state can go there to get married?

Probably.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

On a far more interesting note.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/ ... MC20140221
A federal judge has decided that Cook County (Chicago's county) shouldn't have to wait until June for SSM. It's legal right now.

This is actually a nice development. I wonder if the Federal Court's decision also impacts the entire state of Chicago though.

[Othelos]

On a far more interesting note.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/ ... MC20140221
A federal judge has decided that Cook County (Chicago's county) shouldn't have to wait until June for SSM. It's legal right now.

Too bad it isn't the whole state.

[Neutraligon]

I saw that. Does this mean that people from the rest of the state can go there to get married?

Probably.

Cook county is about to make a lot of money then.

[Luxew]

On a far more interesting note.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/ ... MC20140221
A federal judge has decided that Cook County (Chicago's county) shouldn't have to wait until June for SSM. It's legal right now.

Yay! Hopefully the state next.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Okay back to the issues. Arizona is stirring up the hornets nest that was Katzenbach v. McClung. If this goes to SCOTUS, we might see that decision revisited.

That would be a good thing, imo. People need to realize discrimination is discrimination.

True but the question remains, though morally detestable, does Congress have the Authority by the Constitution to outlaw discrimination. I'ts an issue of competing rights. Though K v M held the commerce clause gave them that authority, more than likely that same precedent will be applied, but it's a discussion worth having.

[Sun Wukong]

On a far more interesting note.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/ ... MC20140221
A federal judge has decided that Cook County (Chicago's county) shouldn't have to wait until June for SSM. It's legal right now.

Too bad it isn't the whole state.

I couldn't get Dresden to mind control any more legislative bodies. I'm not made of money.

[Geilinor]

That would be a good thing, imo. People need to realize discrimination is discrimination.

True but the question remains, though morally detestable, does Congress have the Authority by the Constitution to outlaw discrimination. Though K v M held the commerce clause gave them that authority, more than likely that same precedent will be applied, but it's a discussion worth having.

Yes, Congress does, the principle is the exact same.

[Othelos]

That would be a good thing, imo. People need to realize discrimination is discrimination.

True but the question remains, though morally detestable, does Congress have the Authority by the Constitution to outlaw discrimination. I'ts an issue of competing rights. Though K v M held the commerce clause gave them that authority, more than likely that same precedent will be applied, but it's a discussion worth having.

I think business owners can reject customers if they want, except based on discriminatory reasons.

[Osterreichischen Faschistischen Republik]

True but the question remains, though morally detestable, does Congress have the Authority by the Constitution to outlaw discrimination. I'ts an issue of competing rights. Though K v M held the commerce clause gave them that authority, more than likely that same precedent will be applied, but it's a discussion worth having.

I think business owners can reject customers if they want, except based on discriminatory reasons.

It is their business and they own it, they can refuse customers based on whatever reason they want.

[Shaggai]

Too bad it isn't the whole state.

I couldn't get Dresden to mind control any more legislative bodies. I'm not made of money.

Holy crap, how much did that cost?

[Neutraligon]

I think business owners can reject customers if they want, except based on discriminatory reasons.

It is their business and they own it, they can refuse customers based on whatever reason they want.

According to the law, no they cannot..

[Othelos]

I think business owners can reject customers if they want, except based on discriminatory reasons.

It is their business and they own it, they can refuse customers based on whatever reason they want.

Not for discriminatory reasons.

[Regnum Dominae]

I think business owners can reject customers if they want, except based on discriminatory reasons.

It is their business and they own it, they can refuse customers based on whatever reason they want.

No, they can't, not if their business serves the public.

[Verdum]

True but the question remains, though morally detestable, does Congress have the Authority by the Constitution to outlaw discrimination. I'ts an issue of competing rights. Though K v M held the commerce clause gave them that authority, more than likely that same precedent will be applied, but it's a discussion worth having.

I think business owners can reject customers if they want, except based on discriminatory reasons.

Actually I think that if I own a business I should be able to reject people that are something I discriminate against.
It's my business, maybe I don't want them in it.

[Divair]

That would be a good thing, imo. People need to realize discrimination is discrimination.

True but the question remains, though morally detestable, does Congress have the Authority by the Constitution to outlaw discrimination. I'ts an issue of competing rights. Though K v M held the commerce clause gave them that authority, more than likely that same precedent will be applied, but it's a discussion worth having.

Not really. We've had it a few hundred times on this forum alone. The Supreme Court ruled against discrimination in serving customers. That's that.

[Osterreichischen Faschistischen Republik]

It is their business and they own it, they can refuse customers based on whatever reason they want.

Not for discriminatory reasons.

Why not?

It is their prerogative to do so.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I think business owners can reject customers if they want, except based on discriminatory reasons.

It is their business and they own it, they can refuse customers based on whatever reason they want.

They can't if it is a public accommodation, which falls under a private business open to the public and not under any sort of membership rules.

If that is the case then all businesses have to be membership based instead of some public based and some membership-based.