MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

No - this is about right and wrong. Discrimination based on religious bigotry is wrong.

Fine. But once again, just don't call yourself a Constitutional Conservative. It is not the role of the judicial branch of government to re-write the law. That is the role of the legislative branch. And if the legislative branch isn't doing what you want it to do, that is what we have elections for.

What an odd response...

How do you feel about the emancipation proclamation?

By Beavis’ same logic, we should also oppose Loving too.

[Bryce]

No - this is about right and wrong. Discrimination based on religious bigotry is wrong.

Then lobby the legislature to correct the law as is in their purview. Brian hit the nail on the head with his dissent.

Remember Matt, Judicial activism can swing both ways. No pun intended.

[Bryce]

How do you feel about the emancipation proclamation?

That didn't come from the judicial branch, it came from the executive branch. You know, as old Barry once said, "I've got a pen."

[Bryce]

By Beavis’ same logic, we should also oppose Loving too.

Being as the 14th amendment, along with the Equal Protection Clause contained within, was written specifically to protect the rights of Black citizens, the ruling in Loving was absolutely correct.

[MWmetalhead]

I agree with the dissenting justices.

The intent of the 1976 law was to prohibit discrimination based on gender at birth, not sexual orientation and not fake gender.

I certainly believe that refusal of service or job discrimination based on sexual orientation should be outlawed in all secular instances, but that is a matter for the legislature to consider and decide.

[Matt]

How do you feel about the emancipation proclamation?

That didn't come from the judicial branch, it came from the executive branch. You know, as old Barry once said, "I've got a pen."

If it's a law, it should come from the legislative branch.

[bmw]

How do you feel about the emancipation proclamation?

That didn't come from the judicial branch, it came from the executive branch. You know, as old Barry once said, "I've got a pen."

If it's a law, it should come from the legislative branch.

LOL, you give me a ton of crap for my opinion on this, then MW comes along and states essentially the same exact opinion and you've got nothing?

[Matt]

How do you feel about the emancipation proclamation?

That didn't come from the judicial branch, it came from the executive branch. You know, as old Barry once said, "I've got a pen."

If it's a law, it should come from the legislative branch.

LOL, you give me a ton of crap for my opinion on this, then MW comes along and states essentially the same exact opinion and you've got nothing?

My point was already made clear. Are you suggesting I'm scared to challenge MW?

[audiophile]

How do you feel about the emancipation proclamation?

That didn't come from the judicial branch, it came from the executive branch. You know, as old Barry once said, "I've got a pen."

If it's a law, it should come from the legislative branch.

LOL, you give me a ton of crap for my opinion on this, then MW comes along and states essentially the same exact opinion and you've got nothing?

Great discussion!

And he did eventually come around...at that is a good thing!

I stood on principal even when I stood alone, at first.

[Rate This]

You both need to knock off the bigotry towards religion. You're entitled to your religious beliefs, as is audiophile. Has he ever once attacked either of you once (let alone repeatedly) for your religious (non) beliefs?

As to the court decision, the dissent sums up my view perfectly.

"... this court’s duty is to say what the law is, not what it thinks the law ought to be," Zahra wrote. "But this is exactly what a majority of this court has done here."

The Legislature explicitly chose not to include sexual orientation in the 1976 law, Zahra wrote, and the reference to "sex" in the law refers only to whether an individual is a biological male or biological female.

"No person familiar with the common usage of the English language in 1976 would have understood the ordinary meaning of 'sex' to include 'sexual orientation,'" wrote Zahra, who argued the two terms are "distinct concepts."

Yay for judicial activism.

In case you haven’t paid attention in class… this is how most high court decisions of note are decided. The impartiality thing is bullshit.