Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
Matt
Posts: 9853
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Where Ben Zonia couldn't cut it

MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation

Post by Matt » Thu Jul 28, 2022 5:59 pm

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 173613002/

The majority opinion was written by a Snyder appointee, Justice Clement. This is EXCELLENT news! Of course we're all wondering how Mr. Peabody feels about this ruling...


What's more pathetic: harassing an old man who is paying to do a radio show or supporting a grifter like Trump?

MotorCityRadioFreak
Posts: 6408
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
Location: Warren, MI

Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation

Post by MotorCityRadioFreak » Thu Jul 28, 2022 8:21 pm

Matt wrote:
Thu Jul 28, 2022 5:59 pm
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 173613002/

The majority opinion was written by a Snyder appointee, Justice Clement. This is EXCELLENT news! Of course we're all wondering how Mr. Peabody feels about this ruling...
If your theory is correct about him, Mr Peabody should passionately support it. I know I do.


They/them, non-binary and proud.

Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.

Deleted User 15846

Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation

Post by Deleted User 15846 » Fri Jul 29, 2022 12:44 am

Oh my, I've only been here a short bit and it seems I've gained a lot of popularity, without making much of an effort in my view.

To answer this question, I see nothing wrong with the decision. I don't believe someone who is gay, lesbian, or bi-sexual ought to be denied the right to make a proper living or be terminated because they are in a same sex relationship. So yes, I believe in fair treatment of all people.



User avatar
Turkeytop
Posts: 8854
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:27 pm

Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation

Post by Turkeytop » Fri Jul 29, 2022 1:00 am

MotorCityRadioFreak wrote:
Thu Jul 28, 2022 8:21 pm


If your theory is correct about him, Mr Peabody should passionately support it. I know I do.

And you were right. Pee Body does like it.


I started out with nothing and I still have most of it.

Deleted User 15846

Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation

Post by Deleted User 15846 » Fri Jul 29, 2022 1:10 am

It is Peabody Turkey Lurkey. As stated, you cannot have 1 rule for one group, then turn round and have another rule for another. I can't comprehend the reason in that sort of thinking.



User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation

Post by audiophile » Fri Jul 29, 2022 8:16 am

Elliot-Larsen was not designed to handle this situation and does not provide relief for organizations to meant to help certain people.

What about the example of a biological male in Anchorage, Alaska, who identified as transgender, tried to use such laws to gain access to an overnight domestic violence shelter for women who were often escaping sex-trafficking or being assaulted by men. No organization should have end up in court over the short-sightedness of the MSC expanding the definition without the legislative process being completed.

There was clear evidence to support the position that the writers of the Michigan civil rights law (known officially as the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act never intended it to provide protections based on sexual orientation. I understand that one of the 2 original sponsors of the Act acknowledged in a public hearing before it was passed that the law did not provide protection based on sexual orientation.


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

Matt
Posts: 9853
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Where Ben Zonia couldn't cut it

Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation

Post by Matt » Fri Jul 29, 2022 9:42 am

audiophile wrote:
Fri Jul 29, 2022 8:16 am
Elliot-Larsen was not designed to handle this situation and does not provide relief for organizations to meant to help certain people.

What about the example of a biological male in Anchorage, Alaska, who identified as transgender, tried to use such laws to gain access to an overnight domestic violence shelter for women who were often escaping sex-trafficking or being assaulted by men. No organization should have end up in court over the short-sightedness of the MSC expanding the definition without the legislative process being completed.

There was clear evidence to support the position that the writers of the Michigan civil rights law (known officially as the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act never intended it to provide protections based on sexual orientation. I understand that one of the 2 original sponsors of the Act acknowledged in a public hearing before it was passed that the law did not provide protection based on sexual orientation.
In what world do you think it is appropriate to suggest civil rights don't apply to homosexuals? Please spare us the religious BS...


What's more pathetic: harassing an old man who is paying to do a radio show or supporting a grifter like Trump?

zzand
Posts: 1710
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:16 am
Location: right here

Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation

Post by zzand » Fri Jul 29, 2022 9:49 am

Beat me to it Matt



bmw
Posts: 6729
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation

Post by bmw » Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:29 am

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.



Matt
Posts: 9853
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Where Ben Zonia couldn't cut it

Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation

Post by Matt » Fri Jul 29, 2022 12:27 pm

bmw wrote:
Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:29 am
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.
Religion is a choice, sexuality is not. I can't imagine that someone would choose to be gay.

Also, the world was a lot different in 1976 (a mere 9 years after interracial marriage was legalized in the SE United States). This may be hard for you to grasp, but opinions can evolve over time. You don't have to dig in and defend your first opinion to the death.


What's more pathetic: harassing an old man who is paying to do a radio show or supporting a grifter like Trump?

User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation

Post by audiophile » Fri Jul 29, 2022 12:33 pm

Matt has ignored the specific issue I raised:

Does a non-profit shelter for abused woman have to accept biological male?

The Elliot-Larsen has no such exceptions because it was not created for what it being used for by the expanded definition.


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

bmw
Posts: 6729
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation

Post by bmw » Fri Jul 29, 2022 1:05 pm

Matt wrote:
Fri Jul 29, 2022 12:27 pm
Also, the world was a lot different in 1976 (a mere 9 years after interracial marriage was legalized in the SE United States). This may be hard for you to grasp, but opinions can evolve over time. You don't have to dig in and defend your first opinion to the death.
So you're once again in the camp of the ends justifying the means. Correcting this is supposed to be the role of the legislature by amending the law, NOT by the Court re-writing it.



Matt
Posts: 9853
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Where Ben Zonia couldn't cut it

Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation

Post by Matt » Fri Jul 29, 2022 1:25 pm

bmw wrote:
Fri Jul 29, 2022 1:05 pm
Matt wrote:
Fri Jul 29, 2022 12:27 pm
Also, the world was a lot different in 1976 (a mere 9 years after interracial marriage was legalized in the SE United States). This may be hard for you to grasp, but opinions can evolve over time. You don't have to dig in and defend your first opinion to the death.
So you're once again in the camp of the ends justifying the means. Correcting this is supposed to be the role of the legislature by amending the law, NOT by the Court re-writing it.
No - this is about right and wrong. Discrimination based on religious bigotry is wrong.


What's more pathetic: harassing an old man who is paying to do a radio show or supporting a grifter like Trump?

bmw
Posts: 6729
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation

Post by bmw » Fri Jul 29, 2022 1:29 pm

Matt wrote:
Fri Jul 29, 2022 1:25 pm
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.



Matt
Posts: 9853
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Where Ben Zonia couldn't cut it

Re: MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation

Post by Matt » Fri Jul 29, 2022 3:09 pm

bmw wrote:
Fri Jul 29, 2022 1:29 pm
Matt wrote:
Fri Jul 29, 2022 1:25 pm
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?


What's more pathetic: harassing an old man who is paying to do a radio show or supporting a grifter like Trump?

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic