Eat up, you godless Sodomites!

[Babs]

I hope that one day federal law will prohibit this. Barring that, I hope that that sexual orientation is recognized as a protected class sooner rather than later.

A protected class with respect to the EEOC?

[UtahDan]

A protected class with respect to the EEOC?

I meant suspect class.

[UtahDan]

I meant suspect class.

I didn't say that very well in the first place.

[Babs]

I meant suspect class.

Yeah, that's what I figured. I could be wrong, but I don't think it'll happen.

[TripletDaddy]

I meant suspect class.

Isnt it already quasi-suspect? California said it was a suspect class already.

[Pheidippides]

was this a response to me saying I was wrong or commentary on the current state if affairs?

The latter. Unless you'd like to be wrong, in which case I'm happy to oblige.

[Babs]

Isnt it already quasi-suspect? California said it was a suspect class already.

I don't think so. Not technically, anyway. I think the Lawrence court used due process analysis rather than recognize a new class. I don't remember, though.

[LA Ute]

Message: If you are gay and want to have a modicum of administrative, legally nonbinding protection against discrimination, working for the federal government is your best option.

I am sure this make everything okay for most gay people.

Or you could live in California where we have the Unruh Act.

[creekster]

Or you could live in California where we have the Unruh Act.

But nik is in Texas! They must have something even better there. Unka Ted?

[Babs]

Or you could live in California where we have the Unruh Act.

The fact that two dozen states have accounted for the federal omission only underscores Nik's point.

[creekster]

The fact that two dozen states have accounted for the federal omission only underscores Nik's point.

Wait, his point is that Texas is one of the backward places?

And why is it an omission?

[LA Ute]

The fact that two dozen states have accounted for the federal omission only underscores Nik's point.

I don't know what other states do. Just pointing to our Unruh Act, which is quite comprehensive.

All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

For example, in a very interesting case, Benitez v. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, 44 Cal. 4th 1145 (2008), the State Supreme Court held 7-0 that the physicians in an IVF clinic had to provide artificial insemination services to a lesbian patient despite the physicians' religious objections. The physicians referred the patient to another doctor who performed the medical (IVF) service, and the patient got pregnant and had a baby. Still, she was upset enough at having been turned away that she sued and won in the Supreme Court. In CA, if you hold yourself out to the public as providing a service, you must provide it without regard to the prohibited categories listed, even if you have a religious objection.

The Unruh act is not an employment or housing statute, but I am pretty sure we have statutes that are equally comprehensive in those areas as well. (In other words, this entire post is only tangentially related to the point being discussed in this thread. But you reminded me of that interesting case. )

[LA Ute]

I like the top picture better.

Many more photos from the Hollywood CFA:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/08/03...-the-pictures/

[LA Ute]

[YOUTUBE]x8G4jI3VI8U[/YOUTUBE]

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/08...reet-preacher/

[Uncle Ted]

According to a pretty substantial percentage of CUFers the Church ought to/will be performing gay marriages. Denmark is just showing us the way.

Yes, it also seems that the LDS church won't be able to denied anyone from getting married in the Denmark temple given this new law. No temple recommend required.