Jump to content

Supreme Court allows Mississippi anti-LGBT law to stand


Moondance
 Share

This topic is 1381 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

NBC NEWS, January 8, 2018 ...WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to take up a legal battle over a Mississippi law that allows state employees and private businesses to deny services to LGBT people based on religious objections.

 

Signed into law in 2016 in response to the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling, it allows county clerks to avoid issuing marriage licenses to gay couples and protects businesses from lawsuits if they refuse to serve LGBT customers.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/supreme-court-allows-mississippi-anti-lgbt-law-stand-n835721

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NBC NEWS, January 8, 2018 ...WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to take up a legal battle over a Mississippi law that allows state employees and private businesses to deny services to LGBT people based on religious objections.

 

Signed into law in 2016 in response to the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling, it allows county clerks to avoid issuing marriage licenses to gay couples and protects businesses from lawsuits if they refuse to serve LGBT customers.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/supreme-court-allows-mississippi-anti-lgbt-law-stand-n835721

 

Really makes you wonder about our decision makers, and whether they are really looking out for the good of its citizens, ALL citizens.....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does the Supreme Court not take up a case where a law violates a Supreme Court ruling?

If I understood the article and the embedded link correctly, they found that the plaintiffs could not show that they had been personally harmed and therefore lacked standing. So far, there has been no ruling on the merits of the case which, as you say, should be a no-brainer.

 

I expect they'll find some folks who have been harmed, and then refile the lawsuit.

'If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also to deny under oath that I ever made it.' - Tom Lehrer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understood the article and the embedded link correctly, they found that the plaintiffs could not show that they had been personally harmed and therefore lacked standing. So far, there has been no ruling on the merits of the case which, as you say, should be a no-brainer.

I expect they'll find some folks who have been harmed, and then refile the lawsuit.

 

Unless there is some significant difference, the Court will decide some of the merits in the Colorado case regarding the wedding cakes because there are plaintiffs who were actually harmed. Whether the government can refuse to provide services through its employees when those services have been found to be constitutional is an interesting question (as opposed to a private business which allegedly was exercising its First Amendment rights).

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Make America Sane Again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...