Posts tagged U.S. Supreme Court
Posts tagged U.S. Supreme Court
Fox News Radio’s Todd Starnes and American Family Radio’s Sandy Rios displaying a jaw-dropping lack of awareness when discussing marriage equality.
I nearly choked on my goddamn coffee when I heard this fuckery come out of their mouths. Let’s just hit the basic point: EVERY bill passed for marriage equality has a religious exemption. Period.
And clergy have every right to refuse to marry anyone. Don’t believe me? Go to a Catholic priest, demand he marry you and your significant other on the spot, and mention that neither of you is Catholic, but he just HAS to do it. Hint: He won’t.
P.S. — If you want to uphold “traditional, Biblical” definitions of marriage and think it’s one man and one woman, you clearly didn’t read that book closely.
I just can’t with some people…
Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers, (D-Omaha) in a prepared statement to the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee on H.R. 3396, May 16, 1996. H.R. 3396 would later become the Defense of Marriage Act.
I’ve posted this once before, but it’s especially relevant this week as the U.S. Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act.
And Nebraska’s Sen. Ernie Chambers is the goddamn man.
Scalia has a dream. One day, he shall not be judged on the content of his character, but solely on the color of his skin.
Jim Morin in The Miami Herald, Feb. 28
Justice Antonin Scalia, oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, Feb. 27, 2013.
Maybe Scalia should talk to the members of the GOP who voted against the Violence Against Women Act. That’s got a wonderful name. Who’s going to vote against that?
View orders in pending cases for today linked above.
mrpooscratch replied to your post: Dear Conservatives who think they grasp this Jesus thing:
Um, it’s about free speech and people not trying to destroy your business because they disagree with you, NOT homosexuality. Sorry you missed the point.
Nope, sorry. You’re missing the point here. Just as the CEO has his freedom of speech, we have the freedom of speech to boycott his establishments and spread the word about his business practices. In fact, a boycott is a form of free speech.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right to boycott in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. et al. 458 U.S. 886 (1982). The court held that the States have broad power to regulate general economic activities, but cannot prohibit peaceful political activity and organizing. This includes boycotts, which are protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments in regards to freedom of speech and association. Also, within the right to freely associate is the right to demonstrate and align one’s self with the ideals of the association or business — or not.
Also, individuals are not responsible for business losses due a non-violent boycott — even if a business fails. The First Amendment freedoms in a boycott trump the business owner’s success. Claiborne bears striking similarities to issues at the heart of the boycott of Chick-Fil-A. As the Court said in this case, petitioners, “through exercise of their First Amendment rights of speech, assembly, association, and petition, rather than through riot or revolution… sought to change a social order that had consistently treated them as second-class citizens.”
Justice John Paul Stevens, who delivered the majority opinion, wrote:
"The boycott of white merchants at issue in this case took many forms. The boycott was launched at a meeting of a local branch of the NAACP attended by several hundred persons. Its acknowledged purpose was to secure compliance by both civic and business leaders with a lengthy list of demands for equality and racial justice. The boycott was supported by speeches and nonviolent picketing. Participants repeatedly encouraged others to join in its cause. Each of these elements of the boycott is a form of speech or conduct that is ordinarily entitled to protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments."
Also, in Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971), Chief Justice Warren Burger stated:
"The claim that the expressions were intended to exercise a coercive impact on respondent does not remove them from the reach of the First Amendment. Petitioners plainly intended to influence respondent’s conduct by their activities; this is not fundamentally different from the function of a newspaper. Petitioners were engaged openly and vigorously in making the public aware of respondent’s real estate practices. Those practices were offensive to them, as the views and practices of petitioners are no doubt offensive to others. But so long as the means are peaceful, the communication need not meet standards of acceptability." [citations omitted]
In other words, even if the goal of the boycott is coercive action against a business entity, the boycott is protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments as long as it remains non-violent.
Now, beyond the constitutionality of the boycott, isn’t this how the free market is supposed to work? For example, I don’t like the business practices or views of Shop X, and they refuse to change their practices — say, puppy punching for the lulz. I hate puppy punching because it’s hurtful and unnecessary for the business to function. So I organize a boycott. Shop X refuses to quit punching puppies, and eventually closes because others decided of their own volition to stop patronizing the shop.
Diner Y’s owner holds racist beliefs which he voices on community radio. So I organize a boycott. Diner Y closes because people refuse to eat at a place that endorses bigotry.
Chick-Fil-A’s owner actively supports discrimination against GLBTQ people via his free speech (his words and money). So I organize a boycott. The free market has yet to decide on Chick-Fil-A’s fate.
The U.S. Constitution is a beautiful thing.