Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win[W:48]

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

AWESOME!!!!!
this still arent getting old!
:usflag2::bravo:

another victory for equal legal, civil and human rights!

Equality keeps winning and bigotry and discrimination keeps losing.
Always great for american when equal rights wins!

Changes/Updates in RED
5/19/14 Version 11.0

26 States with Equal Rights ( 8 pending/stay)

Massachusetts - May 17, 2004
Connecticut - November 12, 2008
Iowa - April 27, 2009
Vermont - September 1, 2009
New Hampshire - January 1, 2010
Washing D.C. - March 9, 2010
FALL OF DADT Dec 18, 2010
New York - July 24, 2011
Washington - December 6, 2012
Maine - December 29, 2012
Maryland - January 1, 2013
FALL OF DOMA - June 26, 2013
California - June 28, 2013
Delaware - July 1, 2013
Rhode Island - August 1, 2013
Minnesota - August 1, 2013
New Jersey - October 21, 2013
Illinois - (ruled on Nov 20th 2013) June 1, 2014 effective
Hawaii - December 2, 2013
New Mexico – December 19, 2013
Utah – December 20. 2013 ( Stayed and will be ruled on with OK)
Oklahoma - ( Stayed and will be ruled on with UT)
GSK v. Abbott Laboratories - January 21, 2014 (could be huge in gay rights, discrimination/heightened scrutiny)
Kentucky - February 2/14/14 (Must recognize out-of-state marriages) which will lead to their ban being defeated
Virginia - February 14/14 (Stayed)
Texas - February 26/2014 (Stayed, pending 10th Circuit Court of Appeals)
Michigan - March 21, 2014 (Stayed)
Arkansas - May 5, 2014 (Stayed)
Idaho May 13, 2014 (Stayed)
Oregon 5/20/2014


22 States Working Towards Equal Rights

14 States with Pending Court Cases to Establish Equal Rights[/B]
Alabama
Indiana (ruling for ONE marriage but other law suits following)
Kansas
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
Nebraska
North Carolina
Pennsylvania (June 14 Trial)
South Carolina
Tennessee (Direct US Constitution Challenge)(Prilim in and 3 couples are recognized, later broader ruling coming)
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming


5 States with Court Case(s) and Legislation to establish Equal Rights
Arizona
Florida
Missouri
Nevada
Ohio (December 2013 trial) Trial had narrow ruling that Ohio will recognize OTHER state marriages but didn’t impact bans. New cases expected.

2 States with Legislation to Establish Equal Rights
Alaska
Colorado

thats 47 states that could have equal rights by 2016 and some much sooner!

US Court of Appeals Tracker
Map: Court Locator
1st - all states have equal rights
2nd - all states have equal rights
3rd - pending
4th - april/may court case
5th- pending
6th - pending
7th- pending
8th- two cases that the plaintiffs PLAN to take all the way up if needed but nothing pending
9th- pending (statement released "as soon as possible")

Also 3 State Attorney Generals no longer defending the constitutionality of bans, joining the case against them or reviewing their constitutionality
Nevada
Pennsylvania

3 States that still have unequal rights and nothing pending to change it yet, that’s it 3
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota

#EqualRightsAreWinning!!!!!!!!!!!!



also please feel free to let me know of any corrections or updates that need made, equality is kicking so much ass its hard to keep up, thanks

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Navy Pride said:

Activist judges strike again. We shall see what the SCOTUS says about this.

Click to expand...

LOL....NP.....you aren't going to like the answer. Even Scalia knows the writing in on the wall. Your only hope is that it doesn't come before the Supreme Court anytime soon....and maybe you can get another activist right-wing judge on the bench. That is unlikely to happen however.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Counting both federal and state court decisions, it’s the seventeenth consecutive judicial win for same-sex marriage advocates since the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor last summer. Most of the federal court wins are on hold while appeals are pending.
Judge McShane held that Oregon’s state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In line with almost every court to review the issue

Click to expand...

Gay marriage in Oregon (no appeal)
yep, equality is going to be national state by state or by a national decision much sooner than much later. Such a great thing that this injustice is being fixed.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

WorldWatcher said:

You were the one the brought up "pending" legislation.

It's not my job to support your claims.

Click to expand...

All it takes is a quick google search to validate them. Don't understand why you refuse to do that.

False.

People have been found in violation of State Public Accommodation laws for violating the law by denying the full and equal goods and services they normally provide based on the customers race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. They aren't "drug into court" for their beliefs, they are found in violation of the law for their actions.

As stated before I encourage the repeal of Public Accommodation laws so that business owners can refuse service to customers based on any reason they choose which includes race, religion, sex, age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and national origin. Such a repeal means that such decision need not be based on "religion", the return rights of property and association back to the owner.

Do you agree with that or does your continued reference to the 1st Amendment mean that you think business should only be able to discriminate if they hide behind a religious claim? (One must assume that since you reference "beliefs/moral conscience" you are refering to the Free Exercise of Religion Clause.) If so does that claim only apply to the ghey's or can a religious claim be made to justify discrimination against anyone?

Click to expand...

I thought I made it perfectly clear that a business owner has the right to deny anyone a service that violates their moral conscience religious or not. I certainly don't think a soul food restaurant owned by blacks should be forced to cater to a KKK gathering but that is where we are headed if the insanity is allowed to continue making new perverted case law along the way. Like I stated earlier, if states just got out of the business of marriage licenses and went to civil unions for legal purposes then marriage defined in the traditional sense would remain in tact for those who see it sacred between a man and a woman . There would be no need to redefine marriage for all to conform to and all other unions could be viewed however each individual sees it.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Ikari said:

I really just wish we'd make SSM legal across the Republic and move on with our lives. We've got bigger fish to fry...like why the **** are we still at war after more than a decade? Why has the government grown so big? Why is there so much spying and data collection?

Same sex couples share the same rights to contract as heterosexual couples and we just need to realize this and move on. Things are getting f'd up out there though, and all the gay marriage in the world ain't gonna fix it.

Click to expand...

I agree that everyone has the right to form contracts, but who says the government has to confer legal recognition on every contract and enforce it? From my perspective, the extension of government recognition to contracts and their enforcement by the courts is a courtesy for the people rather than a right of the people.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Ikari said:

I really just wish we'd make SSM legal across the Republic and move on with our lives. We've got bigger fish to fry...like why the **** are we still at war after more than a decade? Why has the government grown so big? Why is there so much spying and data collection? Same sex couples share the same rights to contract as heterosexual couples and we just need to realize this and move on. Things are getting f'd up out there though, and all the gay marriage in the world ain't gonna fix it.

Click to expand...

`
In the not to distant future, this will no longer be an issue....hopefully.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

clownboy said:

Who cares? What's wrong with walking around naked in public all day?

Click to expand...

This.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

`
For those of you who are interested, here is the public accommodation law or more precisely; 42 U.S. Code § 2000a -"Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation "

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

vesper said:

I'm sure it is easily found by doing a seach on House bills passed. It doesn't matter what color you are, what faith you hold or if you walk on one leg or have none. If what a person requests of a business owner violates his moral conscience he should have a right to deny that service. A printer who finds printing flyers for the next upcoming meeting of NAMBLA members to be offensive has a right to deny them that service. If a man of faith is faced with printing material that depicts his God as some monster or heinous joke, he has a right to deny his services to that person. If a Jewish business owner of a catering service was hired to prepare kosher dishes for an event and found out he would have to share the kitchen with those preparing shrimp and pulled pork, he has a right to deny his services. If a Muslim business owner was asked to provide services to a group that didn't want his female workers showing up in traditional headdress, has a right to deny that person his services. If a person of faith believes the union of homosexuals to be a sin, has a right to deny any service that is part of that union.

Click to expand...

And if a business owner doesn't like Christians? What then?

But before you answer, remember that christianity is being seen with less and less favor as time goes on. Be careful what you wish for.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Navy Pride said:

Activist judges strike again. We shall see what the SCOTUS says about this.

Click to expand...

We already know what they are going to say about it. SCOTUS has made several rulings regarding marriage. In every single one of them it is regarded as a fundemental right. And since, going by our Constitution all laws must be applied equally across the board and that "seperate but equal" is not valid per our Constitution SCOTUS will, if it even ever gets to them, rule the same as every single one of those "activist" judges.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

vesper said:

I thought I made it perfectly clear that a business owner has the right to deny anyone a service that violates their moral conscience religious or not. I certainly don't think a soul food restaurant owned by blacks should be forced to cater to a KKK gathering but that is where we are headed if the insanity is allowed to continue making new perverted case law along the way.

Click to expand...

The KKK is not covered under race, religion, sex, national origin, ethnicity or sexual orientation - businesses are free to deny services to them already.

vesper said:

Like I stated earlier, if states just got out of the business of marriage licenses and went to civil unions for legal purposes then marriage defined in the traditional sense would remain in tact for those who see it sacred between a man and a woman . There would be no need to redefine marriage for all to conform to and all other unions could be viewed however each individual sees it.

Click to expand...

I don't know why I keep pointing this out because people ignore it in they inaccurate posting - but Same-sex Civil Marriage (SSCM) has nothing to do with whether a business is required to provide full and equal services to customers. That falls under Public Accommodation laws. Changing the name from "Marriage" to "Union" under Civil law will not change that.

Sweetcakes by Mellisa (Oregon) - No SSCM, but they were found in violation of the Public Accommodation laws.

Elane Photography (New Mexico) - No SSCM, but they were found in violation of the Public Accommodation laws.

Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado) - No SSCM, but they were found in violation of the Public Accommodation laws.


>>>>

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Paxaeon said:

`
For those of you who are interested, here is the public accommodation law or more precisely; 42 U.S. Code § 2000a -"Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation "

Click to expand...

Actually that is the Federal Public Accommodation law, here is the Oregon Public Accommodation law:



>>>>

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

ksu_aviator said:

Washington Florist Who Refused Gay Wedding Job Says She 'Had To Take A Stand'

Supreme Court won't hear case on gay wedding snub

When these marriages become legal, they are used to force people to violate their religious beliefs and face damnation or persecution

Click to expand...

what exactly are the religious beliefs they are violating? Be specific.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Glen Contrarian said:

Ooooohhh...we're skeeered!

Look out! There's a gay couple right behind you, pointing their Gay Ray at you to turn you gay, and force your children into same-sex marriages! And they're going to round up all the heteros and force them into heterosexuality correction therapy since we all know that within every hetero is a gay person screaming to come out! Oh, yeah, and they'll outlaw the missionary position, too....

Click to expand...

I can't wait for them to teach me how to dress. I need new shoes anyways.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

WorldWatcher said:

Actually that is the Federal Public Accommodation law, here is the Oregon Public Accommodation law:

Oregon Revised Statutes

§ 659A.403¹

Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

ORS 659A.403 - Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited - 2011 Oregon Revised Statutes​

>>>>

Click to expand...

While you are looking up things, don't stop with Oregon's Accommodation Laws, read their State Constitution and what it says about upholding and protect a person's right to practice his moral conscience which is in conflict with their Accommodation Laws.

I do believe White is still recognized as a race. Please don't tell me that a white man who happens to belong to a White supremacist group isn't protected under Accommodation Laws. There is no difference in a White Supremacist seeking a Black caterer than there is of a gay couple who targeted Christian bakers who were known in the community not to do wedding cakes for same sex ceremonies and then filed a lawsuit against them for denying them that service.

And for the record the federal judge who overturned the gay marriage ban in Oregon just happens to be gay and made his ruling personal . And an appellate panel out of San Francisco refused requests to block the ruling so gays could start getting married that afternoon. So there you go you had Democrat state officials refusing to uphold the Oregon constitution and a gay judge overturning their same sex marriage ban and an appellate panel refusing any recourse of those against it. What a sad joke of a justice system.

Oregon Same Sex-Marriage Ban Voided by Gay Judge - Businessweek

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

vesper said:

I do believe White is still recognized as a race. Please don't tell me that a white man who happens to belong to a White supremacist group isn't protected under Accommodation Laws. There is no difference in a White Supremacist seeking a black caterer than there is of a gay couple who targeted Christian bakers who were known in the community not to do wedding cakes for same sex ceremonies and then filed a lawsuit against them for denying them that service.

Click to expand...

White is a race and if a commission for doing business is normally offered and refused because of race - then that business is in violation of the law.

The KKK however is not a race and therefore a business is free to refuse such a commission.

From Elane Photography v. Willock:

http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf



You can rally against it all day long, but the KKK argument has lost in court. A decision to refuse service based on a KKK event is not a refusal of service based on race.


>>>>

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

WorldWatcher said:

White is a race and if a commission for doing business is normally offered and refused because of race - then that business is in violation of the law.

The KKK however is not a race and therefore a business is free to refuse such a commission.

From Elane Photography v. Willock:

"Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean
that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux
Klan rally. This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group
membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the
NMHRA. See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on
“race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,
spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap”). Therefore, an African-American could
decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles
in the hypothetical are reversed—a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography
business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-
American under the NMHRA. This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to
promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination
based on certain specified protected classifications."​

http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf



You can rally against it all day long, but the KKK argument has lost in court. A decision to refuse service based on a KKK event is not a refusal of service based on race.


>>>>

Click to expand...

Forget the KKK all it takes is a white man who is known to hate black people and targets a black caterer for services according to you can not be denied.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

vesper said:

Forget the KKK all it takes is a white man who is known to hate black people and targets a black caterer for services according to you can not be denied.

Click to expand...

Read the quote again. It says

This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group
membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the
NMHRA.

Click to expand...

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

sangha said:

Read the quote again. It says

Click to expand...

And again the point is it doesn't take a membership to a supremacist group for a known white racist to target a black business owner for services just like the gay couple targeted Christian bakers they knew did not do wedding cakes for same sex ceremonies.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

vesper said:

And again the point is it doesn't take a membership to a supremacist group for a known white racist to target a black business owner for services just like the gay couple targeted Christian bakers they knew did not do wedding cakes for same sex ceremonies.

Click to expand...

Correct but no state has a law protecting known racists from discrimination

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

sangha said:

Correct but no state has a law protecting known racists from discrimination

Click to expand...

When state accommodation laws trump state constitutions because state offficials in charge did not uphold their constitution allowing an activist judge who happened to be gay overturn a state ban on gay marriage and made his ruling personal, there is something seriously wrong.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

vesper said:

When state accommodation laws trump state constitutions because state offficials in charge did not uphold their constitution allowing an activist judge who happened to be gay overturn a state ban on gay marriage and made his ruling personal, there is something seriously wrong.

Click to expand...

IOW, you were proven wrong about being required to serve the KKK, you jumped to being required to serve "known racists" . When that was proven wrong, you jump to another type of blather.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

ksu_aviator said:

Washington Florist Who Refused Gay Wedding Job Says She 'Had To Take A Stand'

Supreme Court won't hear case on gay wedding snub

When these marriages become legal, they are used to force people to violate their religious beliefs and face damnation or persecution

Click to expand...

Those so-called 'devout' people violate their own religious beliefs on a daily basis. Religious bigots are usually huge hypocrites cherry-picking whatever they want to follow or not follow from the Bible.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

vesper said:

I'm sure it is easily found by doing a seach on House bills passed. It doesn't matter what color you are, what faith you hold or if you walk on one leg or have none. If what a person requests of a business owner violates his moral conscience he should have a right to deny that service. A printer who finds printing flyers for the next upcoming meeting of NAMBLA members to be offensive has a right to deny them that service. If a man of faith is faced with printing material that depicts his God as some monster or heinous joke, he has a right to deny his services to that person. If a Jewish business owner of a catering service was hired to prepare kosher dishes for an event and found out he would have to share the kitchen with those preparing shrimp and pulled pork, he has a right to deny his services. If a Muslim business owner was asked to provide services to a group that didn't want his female workers showing up in traditional headdress, has a right to deny that person his services. If a person of faith believes the union of homosexuals to be a sin, has a right to deny any service that is part of that union.

Click to expand...

Try doing some research on 'protected class'. You don't seem to understand anti-discrimination law.

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

vesper said:

Forget the KKK all it takes is a white man who is known to hate black people and targets a black caterer for services according to you can not be denied.

Click to expand...

If the basis for refusal is race, then that would be true - it is illegal.


However is such a claim is made against a black caterer, then all that caterer needs to do is bring in affidavits or as witnesses white customers that exhibit the full range of goods and services offered. At which point it can be shown that the decision not to provide service WAS NOT based on race but based on an individual being an asshole (another condition not covered under Public Accommodation laws).

At which point the Judge would dismiss the charges and award attorney's fee to the defendant paid by the claimant.



>>>>