Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Monday, May 28, 2018

Supreme Court will soon rule on gay rights, gerrymandering, unions

The Supreme Court is heading into the final month of its term, facing decisions on gerrymandering, unions, gay rights, abortion and President Trump's travel ban.

This term's best-known case is a culture wars clash that pits equal rights for gay customers against a claim of religious liberty from a Christian store owner. It is one of three major cases that feature a "compelled speech" claim from conservatives who object to liberal state laws. The others involve union fees and California's required disclosures for crisis pregnancy centers.

The justices are expected to announce decisions on the first day of every work week between now and the end of June, and then adjourn for the summer.

Major pending cases..

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Gay rights = Religious persecution.

Anonymous said...

Law has nothing to do with your faith. Perhaps you are not faithful enough if you feel persecuted. The same laws proffer you to worship in your home and church however your faith leads you. Reality at large is made up of many faiths and points of view right,wrong,ridiculous or otherwise. It tests a lot of perspectives,logic and faiths and human resolve and it is meant to.

Anonymous said...

A person shouldn't be forced to participate in a activity they have religious and moral objection to even if they are a business owner. Even the military allows for a conscientious objector. Homosexuality is being used to usher in backdoor Fascism.

Anonymous said...

What is interesting, is that the "cake baker" case is no longer a "religious" argument per se, but a "free speech" case, specifically pertaining to compelled speech.

This will be interesting because they will have to argue that a commissioned cake qualifies as "speech"... and that somehow the speech found on it is "compelled" if it is against a persons religion.

Not being able to win their case to discriminate strictly religious grounds (not surprising as that argument clearly fails), this is an interesting angle.