MI Supreme Court bans discrimination based on sexual orientation

[Matt]

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 173613002/

The majority opinion was written by a Snyder appointee, Justice Clement. This is EXCELLENT news! Of course we're all wondering how Mr. Peabody feels about this ruling...

[MotorCityRadioFreak]

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/ ... 173613002/

The majority opinion was written by a Snyder appointee, Justice Clement. This is EXCELLENT news! Of course we're all wondering how Mr. Peabody feels about this ruling...

If your theory is correct about him, Mr Peabody should passionately support it. I know I do.

[Deleted User 15846]

Oh my, I've only been here a short bit and it seems I've gained a lot of popularity, without making much of an effort in my view.

To answer this question, I see nothing wrong with the decision. I don't believe someone who is gay, lesbian, or bi-sexual ought to be denied the right to make a proper living or be terminated because they are in a same sex relationship. So yes, I believe in fair treatment of all people.

[Turkeytop]

If your theory is correct about him, Mr Peabody should passionately support it. I know I do.

And you were right. Pee Body does like it.

[Deleted User 15846]

It is Peabody Turkey Lurkey. As stated, you cannot have 1 rule for one group, then turn round and have another rule for another. I can't comprehend the reason in that sort of thinking.

[audiophile]

Elliot-Larsen was not designed to handle this situation and does not provide relief for organizations to meant to help certain people.

What about the example of a biological male in Anchorage, Alaska, who identified as transgender, tried to use such laws to gain access to an overnight domestic violence shelter for women who were often escaping sex-trafficking or being assaulted by men. No organization should have end up in court over the short-sightedness of the MSC expanding the definition without the legislative process being completed.

There was clear evidence to support the position that the writers of the Michigan civil rights law (known officially as the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act never intended it to provide protections based on sexual orientation. I understand that one of the 2 original sponsors of the Act acknowledged in a public hearing before it was passed that the law did not provide protection based on sexual orientation.

[Matt]

Elliot-Larsen was not designed to handle this situation and does not provide relief for organizations to meant to help certain people.

What about the example of a biological male in Anchorage, Alaska, who identified as transgender, tried to use such laws to gain access to an overnight domestic violence shelter for women who were often escaping sex-trafficking or being assaulted by men. No organization should have end up in court over the short-sightedness of the MSC expanding the definition without the legislative process being completed.

There was clear evidence to support the position that the writers of the Michigan civil rights law (known officially as the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act never intended it to provide protections based on sexual orientation. I understand that one of the 2 original sponsors of the Act acknowledged in a public hearing before it was passed that the law did not provide protection based on sexual orientation.

In what world do you think it is appropriate to suggest civil rights don't apply to homosexuals? Please spare us the religious BS...

[zzand]

Beat me to it Matt

[bmw]

You both need to knock off the bigotry towards religion. You're entitled to your religious beliefs, as is audiophile. Has he ever once attacked either of you once (let alone repeatedly) for your religious (non) beliefs?

As to the court decision, the dissent sums up my view perfectly.

"... this court’s duty is to say what the law is, not what it thinks the law ought to be," Zahra wrote. "But this is exactly what a majority of this court has done here."

The Legislature explicitly chose not to include sexual orientation in the 1976 law, Zahra wrote, and the reference to "sex" in the law refers only to whether an individual is a biological male or biological female.

"No person familiar with the common usage of the English language in 1976 would have understood the ordinary meaning of 'sex' to include 'sexual orientation,'" wrote Zahra, who argued the two terms are "distinct concepts."

Yay for judicial activism.

[Matt]

You both need to knock off the bigotry towards religion. You're entitled to your religious beliefs, as is audiophile. Has he ever once attacked either of you once (let alone repeatedly) for your religious (non) beliefs?

As to the court decision, the dissent sums up my view perfectly.

"... this court’s duty is to say what the law is, not what it thinks the law ought to be," Zahra wrote. "But this is exactly what a majority of this court has done here."

The Legislature explicitly chose not to include sexual orientation in the 1976 law, Zahra wrote, and the reference to "sex" in the law refers only to whether an individual is a biological male or biological female.

"No person familiar with the common usage of the English language in 1976 would have understood the ordinary meaning of 'sex' to include 'sexual orientation,'" wrote Zahra, who argued the two terms are "distinct concepts."

Yay for judicial activism.

Religion is a choice, sexuality is not. I can't imagine that someone would choose to be gay.

Also, the world was a lot different in 1976 (a mere 9 years after interracial marriage was legalized in the SE United States). This may be hard for you to grasp, but opinions can evolve over time. You don't have to dig in and defend your first opinion to the death.

[audiophile]

Matt has ignored the specific issue I raised:

Does a non-profit shelter for abused woman have to accept biological male?

The Elliot-Larsen has no such exceptions because it was not created for what it being used for by the expanded definition.

[bmw]

Also, the world was a lot different in 1976 (a mere 9 years after interracial marriage was legalized in the SE United States). This may be hard for you to grasp, but opinions can evolve over time. You don't have to dig in and defend your first opinion to the death.

So you're once again in the camp of the ends justifying the means. Correcting this is supposed to be the role of the legislature by amending the law, NOT by the Court re-writing it.

[Matt]

Also, the world was a lot different in 1976 (a mere 9 years after interracial marriage was legalized in the SE United States). This may be hard for you to grasp, but opinions can evolve over time. You don't have to dig in and defend your first opinion to the death.

So you're once again in the camp of the ends justifying the means. Correcting this is supposed to be the role of the legislature by amending the law, NOT by the Court re-writing it.

No - this is about right and wrong. Discrimination based on religious bigotry is wrong.

[bmw]

No - this is about right and wrong. Discrimination based on religious bigotry is wrong.

Fine. But once again, just don't call yourself a Constitutional Conservative. It is not the role of the judicial branch of government to re-write the law. That is the role of the legislative branch. And if the legislative branch isn't doing what you want it to do, that is what we have elections for.

[Matt]

No - this is about right and wrong. Discrimination based on religious bigotry is wrong.

Fine. But once again, just don't call yourself a Constitutional Conservative. It is not the role of the judicial branch of government to re-write the law. That is the role of the legislative branch. And if the legislative branch isn't doing what you want it to do, that is what we have elections for.

What an odd response...

How do you feel about the emancipation proclamation?