Posted on 02/27/2024 12:13:27 PM PST by fwdude
A Missouri prison worker’s legal fight against on-the-job discrimination this week provided U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito — one of the court’s most conservative members — an opportunity to denounce the landmark decision recognizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
Jean Finney had worked as a corrections officer at the Western Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center in St. Joseph since 2002, but after about eight years, the job started turning toxic.
A co-worker, the ex-husband of Finney’s romantic partner, undercut Finney on the job, sent disparaging texts about her status as a lesbian and, eventually, withheld information Finney needed to safely do her job. He spread rumors, a court later found, and lodged several complaints against her.
Finney sued the Missouri Department of Corrections alleging a hostile work environment, and at a 2021 civil trial in Buchanan County, the judge removed several potential jurors who said they believed homosexuality was sinful. The jury that was eventually seated sided with Finney and awarded her $275,000.
The Missouri Court of Appeals Western District later affirmed the decision, and the Missouri Supreme Court declined to review the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The idea of a jury of your peers is by and large useless in a modern context. I think that for that to work the community has to be bound together by shared ideas, shared relgion and history etc. That is less and less the case with each passing day.
I oppose homosexual marriage, but I don’t see deciding original case differently if the wife took up with a man or a woman - the husband would be resentful in any case. Did he endanger her at their workplace? Did the employer fail to take action?
From a jury of our peers to a jury of our queers?
Notice also that the definition of “discrimination” keeps morphing. Originally, it meant getting or keeping a job or promotion. Now it means if you say you feel “uncomfortable” at work due to certain people, THAT is now “discrimination.”
I noticed all are to be treated equally under the law.
I also noticed that the govt shouldn’t be sanctioning any marriage.
I wouldn’t notice the queer circus if the govt stayed in their lane.
I like how Yahoo spins this as Alito hates gay marriage and completely ignoring the actual argument Alito and the lawyer appealing the decision to the Supreme Court is making.
That jurors were unjustly removed because of religious bigotry.
It’s not a Yahoo originated article, but a Kansas City Star piece. Who owns them I can only guess.
That’s “creative lawyering”! Money to be made pushing “the morph”, making what is today not tomorrow!
“I also noticed that the govt shouldn’t be sanctioning any marriage.”
I wrote that many years ago on FR and took a lot of heat for it. My point was that SCOTUS would be compelled, through the 14th amendment, to rule in favor of same-sex marriage as long as governments had a role in sanctioning marriage. Unfortunately, that came to pass.
Freedom of disassociation
Water seeks its own level
Gog sinking sewer usa
MaGog sinking sewer nato / Un
Rev 13
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.