Skip to comments.
Supreme Court rejects discrimination case based on sexual orientation
Washington Times ^
| Dec 11, 2017
| Ryan Lovelace
Posted on 12/11/2017 7:49:19 AM PST by GonzoII
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
Bump!
1
posted on
12/11/2017 7:49:20 AM PST
by
GonzoII
To: GonzoII
Opps! Looks like she will have to fall back to hoping that she wins the lottery.
2
posted on
12/11/2017 7:53:00 AM PST
by
Howie66
("Tone down the tagline please." - Admin Moderator)
To: GonzoII
Finally, a majority of judges that don’t see it as their job to add “rights” to laws where We The People have not added those rights.
3
posted on
12/11/2017 7:54:29 AM PST
by
Wuli
To: GonzoII
Blue eyed and Blond Jameka Evans I’m sure.
To: GonzoII
17 - 370 EVANS, JAMEKA K. V. GA REGIONAL HOSPITAL, ET AL. [page 5]
The motion of 76 Businesses and Organizations for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of Anti-Discrimination Scholars for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of David Boyle for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
5
posted on
12/11/2017 8:01:24 AM PST
by
Hebrews 11:6
(Do you REALLY believe that (1) God IS, and (2) God IS GOOD?)
To: LeonardFMason
She looks a lot like Rachael Dolezal used to look...
6
posted on
12/11/2017 8:07:19 AM PST
by
Hugh the Scot
("The days of being a keyboard commando are over. It's time to get some bloody knuckles." -Drew68)
To: LeonardFMason
Blue eyed and Blond Jameka Evans Im sure.Close
7
posted on
12/11/2017 8:08:45 AM PST
by
Puppage
(You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it.)
To: GonzoII
I noted that Microsoft, Facebook, and Starbucks all filed amicus curae briefs in support of the plaintiff, implying that they would hire this woman. There are many jobs in many organizations for which a person’s sexual orientation should not matter one whit. And others in which it would matter a great deal. The problem on this topic arises when an advocate party tries to force their position on everyone else in the public square. Just my two cents.
8
posted on
12/11/2017 8:11:33 AM PST
by
Pecos
(A Constitutional republic shouldnÂ’t need to hold its collective breath in fear of lawyers.)
To: Puppage
Lesbian because she wasn’t getting any hits as a straight, maybe? My guess is that she sued as a means of chumming for interest; and if she lucked out and hit a jackpot, that would be all the better.
9
posted on
12/11/2017 8:17:24 AM PST
by
Tucker39
(Read: Psalm 145. The whole psalm.....aloud; as praise to our God.)
To: GonzoII
that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
The civil rights act says nothing about perverts................
10
posted on
12/11/2017 8:25:29 AM PST
by
PeterPrinciple
(Thinking Caps are no longer being issued but there must be a warehouse full of them somewhere.)
To: GonzoII
The queers take another one in the ...
Oh. Never mind.
11
posted on
12/11/2017 8:38:20 AM PST
by
IronJack
(A)
To: GonzoII
Jamekaussc ain't gots time fo dat !
12
posted on
12/11/2017 9:01:45 AM PST
by
tomkat
To: GonzoII
It would have been nice to have some more info in the article like why did it feelwas it discriminated against, or was it a just because suit, and why did the USSC reject the case.
13
posted on
12/11/2017 9:22:03 AM PST
by
Mastador1
(I'll take a bad dog over a good politician any day!)
To: PeterPrinciple
The civil rights act says nothing about perverts....Some states do, by including sexual orientation or preference in their laws.
14
posted on
12/11/2017 9:43:46 AM PST
by
JimRed
( TERM LIMITS, NOW! Build the Wall Faster! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
To: GonzoII
15
posted on
12/11/2017 10:01:41 AM PST
by
Nifster
(I see puppy dogs in the clouds)
To: GonzoII
Sexual orientation is not a protected class under Georgia’s anti-discrimination laws. Neither does Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
To: Mastador1
It would have been nice to have some more info in the article like...why did the USSC reject the case. An impossible request. The USSC accepts a case (grants certiorari) when four or more justices vote to do so, and frustratingly it never, ever explains why when fewer than four so vote. However, very rarely a Justice will post a written dissent from the decision not to grant certiorari, and he may include his (biased) view of the majority's rationale. That dissent, if any, will be posted here; in this case, none has yet done so.
17
posted on
12/11/2017 10:59:28 AM PST
by
Hebrews 11:6
(Do you REALLY believe that (1) God IS, and (2) God IS GOOD?)
To: GonzoII
An I reading what I think I'm reading? This isn't from The Onion is it?
18
posted on
12/11/2017 12:27:35 PM PST
by
Renkluaf
Comment #19 Removed by Moderator
To: Pecos
An employee’s sexual activity does not belong in the workplace.
No one should even know she’s a lesbian as it has nothing to do with work. She may be sexually harassing people by addressing her personal and private sexual pleasures to other employees.
20
posted on
12/12/2017 3:25:20 PM PST
by
SaraJohnson
( Whites must sue for racism. It's pay day.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson