News and Events => Opinions & Editorials => Topic started by: Shana A on August 19, 2008, 09:12:14 AM Return to Full Version
Title: BREAKING (Calif.): Compliance With Unruh Act's Non-Discrimination Prohibitions R
Post by: Shana A on August 19, 2008, 09:12:14 AM
Post by: Shana A on August 19, 2008, 09:12:14 AM
BREAKING (Calif.): Compliance With Unruh Act's Non-Discrimination Prohibitions Required
by: Autumn Sandeen
Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 17:18:51 PM EDT
http://pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=CDE1F324621D74CFB739DDCD875F4972?diaryId=6550 (http://pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=CDE1F324621D74CFB739DDCD875F4972?diaryId=6550)
North Coast etc. v. Super. Ct.Do the rights of religious freedom and free speech, as guaranteed in both the federal and the California Constitutions, exempt a medical clinic's physicians from complying with the California Unruh Civil Rights Act's prohibition against discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation? Our answer is no.
In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court today reversed an appeals court's that allowed an improper affirmative defense. And, that improper defense was ...
...[an] affirmative defense...stating that defendants' "alleged misconduct, if any" was protected by the rights of free speech and freedom of religion set forth in the federal and state Constitutions.
by: Autumn Sandeen
Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 17:18:51 PM EDT
http://pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=CDE1F324621D74CFB739DDCD875F4972?diaryId=6550 (http://pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=CDE1F324621D74CFB739DDCD875F4972?diaryId=6550)
North Coast etc. v. Super. Ct.Do the rights of religious freedom and free speech, as guaranteed in both the federal and the California Constitutions, exempt a medical clinic's physicians from complying with the California Unruh Civil Rights Act's prohibition against discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation? Our answer is no.
In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court today reversed an appeals court's that allowed an improper affirmative defense. And, that improper defense was ...
...[an] affirmative defense...stating that defendants' "alleged misconduct, if any" was protected by the rights of free speech and freedom of religion set forth in the federal and state Constitutions.
Title: Re: BREAKING (Calif.): Compliance With Unruh Act's Non-Discrimination Prohibitio
Post by: Laura91 on August 19, 2008, 09:29:46 AM
Post by: Laura91 on August 19, 2008, 09:29:46 AM
Cool. I am glad that common sense won out over religion induced bigotry and stupidity. This quote is just too funny:
If the verdict had gone the other way they would be doing back flips and claiming victory. But since they didn't get their way they chose to whine like a bunch of spoiled brats. How unbelievably pathetic, 'oh boo hoo!! we lost the ability to discriminate whaaaaaaaaa!!!' People like this should go jump off a cliff as far as I am concerned.
QuoteBruce Hausknecht, the judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, is duely appauled at the California Supreme Court's decision:
This case highlights an ominous trend of the law in this country. In a conflict between the homosexual agenda and religious liberty, the homosexual agenda is favored in the courts over the First Amendment.
This opinion is the second of the summer in which the Supreme Court has 'gone off the rails' in accommodating a minority agenda at the expense of the sensibilities and constitutional rights of the majority of Californians.
If the verdict had gone the other way they would be doing back flips and claiming victory. But since they didn't get their way they chose to whine like a bunch of spoiled brats. How unbelievably pathetic, 'oh boo hoo!! we lost the ability to discriminate whaaaaaaaaa!!!' People like this should go jump off a cliff as far as I am concerned.