The Supreme Court favor of a Colorado webse signer who argued the First Amendment allows her to refe service to gay people.
Contents:
- SUPREME COURT MARKS END OF PRI MONTH BY LETTG SHOPS ‘EXPRS’ DISAPPROVAL FOR GAY PEOPLE—BY NOT SERVG THEM
- GAY RIGHTS VS. FREE SPEECHSUPREME COURT BACKS WEB DIGNER OPPOSED TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
- SUPREME COURT RUL BS CAN DISCRIMATE AGAST GAY PEOPLE
SUPREME COURT MARKS END OF PRI MONTH BY LETTG SHOPS ‘EXPRS’ DISAPPROVAL FOR GAY PEOPLE—BY NOT SERVG THEM
Lou is now on the PTA board of his children's school and he views the CSS refal to work wh gay upl as makg no sense when the need for foster parents is so great. In addn, CSS matas that no gay uple has even approached CSS for foster re home placement, promptg Katyal to rpond that "the Natnal Baptist Associatn pots out that if one of the agenci had a sign sayg, 'No Baptists allowed, ' would be ld fort to those folks who say, 'Oh, you uld jt go somewhere else.
Revisg LGBT vers relig rights In the last analysis, Wednday's se picks up on the qutn the Supreme Court ducked two years ago the se of a Colorado baker who refed to make a weddg ke for a gay uple.
The Uned Stat has wnsed a remarkable shift LGBTQ rights and visibily the 50 years sce the Stonewall uprisg — and jt the last few years, LGBTQ people have won the right to marry, have h a rerd high reprentatn on televisn and have seen the first openly gay major printial ndidate beg his mpaign.
GAY RIGHTS VS. FREE SPEECHSUPREME COURT BACKS WEB DIGNER OPPOSED TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
The first se will nsir the dismissals of a unty ernment employee and a skydivg stctor, who were fired for beg gay. In 1953, a publisher associated wh the Los Angel chapter of the Mattache Society, one of the untry’s first “homophile” groups, released somethg unique for s time: ONE: The Homosexual Magaze.
SUPREME COURT RUL BS CAN DISCRIMATE AGAST GAY PEOPLE
The magaze, which is nsired by One Archiv Foundatn to be Ameri’s first wily-distributed magaze for gay rears, clud articl, edorials, short stori and other ntent. In s cisn, the Supreme Court tossed out a lower urt’s lg, and tablished that material aimed at a gay dience was not herently obscene. “The urt went out of s way to make clear that gay people uld be crimalized unr the provisns, and there was nothg wrong wh that.
Many people who feared the then-myster disease were “hyper-foced” on the ia that gay men were promiscuo and saw HIV-posive people as “sort of gettg what they served, ” says Maril.