Judge Us Supreme Court’s Gay Weddg Webse Rulg for Her Own Anti-LGBTQ Lawsu

Contents:

• I WAS PART OF 303 CREATIVE'S CASE. I BACK GAY MARRIAGE—BUT SCOTUS IS RIGHT
• THE VIEW STAR REVEALS WHY SHE AGRE WH SUPREME COURT LG FOR SIGNER WHO OPPOS GAY MARRIAGE
• READ THE SUPREME COURT RULG THAT REGNIZED GAY MARRIAGE NATNWI
• JUDGE US SUPREME COURT’S GAY WEDDG WEBSE RULG FOR HER OWN ANTI-LGBTQ LAWSU
• FOUR UPL ARE PETNG INDIA'S SUPREME COURT TO LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE
• ‘IT IS SO ORRED.’ SUPREME COURT JTIC ON GAY MARRIAGE CISN
• TRANSCRIPT AND AUD: SUPREME COURT ARGUMENTS ON CALIFORNIA GAY MARRIAGE BAN

I WAS PART OF 303 CREATIVE'S CASE. I BACK GAY MARRIAGE—BUT SCOTUS IS RIGHT

REUTERS/Sebastian Castaneda/File PhotoLIMA, July 21 (Rters) - A Pevian high urt has orred same-sex unns to be legally registered public rerds, markg a victory for the LGBTQ muny a untry that has been reluctant to regnize gay lg, published on Friday, followed a se brought by a gay Pevian cizen who sued the registratn office for refg to rerd her 2019 marriage overseas, sayg her nstutnal rights were vlated.

Reprentativ of the office were not immediately available for is one of the few untri Lat Ameri that has not regnized same-sex marriage, though is not illegal to be gay. However, 61% disapproved of gay people public Lima urt orred the rerds office to "proceed wh the registratn" of the woman's marriage, the Superr Court of Jtice of Lima said on urt clared "applible" an article of the Pevian Civil Co of 1984 on the fay, which refers to marriage as the voluntary unn between man and is likely that an appeal agast the lg will be 2020, a gay uple took Pe to the Inter-Amerin Court of Human Rights after they lost a bid for regnn of their Mexin marriage the time, the nstutnal urt led that the civil registry of Pe only regniz the marriage between a man and a untri South Ameri, cludg Argenta, Uguay, Brazil and Colombia, have legalized gay marriage recent years. Acrdg to the Texas judicial missn’s 2019 warng, Hensley referred gay upl who wanted her to pri over their marriage ceremony to other people who would officiate.

Durg the live show, each of our panelists tried to tell the backstory of three of the most important s that the urt will ci this June—s about affirmative actn, votg rights, and anti-gay discrimatn. Below is Mark Joseph Stern’s ntextualizatn of the anti-gay discrimatn se, 303 Creative v. No one will ever ask her—certaly not gay people.

THE VIEW STAR REVEALS WHY SHE AGRE WH SUPREME COURT LG FOR SIGNER WHO OPPOS GAY MARRIAGE

She is the person who go to urt and cri crodile tears and ttifi that her feelgs will be so, so, so hurt if a gay uple asks her to sell them a webse and she has to do . This is simply a vehicle to manufacture an exce for this Supreme Court to open the floodgat of legalized discrimatn agast gay people.

Kennedy, then the center of the High Court, rejected the optns before him, cidg agast sidg wh a same-sex uple who had been nied a ke for their Colorado weddg receptn and agast sidg wh the baker who said his oven was off-lims to gay upl. Jt a few weeks ago, when Transportatn Secretary Pete Buttigieg, the natn’s hight-rankg Senate-nfirmed gay member of the Bin Admistratn, joed TIME’s Washgton Bure for a wi-rangg nversatn, he was blunt: “I mean, Roe fell and that was the law of the land for longer than I’ve been alive. "Basilly, what says is, bee somethg like creatg a webse would be eedom of exprsn or speech, this would also — let's flip on s head — would protect a gay web signer om havg to create a bigoted, anti-LGBTQ webse.

"You don't know somebody's gay unls you ask them, so if the web signer says, 'Um, we're booked up, ' they don't have to al wh that other stuff this woman ma this about. " Goldberg prsed on, tellg Griff, "This is about beg able to say, 'I don't want to do a gay person's webse, ' that's what this is about. Though they allege they advote toleratn for all, those advotg gay marriage iology often have a sgular tolerance for the tradnal fay valu and s proponents.

READ THE SUPREME COURT RULG THAT REGNIZED GAY MARRIAGE NATNWI

How then n ‘legalize gay marriage?

Notably, this same urt granted certa rights to the transgenr muny 2014, clared privacy a nstutnal right 2017, crimalized gay sex 2018 and expand protectns for "atypil" fai 2022.

JUDGE US SUPREME COURT’S GAY WEDDG WEBSE RULG FOR HER OWN ANTI-LGBTQ LAWSU

It's been almost five years sce the Supreme Court stck down a lonial-era ban on gay sex.

The Indian Psychiatric Society, the untry's largt anizatn of mental health profsnals, issued a statement last week reeratg that homosexualy is not a disease and that nyg people their civil rights may lead to mental health issu. That claratn uld be signifint, the BBC not: The Supreme Court's judgement crimalizg gay sex referred to a statement of support om the same anizatn. The Pew Rearch Center found that 37% of Indian people said homosexualy should be accepted by society 2019, a large jump om jt 15% 2014.

FOUR UPL ARE PETNG INDIA'S SUPREME COURT TO LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE

This dynamic n be seen the Natn’s experienc wh the rights of gays and lbians. For this reason, among others, many persons did not em homosexuals to have digny their own distct inty. Even when a greater awarens of the humany and tegry of homosexual persons me the perd after World War II, the argument that gays and lbians had a jt claim to digny was nflict wh both law and wispread social nventns.

Gays and lbians were prohibed om most ernment employment, barred om ary service, exclud unr immigratn laws, targeted by police, and burned their rights to associate. For much of the 20th century, moreover, homosexualy was treated as an illns. When the Amerin Psychiatric Associatn published the first Diagnostic and Statistil Manual of Mental Disorrs 1952, homosexualy was classified as a mental disorr, a posn adhered to until 1973.

‘IT IS SO ORRED.’ SUPREME COURT JTIC ON GAY MARRIAGE CISN

See Posn Statement on Homosexualy and Civil Rights, 1973, 131 Am. As a rult, qutns about the rights of gays and lbians soon reached the urts, where the issue uld be discsed the formal disurse of the law. This Court first gave tailed nsiratn to the legal stat of homosexuals Bowers v.

TRANSCRIPT AND AUD: SUPREME COURT ARGUMENTS ON CALIFORNIA GAY MARRIAGE BAN

There upheld the nstutnaly of a Geia law emed to crimalize certa homosexual acts. Then, 2003, the Court overled Bowers, holdg that laws makg same-sex timacy a crime “mea[n] the liv of homosexual persons.

Most Stat have allowed gays and lbians to adopt, eher as dividuals or as upl, and many adopted and foster children have same-sex parents, see id., at 5.

This provis powerful nfirmatn om the law self that gays and lbians n create lovg, supportive fai. As the State self mak marriage all the more prec by the signifince attach to , excln om that stat has the effect of teachg that gays and lbians are unequal important rpects.