I understand the arguments about textualism and how the "man brings his husband to the party vs. a woman" makes this a sex discrimination problem...
-
-
Show this thread
-
The bottom line is protections against discrimination for sexual orientation and gender identity came to exist in this country without a legislative body debating and agreeing to enact them. Which is how these things are supposed to be brought about.
Show this thread -
I understand how this logic brings about Gorsuch's conclusion. I still think the right thing to do was to leave it to Congress. https://twitter.com/lawyeron/status/1272578626018517003 …
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread -
What I find more unpersuasive about the textualism argument is the insinuation it necessitated Gorsuch's reasoning. He wasn't forced to reach this conclusion, he wanted to.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
In what world are enough Republicans voting for that in Congress?
-
That's the cross to bear on those wanting to change laws
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sooo many issues where Congress is too cowardly to actually do their job.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
If you believe this, you should've been rooting for Democrats to propose this legislation and put Republicans on record being against gay rights. Instead, you have 2 GOP appointed judges getting this over the finish line with Trump's appointee writing the decision.
- Show replies
-
-
-
For me it depends on the job/institution. Religious organizations have every right not to hire or to fire someone whose behavior they deem sinful. They fire heterosexuals who commit adultery.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.