7th Circuit Rejects Sexual Orientation Protections Under Existing Civil Rights Law:https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-appeals-court-rejects-protections-for-gay-people-und?utm_term=.udoGjveK7E …
-
-
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Conclusion by Judge Ilana Rovner: https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/federal-appeals-court-rejects-protections-for-gay-people-und?utm_term=.gsKXQrgody#.ykGqeG715w …pic.twitter.com/2i8H245WFB
4 replies 26 retweets 15 likes -
-
-
Replying to @AlexKing3rd
.
@AlexKing3rd It spends more time explaining why it's wrong than what the decision is, let alone why it's right.2 replies 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
I see. Curious re what's in the briefs. Must be mighty persuasive appellant's counsel, or decision wd be 250 words total &=No
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AlexKing3rd
You're one of those guys who has an absolute, certain view on any topic. Interesting.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
Nah, I just think if you can get a federal judge to do those kind of handstands you did some solid briefing. Gonna go read.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
As you'll see if you read, it's not a handstand. It's a well-established, yet emerging, legal opinion.
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.