Politics

[NDgradstudent]

If we didn't have the Court to tell us about justice, what would we do? Our country would be like the U.K. The horror.

What can we expect now?

If experience is any guide, very few same-sex marriages will actually take place. Marriage and fertility rates will continue to decline, and divorce and out-of-wedlock birth rates will continue to increase. These trends helped make same-sex marriage possible, and may pick up pace. I believe it is true that people are "less likely to hold to norms the less those norms make sense," as Robert George et al. argue in their defense of marriage, and many marital norms do not make much sense under the new marriage regime.

Those of us who are Christian can now expect further attacks upon our liberties. Hopefully state legislators will take steps to protect them: doing nothing is often enough, depending on the state of the law in a given jurisdiction. Also, there is no principled reason for these people to oppose taking away ND's tax-exempt status. We don't allow institutions that oppose interracial marriage to enjoy tax-exempt status, so why do institutions that oppose "marriage equality" enjoy it? I'm sure we can trust the IRS to make the just decision.

Similarly, this is the beginning, rather than the end, of the journey to "minimal marriage"- marriage as a contract between any number of people, themselves determining the conditions of the contract. It is quite remarkable that the Court, in its overwrought and soupy opinion, does not get around to explaining why group marriage can still be forbidden. (Some lower federal judges at least attempted to make such a distinction). These cases will now make their way through the federal courts, too: Brown v. Buhman, the Lawrence of polygamy, is on its way through the 10th Circuit and will soon be heading to First Street. Given that Justice Kennedy believes that "personal choice and autonomy" are the essence of marriage, it is hard to see what difference there is, other than the difference is how fashionable the respective causes are. By the time polygamy does get foisted upon us, no doubt that liberals -and some conservatives- will be in favor of it, too!

I like Justice Kagan quite a bit, but she seriously misled Senators when she said that she did not believe there was a "federal right to same-sex marriage." I am sure she would claim that this 'changed' in the past five years, but when somebody believes that words change this often, how can you believe anything that they say?

This brings me to my final point. As the Federalist says, "enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." The Anti-Federalists may have been wrong about some things, but they understood that this risk includes judges. 'Brutus' predicted exactly how much power the Supreme Court would eventually claim: it would become "independent of Heaven itself." The bottom line is that the Supreme Court has way too much power in this country. Plenty of liberals, such as Jeremy Waldron and Mark Tushnet, agree about with me about this. Normal countries do not have Courts with this level of power; very few countries have seen their Supreme Courts impose same-sex marriage in this way (Canada, Brazil, and Mexico are the only ones, I believe). The European Court of Human Rights and the constitutional courts of France, Italy, Ireland, Germany, Spain, Austria, and Finland (among others) explicitly rejected such claims, leaving the choice up to their legislatures. Changes in the Court's voting rules, or even the abolition of constitutional review itself, need to be on the table in the future.

 

[EddytoNow]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to regulate marriage. They can't say "you can," "you can't," "you shall," "you shall not," "you must recognize," or anything of the sort.

You are wrong about the federal government's constitutional authority and your claim that these rights have been reserved for the states by the constitution. The constitution has been amended several times, and the amendment process permits changes. The 14th amendment, specifically addresses the federal government's authority in the area of individual rights.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You will notice this section of the 14th amedment applies to all citizens, not just those of whom the majority approves. It specifically denies the right of any state to make or enforce laws that deny privileges to these citizens. Every citizen is granted equal protection of the laws.

Gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, trans-genders, and everyone else are protected by this amendment as long as they were born or naturalized in the United States. They are entitled to the same rights and privileges as every other citizen, including a marriage to the person of their choice. To deny them a privilege extended to everyone else is a clear violation of the 14th amendment, which is a part of the constitution.

Had there been no process for amending the constitution, states may have retained the right to discriminate against sub-groups of its citizenry. Fortunately, our founders were smart enough to provide a method for amending the original document.

 

[IrishLax]

So what if two gay students at ND want to get married? Is ND required to let them use the Basilica for their ceremony? Is ND required to put them up in married student housing?

Irrelevant to ND unless they try to discriminate against them; obviously not; this one is tricky and depends precisely on the regulations for married student housing... I'd imagine ND would just get rid of the concept and say that anyone who is married must live off campus completely circumventing the (hypothetical and minor) issue should it ever happen.

I understand the reaction; SSM is this generation's civil rights battle, so it feels good to think of oneself as being on the "right side of history". And who wants to have that high spoiled by being reminded that the implications of this decision will likely one day harm things they hold dear? "Nope, no way, never gonna happen..."

There's no way to square same-sex marriage with orthodox Christianity. So now that the former is the law of the land, any institution holding to orthodox Christian views of human sexuality is going to face increasing legal persecution and social marginalization. Notre Dame included.

I guarantee sexual orientation becomes a protected class within the next 5 years. Probably much sooner than later, honestly.

It doesn't matter that they conflict, all that matters is how First Amendment rights are treated relative to other laws. Let's say sexual orientation DOES become a protected class. Without a doubt if Notre Dame started actively discriminating against a protected class, then they should have to change. But as we've seen with many religious colleges in the United States over the past century, when someone brings a lawsuit against them for adhering to something that is well-defined doctrine and there is a significant burden to the institution they win every time.

Bob Jones University lost because their argument was bullshit. It's that simple. We're not talking about nuances in a code of conduct or housing provisions, we're talking about overt and active discrimination. If Notre Dame hypothetically refused to admit any gay person (or gay person that is married) they would not only be going against the law, but they'd also be going against Catholic teachings (see: every recent statement on how gays that want to be part of the church should be treated).

I was trying to give Jayhawk an honest answer as to how being "openly gay" might conceptually impact one's odds of getting admitted. Practically speaking, ND's admissions process is far too opaque for a legal challenge to ever be realistic.

Yup.

 

[Emcee77]

So why don't you think ND's accreditation/ tax exempt status could be threatened like TWU's? It seems inevitable to me.

I think it could be, but I disagree that it's inevitable because it's just illogical. TWU's policy does not single out gays; it treats unmarried heterosexuals exactly the same. To me, a Christian organization's requirement that people be married, as the church defines it, before engaging in sexual activity is not discriminatory. This is not Bob Jones; no one is denying people admission to TWU, I don't think.

Canada has a different tradition when it comes to First Amendment issues (or what we call First Amendment issues). I understand the slippery slope argument, but I see a huge difference between today's decision and the TWU situation, and I think most Americans would.

If most alumni share your feelings on this, we're already lost. This is no different than defining Freedom of Religion down to the Freedom of Worship. "We don't care what crazy bullsh!t you believe, as long as you limit it to private Sunday gatherings and it doesn't impact me in the slightest."

I don't think that fairly characterizes my post. I tend to agree with you that the First Amendment protects ND's right to impose and enforce a Christian sexual conduct code. I was trying to say that if Notre Dame decides, in order not to jeopardize access to federal scholarship money, not to discipline students for violating its Christian sexual conduct code, but can still profess it, I don't really care because I actually think that might be an improvement from a campus life perspective. Disciplining kids just for engaging in sexual activity feels a little inquisitorial. So I wouldn't be troubled from the perspective of impact on the ND community; I would absolutely be troubled from a legal perspective. I'll say it again: I tend to agree that the First Amendment protects ND's right to impose and enforce a Christian sexual conduct code.

EDIT: also, a lot of the awesome stuff Lax said.

 

[EddytoNow]

If we didn't have the Court to tell us about justice, what would we do? Our country would be like the U.K. The horror.

What can we expect now?

If experience is any guide, very few same-sex marriages will actually take place. Marriage and fertility rates will continue to decline, and divorce and out-of-wedlock birth rates will continue to increase. These trends helped make same-sex marriage possible, and may pick up pace. I believe it is true that people are "less likely to hold to norms the less those norms make sense," as Robert George et al. argue in their defense of marriage, and many marital norms do not make much sense under the new marriage regime.

Those of us who are Christian can now expect further attacks upon our liberties. Hopefully state legislators will take steps to protect them: doing nothing is often enough, depending on the state of the law in a given jurisdiction. Also, there is no principled reason for these people to oppose taking away ND's tax-exempt status. We don't allow institutions that oppose interracial marriage to enjoy tax-exempt status, so why do institutions that oppose "marriage equality" enjoy it? I'm sure we can trust the IRS to make the just decision.

Similarly, this is the beginning, rather than the end, of the journey to "minimal marriage"- marriage as a contract between any number of people, themselves determining the conditions of the contract. It is quite remarkable that the Court, in its overwrought and soupy opinion, does not get around to explaining why group marriage can still be forbidden. (Some lower federal judges at least attempted to make such a distinction). These cases will now make their way through the federal courts, too: Brown v. Buhman, the Lawrence of polygamy, is on its way through the 10th Circuit and will soon be heading to First Street. Given that Justice Kennedy believes that "personal choice and autonomy" are the essence of marriage, it is hard to see what difference there is, other than the difference is how fashionable the respective causes are. By the time polygamy does get foisted upon us, no doubt that liberals -and some conservatives- will be in favor of it, too!

I like Justice Kagan quite a bit, but she seriously misled Senators when she said that she did not believe there was a "federal right to same-sex marriage." I am sure she would claim that this 'changed' in the past five years, but when somebody believes that words change this often, how can you believe anything that they say?

This brings me to my final point. As the Federalist says, "enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." The Anti-Federalists may have been wrong about some things, but they understood that this risk includes judges. 'Brutus' predicted exactly how much power the Supreme Court would eventually claim: it would become "independent of Heaven itself." The bottom line is that the Supreme Court has way too much power in this country. Plenty of liberals, such as Jeremy Waldron and Mark Tushnet, agree about with me about this. Normal countries do not have Courts with this level of power; very few countries have seen their Supreme Courts impose same-sex marriage in this way (Canada, Brazil, and Mexico are the only ones, I believe). The European Court of Human Rights and the constitutional courts of France, Italy, Ireland, Germany, Spain, Austria, and Finland (among others) explicitly rejected such claims, leaving the choice up to their legislatures. Changes in the Court's voting rules, or even the abolition of constitutional review itself, need to be on the table in the future.

How is this ruling an attack on your liberty? Nothing in the ruling forbids you anything or denies you any individual right. You can still marry the person of your choice in the church of your choice. This ruling just gives others the same rights that you have available. The individual states must now recognize these marriages and extend the same rights and priviliges extended to you. You have been denied nothing.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Irrelevant to ND unless they try to discriminate against them; obviously not; this one is tricky and depends precisely on the regulations for married student housing... I'd imagine ND would just get rid of the concept and say that anyone who is married must live off campus completely circumventing the (hypothetical and minor) issue should it ever happen.

How is allowing heterosexual alumni couples to get married in the Basilica while refusing access to same-sex alumni couples for the same purpose not discrimination?

It doesn't matter that they conflict, all that matters is how First Amendment rights are treated relative to other laws. Let's say sexual orientation DOES become a protected class. Without a doubt if Notre Dame started actively discriminating against a protected class, then they should have to change. But as we've seen with many religious colleges in the United States over the past century, when someone brings a lawsuit against them for adhering to something that is well-defined doctrine and there is a significant burden to the institution they win every time.

Absolutely not. Especially not when public monies are involved, as is the case with most Catholic institutions (including ND).

Here's another hypothetical: let's say a married lesbian Episcopal priest applies for a position as a theology professor at ND. When she doesn't get the job, she sues for discrimination, and ND has to admit they didn't hire her (at least in part) because of her relationship status. Why should an institution that receives millions of dollars in federal subsidies be allowed to deny employment to an otherwise qualified member of a protected class? Surely the First Amendment doesn't require such public endorsement of bigotry. Conversely, the Establishment Clause forbids it! So ND either has to hire the woman (and ditch it's adherence to Catholic doctrine in hiring new employees), or lose its accreditation/ tax exempt status, so there's no Establishment Clause issue.

Bob Jones University lost because their argument was bullshit. It's that simple. We're not talking about nuances in a code of conduct or housing provisions, we're talking about overt and active discrimination. If Notre Dame hypothetically refused to admit any gay person (or gay person that is married) they would not only be going against the law, but they'd also be going against Catholic teachings (see: every recent statement on how gays that want to be part of the church should be treated).

Their argument was bullsh!t, but for theological reasons (there's virtually no support for miscegenation laws in Christian scripture). But there are a lot of people who view Catholic sexual ethics as no more logical or deserving of respect than BJU's anti-miscegenation policy, and as soon as sexual orientation becomes a protected class, you can rest assured that they're going to use it as a legal cudgel to destroy ND as best they can.

 

[IrishLax]

How is allowing heterosexual alumni couples to get married in the Basilica while refusing access to same-sex alumni couples for the same purpose not discrimination?

Because it is a religious ceremony in a Catholic basilica. There is not a chance in hell that any court would deem a Catholic priest has to confer a sacrament on people when scripture says he can't... come on.

Absolutely not. Especially not when public monies are involved, as is the case with most Catholic institutions (including ND).

Here's another hypothetical: let's say a married lesbian Episcopal priest applies for a position as a theology professor at ND. When she doesn't get the job, she sues for discrimination, and ND has to admit they didn't hire her (at least in part) because of her relationship status. Why should an institution that receives millions of dollars in federal subsidies be allowed to deny employment to an otherwise qualified member of a protected class? Surely the First Amendment doesn't require such public endorsement of bigotry. Conversely, the Establishment Clause forbids it! So ND either has to hire the woman (and ditch it's adherence to Catholic doctrine in hiring new employees), or lose its accreditation/ tax exempt status, so there's no Establishment Clause issue.

What do you mean? I can think of, locally, Catholic University getting sued numerous times and I can't remember a single time they've lost.

Your hypothetical also could never happen, for the same reason schools are currently allowed to reject white people on the basis of race for certain African American studies positions and not get sued, and Disney is able to mandate that an employee filling the role of Cinderella must be white and actually look like Cinderella.

If a qualification of the job is that you fit a certain profile and it is central to the position, you are allowed to discriminate. If the position is for Catholic theology research/teaching they could:
1) Legally reject her on the grounds of simply not being Catholic, much like how for a Judaism position you could reject someone for not being Jewish. Or even easier than acknowledging that fact...
2) Simply say there was a more qualified candidate (and make sure there legitimately is one).

This isn't even complicated and already happens.

Their argument was bullsh!t, but for theological reasons (there's virtually no support for miscegenation laws in Christian scripture). But there are a lot of people who view Catholic sexual ethics as no more logical or deserving of respect than BJU's anti-miscegenation policy, and as soon as sexual orientation becomes a protected class, you can rest assured that they're going to use it as a legal cudgel to destroy ND as best they can.

That doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what Joe Public thinks. The question is:
1) Is your stance strongly grounded in the teachings of your faith, with hard evidence to back up your claim.
2) Would compromising your stance be a sizable burden.

Part 2 is subjective and the only place where there is any wiggle room on ND being at risk. However, recent cases such as Hobby Lobby with contraception show that it's very unrealistic to think a Catholic school operated by the Congregation of the Holy Cross could be compelled to do anything that is expressly against longstanding religious beliefs and teachings.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I don't care who you are...this is funny...

Justice Scalia insult generator: How the Supreme Court justice would mock you.

“One would think that IrishJayhawk's showy profundities are pretentious and profoundly incoherent. Hardly a distillation of essence.”

 

[woolybug25]

I don't care who you are...this is funny...

Justice Scalia insult generator: How the Supreme Court justice would mock you.

“One would think that woolybug's logic is a milestone of judicial overreaching. Come on.”

 

[dshans]

Pomposity from any end at its finest ...

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Because it is a religious ceremony in a Catholic basilica. There is not a chance in hell that any court would deem a Catholic priest has to confer a sacrament on people when scripture says he can't... come on.

Who said anything about forcing Catholic priests to confer sacraments? We were talking about use of the Basilica. ND, an institution that accepts millions of dollars in federal subsidies, discriminates against its gay alumni regarding access to that building for similar ceremonies.

Your hypothetical also could never happen, for the same reason schools are currently allowed to reject white people on the basis of race for certain African American studies positions and not get sued, and Disney is able to mandate that an employee filling the role of Cinderella must be white and actually look like Cinderella.

Then let's make it an English professorship instead of Theology. Aside from ND's desire to increase the Catholic % of its faculty, sexual orientation isn't central to one's ability to analyze literature at ND.

If a qualification of the job is that you fit a certain profile and it is central to the position, you are allowed to discriminate. If the position is for Catholic theology research/teaching they could:
1) Legally reject her on the grounds of simply not being Catholic, much like how for a Judaism position you could reject someone for not being Jewish. Or even easier than acknowledging that fact...

This article indicates that, at least as late as 2009, only 53% of ND's faculty is Catholic. So no, they couldn't neglect to hire her because she's not Catholic.

That doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what Joe Public thinks. The question is:
1) Is your stance strongly grounded in the teachings of your faith, with hard evidence to back up your claim.
2) Would compromising your stance be a sizable burden.

Part 2 is subjective and the only place where there is any wiggle room on ND being at risk.

I strongly disagree with your risk assessment regarding Part 2. SCOTUS held recently in Windsor that there is no rational basis for opposing same sex marriage, and Kennedy's opinion today explicitly connected it with the civil rights struggle of African Americans. As long as ND remains a Catholic university, its policies will privilege heterosexuals over homosexuals in certain ways. By SCOTUS' logic, how is that any different than BJU privileging same-race couples over interracial couples?

However, recent cases such as Hobby Lobby with contraception show that it's very unrealistic to think a Catholic school operated by the Congregation of the Holy Cross could be compelled to do anything that is expressly against longstanding religious beliefs and teachings.

Hobby Lobby doesn't receive millions of dollars in Federal subsidies, nor does it require ongoing accreditation from a quasi-governmental group. ND is far more vulnerable.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

From Alito's dissent:

“Today’s decision … will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. E.g., ante, at 11–13. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

 

[zelezo vlk]

I don't care who you are...this is funny...

Justice Scalia insult generator: How the Supreme Court justice would mock you.

“One would think that Zelezo Vlk 's beliefs are the growth of a diseased root. One is tempted to shield his eyes from the upcoming spectacle.”

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[IrishJayhawk]

From Alito's dissent:

“Today’s decision … will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. E.g., ante, at 11–13. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”

Women can't do several things in the Church. Why would things change for ND with this ruling in ways that they didn't previously? Again, this is an honest question. I'm not trying to be a gadfly or argumentative.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Women can't do several things in the Church. Why would things change for ND with this ruling in ways that they didn't previously? Again, this is an honest question. I'm not trying to be a gadfly or argumentative.

Because SCOTUS just drew a straight line between marriage equality and the civil rights movement. The Catholic Church is on the "wrong side" of the former issue. What happened to all the institutions that were on the wrong side of the latter?

The churches themselves will be the last dominoes to fall, largely due to the First Amendment. But ND, a university that accepts millions of dollars in federal subsidies, is far more vulnerable.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Because SCOTUS just equated same-sex marriage with the civil rights movement. The Catholic Church is on the "wrong side" of the former. What happened to all the institutions that were on the wrong side of the latter?

The Churches themselves will be the last dominoes to fall, largely due to the First Amendment. But ND, a large institution that accepts millions of dollars in federal subsidies, is far more vulnerable.

But sex is a protected class. And the Church, it could be argued, discriminates against women. Could feminists have previously done what you're saying same-sex couples may do now?

 

[IrishLax]

Who said anything about forcing Catholic priests to confer sacraments? We were talking about use of the Basilica. ND, an institution that accepts millions of dollars in federal subsidies, discriminates against its gay alumni regarding access to that building for similar ceremonies.

Because that's the most basic ground rule already on the books for using the place? Do you have any idea how hard it is to get married in the Basilica?

What we're talking about is discrimination law. You have to prove you're being treated differently. So someone saying "I don't want to have a priest" when everyone has to have a CSC priest is a non-starter.

Then let's make it an English professorship instead of Theology. Aside from ND's desire to increase the Catholic % of its faculty, sexual orientation isn't central to one's ability to analyze literature at ND.

All of this under the guise of sexual orientation becoming a protected class...

If Notre Dame discriminated against a hypothetical English professor because they were gay, that would be wrong and they'd deserve to lose. My linear algebra professor at ND was gay and an activist for gay rights... caused zero problems. I don't understand the issue.

This article indicates that, at least as late as 2009, only 53% of ND's faculty is Catholic. So no, they couldn't neglect to hire her because she's not Catholic.

For a Catholic theology teaching position as you described, yes they could.

I strongly disagree with your risk assessment regarding Part 2. SCOTUS held recently in Windsor that there is no rational basis for opposing same sex marriage, and Kennedy's opinion today explicitly connected it with the civil rights struggle of African Americans. As long as ND remains a Catholic university, its policies will privilege heterosexuals over homosexuals in certain ways. By SCOTUS' logic, how is that any different than BJU privileging same-race couples over interracial couples?

I have nothing else to add on this. You're talking about a hypothetical chain that results in ND having exposure for discrimination... I've yet to see one realistic example given where 1st Amendment wouldn't obvious trump OR ND should lose because that discrimination would be wrong to do.

Hobby Lobby doesn't receive millions of dollars in Federal subsidies, nor does it require ongoing accreditation from a quasi-governmental group. ND is far more vulnerable.

How? Hobby Lobby as a company has far shakier grounds to stand on than an explicitly religious institution for any claim of burden. I'm not sure this is even arguable.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

But sex is a protected class. And the Church, it could be argued, discriminates against women. Could feminists have previously done what you're saying same-sex couples may do now?

Unlikely because, as I mentioned above, First Amendment protections are strongest for actual churches. Catholic doctrine is "discriminatory" against women only when it comes to religious orders (who have always been a very small minority in this country anyway); so it's been a marginal issue within Catholic institutions.

But marriage equality and protected class status based on sexual orientation are going to be much greater impact on Catholic schools, hospitals, universities, adoption agencies, etc. And those institutions are much more vulnerable under our jurisprudence, especially to the extent they accept public monies, than churches ever have been.

 

[woolybug25]

Because SCOTUS just equated same-sex marriage with the civil rights movement. The Catholic Church is on the "wrong side" of the former. What happened to all the institutions that were on the wrong side of the latter?

The churches themselves will be the last dominoes to fall, largely due to the First Amendment. But ND, a university that accepts millions of dollars in federal subsidies, is far more vulnerable.

I think his comparison would be more comparable to the many cases for women's rights (Griswold v. Connecticut, Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., Eisenstadt v. Baird, Roe v. Wade) that the Supreme Court has ruled on. Those did not significantly effect the Catholic Church.

 

[Rack Em]

But sex is a protected class. And the Church, it could be argued, discriminates against women. Could feminists have previously done what you're saying same-sex couples may do now?

The Church and individual churches don't accept federal dollars for research, etc. ND does. There's the difference.

 

[woolybug25]

The Church and individual churches don't accept federal dollars for research, etc. ND does. There's the difference.

But they accept tax exempt status.

Also, some churches do accept federal dollars in grants, etc.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Because that's the most basic ground rule already on the books for using the place? Do you have any idea how hard it is to get married in the Basilica?

What we're talking about is discrimination law. You have to prove you're being treated differently. So someone saying "I don't want to have a priest" when everyone has to have a CSC priest is a non-starter.

I'll be doing a lot more reading up on ND's legal exposure once sexual orientation becomes a protected class. Regardless, it's either disingenuous or naive to flatly assert that the flagship Catholic university in America won't possibly face negative legal consequences when Catholic doctrine quite clearly discriminates between heterosexual and homosexual acts.

All of this under the guise of sexual orientation becoming a protected class...

If Notre Dame discriminated against a hypothetical English professor because they were gay, that would be wrong and they'd deserve to lose.

Notre dame doesn't discriminate based on sexual orientation, nor would such discrimination be consonant with Catholic doctrine. But gay rights advocacy usually puts one in an adversarial relationship with the Church. I hope ND would actively discriminate against candidates who publicly oppose Catholic doctrine, but protected class status for sexual orientation will certainly make that more difficult.

My linear algebra professor at ND was gay and an activist for gay rights... caused zero problems. I don't understand the issue.

If his gay rights advocacy caused him to publicly oppose Catholic doctrine, then he shouldn't be teaching at Notre Dame.

I have nothing else to add on this. You're talking about a hypothetical chain that results in ND having exposure for discrimination... I've yet to see one realistic example given where 1st Amendment wouldn't obvious trump OR ND should lose because that discrimination would be wrong to do.

See my first paragraph above. We'll revisit this after I've had time to do more research.

How? Hobby Lobby as a company has far shakier grounds to stand on than an explicitly religious institution for any claim of burden. I'm not sure this is even arguable.

Is it really so difficult to comprehend how ND's position as a religious university that accepts millions of dollars annually in federal subsidies and depends upon secular quasi-governmental accreditation is far more vulnerable to legal attack than a church? Other Catholic institutions in similar positions, like adoption agencies and hospitals, have already in recent years been forced to close their doors or dissociate from the Church. ND will likely face similar crises in the coming years.

 

[NDohio]

Because progressives never stop progressing. They never say "mission accomplished, let's go home." They move on to the next outrage. Whatever they need to do to create an army of victims that forms their political base.

No greater example of this than the current flag debate. The right choice of removing the flag from government property went to ridiculous extremes such as banning Gone With the Wind.

I can truly see the church being told to either perform SSM or lose your tax exempt status. Losing that status will result in thousands of churches closing their doors.

 

[pkt77242]

No greater example of this than the current flag debate. The right choice of removing the flag from government property went to ridiculous extremes such as banning Gone With the Wind.

I can truly see the church being told to either perform SSM or lose your tax exempt status. Losing that status will result in thousands of churches closing their doors.

A few people called for banning GWTW, it isn't some mass movement. You can always find a few people to go too far no matter the topic. Also I highly doubt they would ever force a church to perform SSM.

 

[Emcee77]

Politics

Did anyone seriously call for banning it? In exactly what way?

Banning a work of cultural significance is totally unacceptable, I don't care how offensive. Birth of a Nation isn't banned. Mein Kampf isn't banned. Merely suggesting that GWTW should be banned is stunningly ignorant. And not because GWTW isn't horrible; it's just that we don't ban things in this country. We are constitutionally prohibited from doing that.

Now, if by "banning" it, we are talking about pressuring TNT not to air it, that's different. That's not a ban. If we are talking about pressuring your local library not to carry the DVD, that's a ban, and it's unconscionable in a free society.

I really hope I am getting worked up over nothing. I have not seen these calls for banning GWTW except in this thread.

 

[pkt77242]

Did anyone seriously call for banning it? In exactly what way?

Banning a work of cultural significance is totally unacceptable, I don't care how offensive. Birth of a Nation isn't banned. Mein Kampf isn't banned. Merely suggesting that GWTW should be banned is stunningly ignorant. And not because GWTW isn't horrible; it's just that we don't ban things in this country. We are constitutionally prohibited from doing that.

Now, if by "banning" it, we are talking about pressuring TNT not to air it, that's different. That's not a ban. If we are talking about pressuring your local library not to carry the DVD, that's a ban, and it's unconscionable in a free society.

I really hope I am getting worked up over nothing. I have not seen these calls for banning GWTW except in this thread.

I have seen two articles. 1 from the New York Post saying that GWTW should go the way of the Confederate Flag (‘Gone with the Wind’ should go the way of the Confederate flag | New York Post) and the second one was a rambling piece in the Huffington Post Yes, You're a Racist -- And a Traitor | John E. Price

 

[Cackalacky]

Just now catching up with today's events. Holy shit what a day here. The entire interstate and airport was shut down because of the funerals and the U.S. government . The Supreme Court Ruling ..... My favorite Jefferson Quote

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816[10]

 

[IrishinSyria]

I have seen two articles. 1 from the New York Post saying that GWTW should go the way of the Confederate Flag (‘Gone with the Wind’ should go the way of the Confederate flag | New York Post) and the second one was a rambling piece in the Huffington Post Yes, You're a Racist -- And a TraitorMichigan|MichiganJohn E. Price

No calls for "bans" in either... just pointing out the stunningly obvious: just like the confederate flag, GWTW is stunningly and blatantly racist.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Motivations of the people attacking it doesn't change the intent of the law as written. This shows that "politicals" are the only ones with the means (war chest) to CREATE and FIGHT this kind of foolishness.

In my opinion, it is not Justice Robert's job to fuss over some of the things he was concerned with...which ultimately "allowed" him to get to his decision...Kennedy is Kennedy...he'll always buck convention for the sake of it.

Our Federal government needs to listen to a Brian Kelly Speech wherein he talks about the criticality of doing your job...Count on Me! The basis of that thought is, when you do things outside your job, 1) you aren't doing your job with all your resources; 2) we can't see and fix the problems someone else is having, and we are all weaker. It is sometimes worth the pain of letting something fail to know where we are, and what we need to fix. We fail over and over at that very basic organizational tenant...had hoped the supreme court would be doing less of that. SMH.

BTW: I am not one who is relieved with this decision because the Jackass Republicans weren't "ready". Only a complete and total idiot would tear down a house w/o having something to go to. They were standing there watching the wrecking ball swing without more than some ideas about what they would do...complete failures and wastes of flesh. This completely convinced me government, outside DoD, cannot implement or fix anything of reasonable complexity...JUST. CAN'T.

The response to this argument from someone way smarter than me:

Dorf on Law: Justice Scalia's King v Burwell Dissent Degrades His Textualist "Brand"

 

[IrishinSyria]

By the way, I think Kennedy just delivered the White House to any moderate republican who can make it out of the primaries. They can now appeal to the base by bad mouthing liberal overreach secure in the knowledge that they won't actually have to do anything about gay marriage or health care.