George Takei calls for boycott of Hobby Lobby

George Takei writes a lengthy essay on the Hobby Lobby ruling by SCOTUS yesterday:

In this case, the owners happen to be deeply Christian; one wonders whether the case would have come out differently if a Muslim-run chain business attempted to impose Sharia law on its employees.

As many have pointed out, Hobby Lobby is the same company that invests in Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceuticals, makers of abortion inducing-drugs and the morning after pill. It also buys most of its inventory from China, where forced abortions are common. The hypocrisy is galling.

Hobby Lobby is not a church. It’s a business — and a big one at that. Businesses must and should be required to comply with neutrally crafted laws of general applicability. Your boss should not have a say over your healthcare. Once the law starts permitting exceptions based on “sincerely held religious beliefs” there’s no end to the mischief and discrimination that will ensue. Indeed, this is the same logic that certain restaurants and hotels have been trying to deploy to allow proprietors to refuse service to gay couples.

We are a nation that respects religious beliefs, but also the right not to have those beliefs imposed upon you by others. Our personal beliefs stop at the end of our noses, and your should therefore keep it out of other people’s business — and bedrooms.

While we work to overturn this decision by legislation, people of good conscious should BOYCOTT any for-profit business, including Hobby Lobby, which chooses to impose its religious beliefs on its employees. The only way such companies ever learn to treat people with decency and tolerance is to hit them where it counts–in their pocketbooks. I won’t be shopping there, and women everywhere should exercise their right of protest and refuse to shop there as well.

Read the full essay here.

SCOTUS rules in favor of Hobby Lobby on contraception

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby giving businesses the right to opt-out on religious grounds over healthcare insurance for employee birth control.

The decision could open the door to other employers seeking to withhold coverage for other medical procedures at odds with firm religious beliefs.

The Human Rights Campaign released this statement regarding the ruling and it’s impact on the LGBT community:

“Religious groups have a long-established first amendment ability to operate according to their own beliefs,” said Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Legal Director Sarah Warbelow.

“Instead of protecting religious liberty, this ruling gives license for businesses to use their personal beliefs as a reason to deny people access to basic, yet crucial medical services.”

HRC remains hopeful that the Court’s limitation in this case will be extended to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.

We will remain vigilant in the event business owners attempt to use this decision to justify other forms of discrimination, including against LGBT people.

In the immediate aftermath, some members of the LGBT community will feel the effects of this decision; countless lesbian and bisexual women as well as some transgender men rely on contraception.

HRC will continue to work closely with our partners in the women’s and reproductive health movements, as well as other LGBT groups, as this issue continues to be debated.

(via Politico)

Bryan Fischer: SCOTUS says it’s a crime to be a Christian

Bryan Fischer tries to put his tiresome spin on the decision by the US Supreme Court to let stand a ruling that found a New Mexico photographer violated the state’s public accommodation laws by refusing services to a gay couple for their commitment ceremony.

Of course, SCOTUS did not rule that it’s against the law to be Christian. They ruled it’s against the law to be a bigot when there are public accommodation laws in place.

US Supreme Court denies appeal of anti-gay New Mexico photographer

In 2006, Elane Photography in New Mexico refused to provide photography services for a commitment ceremony for Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth.

The couple sued the photographer on the basis of violating the state’s public accommodation laws.  Elane Photography felt protected on religious grounds (because takes photos of a lesbian commitment ceremony somehow means you “approve” the event).  Elane Photography lost it’s case at the state supreme court level.  An appeal was filed with SCOTUS.

Today, the US Supreme Court denied the request by Elane Photography. In order to take up a case, at least four Supreme Court justices must agree to consider the case.

That decision means the lawsuit train has stopped in this case. The original ruling stands.

Chris Johnson reports at the Washington Blade:

Had the court taken up the case, justices could have found a constitutional right across the country for individuals to discriminate against LGBT people or refuse services for same-sex weddings ceremonies on the basis of religion.

Anti-gay groups had pointed to the incident as a reason to enact laws in various states to allow individuals and business to refuse services to gay people without fear of reprisal, such as the controversial “turn away the gay” bill recently vetoed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and signed into law by Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant. Other bills along those lines are pending in numerous states — Kansas, Mississippi and Georgia — but have seen resistance going forward.

One year anniversary of historic oral arguments at SCOTUS – United States v. Windsor

One year ago today, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments that led to the fall of DOMA.

We all have Edie Windsor to thank for going the distance in bringing her history-making case to the Supreme Court.  The image above, taken as Edie Windsor exited the Supreme Court, shows the exuberance of the moment.

It was the eventual ruling from SCOTUS three months later that opened the doors for much more success in marriage equality lawsuits.

You can read more about the expansive reach of the historic ruling at HRC.

Thank you again Edie Windsor!

US Supreme Court issues stay on marriage equality in Utah

Via SCOTUSblog:

The Supreme Court on Monday morning put on hold a federal judge’s decision striking down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage, thus stopping a wave of such marriages across the state.

The Court’s order reinstates the state ban and will keep it intact until after a federal appeals court has ruled on it.

The order appeared to have the support of the full Court, since there were no noted dissents.

The ruling can be interpreted as an indication that the Court wants to have further exploration in lower courts of the basic constitutional question of state power to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

Had it refused the state’s request for delay, that would have at least left the impression that the Court was comfortable allowing same-sex marriages to go forward in the 33 states where they are still banned.

The Tenth Circuit of Appeals court has agreed to take up the issue on an expedited basis. State officials’ opening brief must be filed by Jan. 27. The response from attorneys for gay couples is due Feb. 18, and state officials have a chance to respond to that filing by Feb. 25.

We’re looking at months here, kids.

Still no SCOTUS request for stay of marriage equality in Utah

https://twitter.com/BenWinslow/status/417718465990905856

At this point, you have to wonder what could justify a request for an “emergency stay” against marriage equality when clearly the Utah Atty General’s office is taking so much time to prepare.

How much of an “emergency” could there be if there’s this much foot-dragging?

Answer?  There is no emergency.

Forward.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor officiated same-sex wedding at Supreme Court

The Associated Press is reporting that retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor officiated the wedding of a gay couple at the Supreme Court yesterday:
Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

The Associated Press is reporting that retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor officiated the wedding of a gay couple at the Supreme Court yesterday:

Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg says O’Connor presided over the private ceremony Tuesday in the court’s lawyers’ lounge for Jeffrey Trammell and Stuart Serkin of Washington.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg officiated at a weekend ceremony at the court in which two New Yorkers, including a former Ginsburg student at Columbia Law School, were married. Ginsburg has officiated at three same-sex weddings.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia: “I haven’t expressed my view about gay marriage”

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said on Thursday he has not given his views on the constitutionality of gay marriage itself.

“I haven’t expressed my view about gay marriage,” Scalia, a noted conservative said, adding that the decision itself only applied to a narrow piece of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

“The issue in the DOMA case was not whether the Constitution requires states to allow gay marriage. That was not the question at all,” Scalia said at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts, outside Boston. “The question is whether Congress can define marriage in all of the statues that Congress enacted to mean only marriage between a man and a woman.”

In his dissenting opinion on that ruling, Scalia, who was appointed to the court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, wrote that the majority ignored procedural obstacles he said should have prevented the court from taking up the matter in the first place.

Scalia does expect to see the issue back before SCOTUS.

“I’m waiting for the second shoe to drop,” said Scalia, the longest-serving member of the U.S. Supreme Court

(via Reuters)