LGBTQ+ Rights and America

The offense in this case is "contempt of court".

And contempt of court has long been something can get you jail time.

That's not what contempt of court means. Legally, contempt is about interfering with an ongoing legal proceeding in some way, typically by not following instructions of the judge or interfering with the ability of the lawyers/judge/jury to fulfill their roles.

Since the legal proceeding is over (Supreme Court ruling has been issued, done deal), it's obvious that contempt of court can't apply to this woman, or anyone else who refuses to issue such licenses. They can be sued, and they can be fired, but I don't think criminal charges can be applied under the current law (emphasis on current).

edited 7th Aug '15 11:34:08 AM by TotemicHero

It can also be applied for refusing to obey a court order, which would be the case in this circumstance. Basically, there are two types of contempt. Your definition is one. This is the other. The second type is the type most often invoked after the case is over. It's what stops people from just ignoring the verdict because the trial is over.

edited 7th Aug '15 11:36:38 AM by shimaspawn

I see people really don't have all that much legal knowledge...

A court order is something issued by a judge, aimed at a specific person or organization, requiring them to do something. I assumed that it was apparent from the story that the woman, or the department she was working for, was not under a court order, so that definition of contempt of court was irrelevant.

And before you ask, Obergefell v Hodges does not contain an actual court order. It simply states that gay marriages are protected by two different clauses of the 14th Amendment, and it's already established legally that government agencies have to abide by the Constitution and its amendments. There never were any court orders involved.

Wearing gloves at the library would look like I'm working with toxic waste.

But hey, you never know with those books...

First openly gay player in an MLB-sponsored baseball league.

Another step forward...

Denver City Council has delayed giving a Chik-Fil-A a lease to a spot in Denver International Airport due to the company's stance on gay rights.

Not that I wouldn't want to, but should the council be allowed to do this?

Maybe not. But in an age where corporations have more rights than human beings, it's nice to see someone choose people over profit.

Notice how the CFA rep doesn't mention sexual orientations.

They said delay, not deny.

They have the right for extra time to gather evidence and poll the public if this will be a concern.

Any council can do this.

Like if a topless bar wanted to open in an area, the council can delay and make sure that there weren't childcare or major family zones in the area.

Many will offer other locations if the business wouldn't be a good fit there.

And in cases like an international airport, where who knows from where is going to be there, they deserve to investigate this and be sure this is a positive fix.

But they can deny them completely and be well within their rights. Just like they can deny a bar or strip club or church.

And if Dan Cathy doesn't like it, maybe Huckabee will send his minions to CFA in droves again and he can cry into a pillow stuffed with hundreds.

Could you explain to me how exposed breasts hurt children? I'd be more concerned for them about racist/sexist/homophobe bigots...

More like the oversexualization thereof, which is much more likely to happen in a strip club than, say, a naturist camp.

That's a compelling point. I guess officials will say it "attracts the wrong crowd" instead...

edited 25th Aug '15 1:24:43 AM by Medinoc

I'm not convinced sexualization of breasts (or any other body part, for that matter) is as harmful (or more) to children than bigotry. Especially since, unlike a naturist camp, a topless bar or strip club will be closed to minors (with an ID check at the entrance). Nothing will be visible from the outside (it would reduce profits for the owners of the establishment, as well, if you could get a peek for free).

Breasts are scary. I think there is a whole show about them being scary and attacking people. "When Breasts attack!", I think it is called.

To them belongs the gnashing of the claws and the fangs and the flesh-rending, and ripping and the tearing. To them we dedicate our nightmares and our horror stories and our...

Oh. bReasts! Not Beasts!

I need to put more attention.

Neither the thread or the point.

Out of curiousity, is there any difference between this situation and the last time a city said no to CFA? And people were like "no, you have to let them do business, and you can't protest them either".

Legally, there is very little distinction between a KKK rally hall, a strip club, and an orphanage. The laws have to apply the same way to all of them. Efforts to apply the laws unevenly will inevitably have negative consequences for the groups one wants to protect.

Like, hypothetically, if a business says they don't want gay people in their store and people unlawfully harass them into closing, it's very tempting to sit back and go, "Well, that's not how the law's supposed to work, but f*ck those guys."

Then, a few months later, when another group is harassing a business focusing on helping gay people into closing, there is no recourse that can be had. The legal precedent is in place. It was established that this is acceptable when they were f*cking those guys.

In this particular case, as Gab pointed out, the law is working as normal. The council can delay Chik-Fil-A from opening out of concern for the environment the business will bring, just as they can a strip club. Or a meeting hall for KKK members. Or an orphanage.

Orphans offend me. They should be illegal.

Well, creating them deliberately is a crime.

Even if they are the makers?

edited 25th Aug '15 11:17:22 AM by Aszur

There go my plans for an orphan factory.

My mother and father both died in childbirth.

...speaking of that, when are we getting homosexual reproduction. I know that they're working on turning eggs into sperm, but when are they gonna inflate sperm into eggs?

Until the joint Science-Fanfic research venture making Mpreg into a thing sees fruition, i'm afraid homosexual reproduction will be biased towards women.

I do think they're on their way for making sperm cells out of bone marrow, so artificial F-F insemination could be possible.