The term gender identity was coined to distinguish it from the term sex in our civil rights laws. That by itself should end the attempt to equate the two expressions. Similarly, sexual orientation is not a concept inherent in the term sex. Sex refers to one’s objective, biological gender. Sexual orientation refers to one’s romantic preference.
A Minnesota videographer challenged state statute that arguably prohibited them from refusing to provide video service for same-sex marriages when they provided such services for opposite-sex marriages.
A transgender high school girl wanted to use the boys’ facilities at her high school, despite the availability of single-stall bathrooms that offered greater safety. She sued the school district whose policy prevented her from using the boys’ facilities.
In this case, two homosexuals asked a cake shop owner, Jack Phillips, to make a wedding cake for them. Jack explained that his Christian convictions would not allow him to do so. The homosexual couple filed a complaint against Jack and the business with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, claiming they had violated Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws. The Commission ordered Jack to make the cake. He appealed that decision through the state court system and ultimately to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court has not yet rendered its decision. We were involved in two briefs in this case.
Montana’s commissioner of political practices ruled that Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church violated election law by participating in a Focus on the Family simulcast and allowing petitions in support of a pro-marriage ballot initiative to be circulated on church premises.
First, the District Court was incorrect in holding that “since neither term is defined, the difference in scienter standards creates uncertainty in COPA’s application and renders the terms vague.” The Supreme Court has held “that the language of the statutes that Congress enacts provides ‘the most reliable evidence of its intent.’”
Second, this court can review the District Court’s findings of fact because courts must engage in an independent review of the record when, as here, errors of law have infected factual findings.
Finally, the ACLU’s argument in this case is inconsistent with its argument to the Supreme Court in United States v. American Library Association regarding computer filtration software.
Because Williams’s chat room postings about child pornography for barter fit the characteristics of commercial speech, they should be held to such standards.
Homosexuals do not constitute either a suspect or quasi-suspect class, and thus, heightened scrutiny is inappropriate. Among several reasons that this is so is the fact that homosexuals are not politically powerless.
This case argues that political powerlessness is a key factor in identifying protected classes. Homosexuals have powerful political allies both nationally and in Florida. The homosexual community is well-financed by a broad range of contributors and resources. Many religious groups support homosexual causes, and that public opinion is trending in favor of homosexuals, including on the marriage issue.
This case argues that political powerlessness is a key factor in identifying protected classes. Homosexuals have powerful political allies both nationally and in Utah. The homosexual community is well-financed by a broad range of contributors and resources. Many religious groups support homosexual causes, and that public opinion is trending in favor of homosexuals, including on the marriage issue.