OK, I feel a bit sheepish in a calmer light at having written such a foolish statement like the gender/ subset/sexual orientation post. I swear it made a lot more sense when I was angry.
Sua, as always, you are the voice of reason, and you’re correct that, as the Court’s composition stands now, it would be better for the Supreme Court not to rule on this case.
However, in some jurisdictions laws do exist that protect homosexuals from discrimination, but, as in Maryland, there are religious hate groups working hard to get those laws repealed. Until ENDA is passed, I stand by my statement that equal protection under the law doesn’t apply to gays, amended with in most states.
I do question this statement
Judges have fairly broad latitude to interpret the Constitution. In 1896, the Supremes ruled in *Plessy vs. Ferguson * that racial segregation was Constitutional as long as the facilities were equal. In 1954, the Court reversed itself in Brown vs. Topeka. The Court ruled in Minersville vs. Gobitis in 1940 that schools could compel children to salute the flag. The Court reversed itself in West Virginia vs. Barnette a mere three years later. To my simple, backward intellect, the 14th Amendment, Section 1, reads, in part:
…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. It doesn’t say “this doesn’t apply to homos.”
Gay people are persons within the jurisdiction of the several States; where’s the equal protection?
So is it legal for a gay company, Falcon Films, say, to fire a straight guy for sleeping with…gasp… a WOMAN?