FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gay-marriage-and-other-major-rulings-at-the-supreme-court/2015/06/25/ef75a120-1b6d-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html?postshare=8031435331432072

Awesome, Kindred! It's a good day for equality

The last two paragraphs of the ruling, for those who didn't see it.

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

The judgmentof the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.


It is so ordered."

I predict Justice Kennedy's paragraph there will go down in the books as one of the best pieces of judicial writing

A good decision! It should be a self-eveident right for everyone. *hugs* I'm happy with you, Kin, and for all the couples who's wishes can come true now.

Sadly there are still those states that will defy the Supreme Court's ruling. The fools think they are above others and the only ones in the right of things.

Love wins!

Congrats to USA! Well done!

The SCOTUS decision frees many couples and families from legal limbo.  At this point, I am not sure whether the decision is in place to allow gay survivors to collect social security on a deceased spouse, or to guarantee employee benefits to a gay employee's spouse.  If not, I hope it is resolved soon.  A major advantage of legalizing gay marriage is the extension of survivor benefits and medical coverage to people to whom they have been denied.

Some are concerned about how it will effect businesses.  I'm not here to argue religious freedom, but there is a bakery in Oregon facing a six-figure fine for refusing an order for a lesbian couple's wedding cake.  So far a photographer, florist, caterer and wedding chapel operator have faced legal action for not participating in ceremonies involving what they consider a sinful lifestyle choice.  How much right do businesses have to refuse service to a legal partnership or organization, when they have religious objections to its existence?

The other question is whether we are now going to remove the roadblocks facing those who choose to be married to more than one person.  This includes not only the Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints, and other polygamous religions, but those immigrants who arrive in the U.S. with marriage licenses and other documents from countries in which polygamy is legal.

(In contrast, my parents could not obtain a Christian wedding in Saudi Arabia.  They had to get married in an Air Force chapel in Bahrain.  However, the Saudis recognized their marriage.  Otherwise they would have gone to Shariah court for cohabitation, as would tens of thousands of Westerners who arrived with their spouses.)

Again, this would remove from polygamous families the burden of having to pay full price for health coverage on the third or fourth spouse.  It might also protect women from exploitation in those situations in which husbands extend favoritism to one wife.  Husbands would be expected to treat all wives equally, as they are in Saudi, and could be sued for divorce if they failed to meet this obligation.

Trollbabe wrote:

 How much right do businesses have to refuse service to a legal partnership or organization, when they have religious objections to its existence?

None. No more than they do to refuse to serve someone based on skin color. Which is also a religious belief held by some.

Imagine if a Christian Scientist refused to fill someone's prescription for antibiotics of insulin. All this talk of 'religious freedom' and 'conscientous objection' would fucking evaporate.

Quote :

The other question is whether we are now going to remove the roadblocks facing those who choose to be married to more than one person.

Won't happen. The changes to inheritance law, the tax system, etc. would be too overwhelming.

This has been your dose of realpolitik for the day.

Well spoken, Davrille!

Recently I got assignments from two new clients. Client "A" had me edit a script related to an energy policy. While he gets commercial and state government contract, most of his clients are Republican-tied political action committees. I've seen at least one piece supporting the gun lobby.

Client "B" is an agency that has me write for a commercial product website. In his marketplace, much of the high-paying work comes from the tobacco industry.

I'm wondering what will happen if I tell either client, "I'm sorry, but I cannot accept this assignment, as it goes against my beliefs"? Will they go to another freelancer, or will I end up in court?

Well... he's asking you to edit, not write it. If you can afford to pass it by, preference your conscience-- but if you can't, preference your pocket book.

B hires me to write, and A knows I can write copy for him.

I don't think I could write a tobacco product ad, a pro-gun piece, or a campaign slogan for Trump (oh, I could think of a few, not one of which my client would accept!) for any amount of money. But all of these entities have big bucks. They could afford lawyers if they wanted to teach me a lesson in tolerance.

I think you are allowed to turn down any job. You didn't sign a co tract saying you would edit for them, right? Even if you did, it's probably a standard work for hire and has a clause in it allowing either party to terminate their involvement.