Texas Supreme Court hears case challenging benefits for same-sex couples

[Sonikku]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-court-hears-case-same-sex-marriage-legalization/

 

[Zorba]

Republicans sure kind to waste tax payer money on stupid laws and lawsuit. Providing equal benefit is clearly covered by the 14th and previous ussc rulings.

 

[theeedude]

So Christian of Texas.

 

[MrPickins]

It's telling they had already declined to hear the case and only reopened it due to political pressure.

I'd wager that they will rule in favor of the City of Houston.

 

[jman19]

Finally getting down to the real issues that need solving in this country.

Why do these gays insist on being treated like straight people? So inconvenient, and makes us hetero people feel weird

/s

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Both sides have their stupidity. Liberals with tranny toilets, republicans with defining toilets for gender, etc... It's sad how one-sided I can clearly see everyone here is.

 

[Paratus]

Both sides have their stupidity. Liberals with tranny toilets, republicans with defining toilets for gender, etc... It's sad how one-sided I can clearly see everyone here is.

To you it's bullshit. To others it prevents them from doing basic things. Like peeing in a public bathroom.

Civil rights resonate most with those who feel they are being denied them. To those who have them complaints can be misinterpreted as whining.

 

[sandorski]

So, are they going to use Laws to nitpick this issue like they have with Abortion?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

To you it's bullshit. To others it prevents them from doing basic things. Like peeing in a public bathroom.

Civil rights resonate most with those who feel they are being denied them. To those who have them complaints can be misinterpreted as whining.

99% of bathrooms are not public, no matter what you might perceive as 'public'. They are built and maintained by private companies that choose to do so for the sake of potential business. Please get off your entitlement pedestal for half a second.

No rules are needed to define anything as stupid as a bathroom law, regardless of what side you stand on.

Also, if bathroom laws are your main interest then you're severely mentally handicapped. There are approximately 10 trillion more important items, such as economical policies that can determine if we all starve to death or not. I think the well-being of an entire society is just a WEEE bit more important, you think?

But hey, when we're all starving and feeding off eachother and having another civil war... At least you can go into the bathroom of your choosing... As if there was ever anyone to stop you....

 

[fskimospy]

99% of bathrooms are not public, no matter what you might perceive as 'public'. They are built and maintained by private companies that choose to do so for the sake of potential business. Please get off your entitlement pedestal for half a second.

No rules are needed to define anything as stupid as a bathroom law, regardless of what side you stand on.

Also, if bathroom laws are your main interest then you're severely mentally handicapped. There are approximately 10 trillion more important items, such as economical policies that can determine if we all starve to death or not. I think the well-being of an entire society is just a WEEE bit more important, you think?

But hey, when we're all starving and feeding off eachother and having another civil war... At least you can go into the bathroom of your choosing... As if there was ever anyone to stop you....

It's not like those economic problems are just waiting to be solved but nobody does it because they are busy debating bathroom access.

Letting people access the bathroom of their identity is a no brainer that hurts no one. It's time people accepted that.

 

[Paratus]

99% of bathrooms are not public, no matter what you might perceive as 'public'. They are built and maintained by private companies that choose to do so for the sake of potential business. Please get off your entitlement pedestal for half a second.

No rules are needed to define anything as stupid as a bathroom law, regardless of what side you stand on.

Also, if bathroom laws are your main interest then you're severely mentally handicapped. There are approximately 10 trillion more important items, such as economical policies that can determine if we all starve to death or not. I think the well-being of an entire society is just a WEEE bit more important, you think?

But hey, when we're all starving and feeding off eachother and having another civil war... At least you can go into the bathroom of your choosing... As if there was ever anyone to stop you....

I'd need to check the law but many of those "private" bathrooms are actually in businesses governed by public accommodation laws. There's nothing that says a business has any right to exist. If business A wants to discriminate against some customers there's no reason to grant it a business license. Give it to business B who won't instead.

Again, if it's you who's being discriminated against during your day that's going to seem more important, more immediate than what the taxable rate on capital gains should be or whether the ACA replacement should have refundable tax credits.

 

[werepossum]

Both sides have their stupidity. Liberals with tranny toilets, republicans with defining toilets for gender, etc... It's sad how one-sided I can clearly see everyone here is.

To be fair, this issue SHOULD be totally one-sided. There is zero justification for denying equal benefits to same-sex marriage - which is why many of opposed the "Separate but equal" solution of civil unions - and bringing such a suite is a total dick move regardless of one's personal feelings on the subject. These people have forgotten what they should have learned in kindergarten: Be nice and play fair.

This is fundamentally no different from someone saying "I don't like black people, so I don't think they should get insurance or paid vacation." SCOTUS ruled that gay people have the same right to marriage as straights, so there IS no gay marriage and normal marriage, there is only marriage. Ergo this case should not take months to reach a decision, it should take one minute.

 

[Paratus]

To be fair, this issue SHOULD be totally one-sided. There is zero justification for denying equal benefits to same-sex marriage - which is why many of opposed the "Separate but equal" solution of civil unions - and bringing such a suite is a total dick move regardless of one's personal feelings on the subject. These people have forgotten what they should have learned in kindergarten: Be nice and play fair.

This is fundamentally no different from someone saying "I don't like black people, so I don't think they should get insurance or paid vacation." SCOTUS ruled that gay people have the same right to marriage as straights, so there IS no gay marriage and normal marriage, there is only marriage. Ergo this case should not take months to reach a decision, it should take one minute.

While I agree with you, from what I've read the judges weren't even going to accept the case until they were pressured to, (the drawback of electing judges).

To avoid ruling directly as you suggest above they may instead rule the plaintiffs don't have standing. (The plaintiffs are suing the city as tax payers saying their money shouldn't be used for marriage benefits to gay city employees based on Texas law that no longer applies due to the SCOTUS ruling but hasn't directly been overturned). Most courts do not allow taxpayers to sue because they don't like what their tax money is used for.

I'm 99% sure the benefits will remain but wouldn't be surprised if it's because the court sidesteps the issue in the first place.

 

[werepossum]

While I agree with you, from what I've read the judges weren't even going to accept the case until they were pressured to, (the drawback of electing judges).

To avoid ruling directly as you suggest above they may instead rule the plaintiffs don't have standing. (The plaintiffs are suing the city as tax payers saying their money shouldn't be used for marriage benefits to gay city employees based on Texas law that no longer applies due to the SCOTUS ruling but hasn't directly been overturned). Most courts do not allow taxpayers to sue because they don't like what their tax money is used for.

I'm 99% sure the benefits will remain but wouldn't be surprised if it's because the court sidesteps the issue in the first place.

Perhaps. It's easy for me to say the judges should stand up for the law and equal rights since it's not my livelihood at risk. However, the judges SHOULD stand up for the law and equal rights. A very important part of their job is doing so when it isn't popular, and if they do not have the courage to do so, they should not have accepted that job.

Regardless, even if they reject the case, they should do so quickly, so that gay couples don't have this hanging over their heads.