why the hell shouldnt all people be concidered equally for a job baised SOULY on there ability to PERFORM the job?
Because customers only like certain people. A company that was run by a majority of gay people would be less successful than a competing company, even if product quality, service, and price were the same. When a business is starting up, it must fit in with what it's customers want.
The reason why the other 3 probably voted against are that in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick the found that state sodomy laws were constitutional. The court is usually very wary of overturning a law that they ruled constetutional. They don't want the the courts to look political and the Constitution appears malleable.
I believe the courts are very politically minded. The president appoints the judges, the president is the most politically driven person on the planet. Everything he does isn't for the obvious cause, there's always something behind the reasoning that's shady. Congress approves the president's nominations.
Congress wants to be strong and support the president if the people are in support of the president. Basically if the president has a nice image, he can do whatever he wants and influence the judicial branch as well as the legislative branch of government.
As trite as the subject of privacy and sex is in politics, this ruling becomes news because of how the Supreme Court went against the traditional grain. Why wasn't it unamimously passed?...to support the president. Why was it passed at all?...because of how idiotic the law was in the first place.
There may be nothing written expressly about these particular acts in the constitution, however it is stated that citizens of the United States, have rights beyond those which are specifically outlined in the document, and that one is entitled to any liberties which do not infringe on the rights of others. So yes, sodomy laws are in violation of the constitution.
Is someone's anus considered their constitutional right these days; that it can't be "infringed" upon? Someone said it before, it's between consenting adults. The participants are legally labelled as being able to take care of themselves, so they should be able to make a decision about what type of sex they ingage in.
i would say the kind of people in question are upright religious folk who spend more time moralizing and worrying about what the outsiders fo their clique are doing than worrying about thier own actions.
Those religious folks sound better than politcians who don't moralize and just worry about their clique; destroying and inhibiting life without a conscience. But when people in high places moralize, there'll only be one person-clique's conscience governing for many people. That sounds unfair. Actually both sound unfair. At least the Supreme Court is there to add another conscience to the moralizing and decision making. It could be worse. I'm very pleased with the ruling....I'll stop there because there's too many things to bitch about.
