Texas SC rules state does NOT have to give benefits to homosexual "couples"

[jon_berzerk]

already did

You did not provide a link that says this was presented to the SCOTUS and was rejected. That's impossible because it never happened.

Implementing Obergefell: An Addendum - Online Library of Law & Liberty

Only the 5th circuit has been involved.

In Pidgeon, a Texas trial court ruling issued prior to Obergefell had enjoined the provision of such benefits, and the city appealed to the intermediate court of appeals. While the appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Obergefell, prompting the court of appeals to reverse the injunction and remand the case back to the trial court. The plaintiff-taxpayers sought discretionary review by the Texas Supreme Court, which was initially denied but then granted following a petition for rehearing.

(And intense political pressure)

i said federal courts asshole

which the 5th is

they sent it to the state

And I said SCOTUS. The 5th sent it back because Obergefell rendered it moot.

It's a bullshit case that will be rejected by the SCOTUS because it's stupid on its face.

who the fuck cares what you said

people like you like to twist it around

but the fact is i said the federal court rejected it

and sent it back to the state

you do realize this opinion does NOTHING nothing at all

except send it back to the lower courts to fix errs

and that ALL parties agreed to the ruling

but as usual you will sit here and spout your nonsense all day long

All parties bent to Republican pressure. They're elected. The Republicans threatened to Primary them. This case was rejected but the 5th because it was rendered moot. It still is, but you want to spend a lot of Texas taxpayer money to have that reiterated?

--LOL

sure buddy

--LOL

thanks for proving you are a crack pot

--LOL

 

[martybegan]

I see a lot of people cheering this ridiculous decision, but not a one actually trying to defend it.

Could it be because you realize how ludicrous it is even for Texas? You really expect the Federal Courts to rule that benefits can be denied some legally married couples?

It will and should be shot down. But it is and indication that, like Roe, Obergfell is not "settled" yet by any stretch of imagination.

No, nothing will be settled as long as insane people push an agenda.

Thinking everyone who opposes you is "insane" is the sign of a weak mind, and a inability to understand that your views are not the end-all be-all.

It's reeks of narcissism as well.

Assholes sound better? I can go with fucking assholes if you prefer.

Yes, because Fining someone $149k for not baking a cake is not being assholes at all.....

You support assholes on your own side, while I call a spade a spade.

This decision is actually terrible, and I can say that because I'm not a blind partisan hack.

 

[Seawytch]

You did not provide a link that says this was presented to the SCOTUS and was rejected. That's impossible because it never happened.

Implementing Obergefell: An Addendum - Online Library of Law & Liberty

Only the 5th circuit has been involved.

In Pidgeon, a Texas trial court ruling issued prior to Obergefell had enjoined the provision of such benefits, and the city appealed to the intermediate court of appeals. While the appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Obergefell, prompting the court of appeals to reverse the injunction and remand the case back to the trial court. The plaintiff-taxpayers sought discretionary review by the Texas Supreme Court, which was initially denied but then granted following a petition for rehearing.

(And intense political pressure)

i said federal courts asshole

which the 5th is

they sent it to the state

And I said SCOTUS. The 5th sent it back because Obergefell rendered it moot.

It's a bullshit case that will be rejected by the SCOTUS because it's stupid on its face.

who the fuck cares what you said

people like you like to twist it around

but the fact is i said the federal court rejected it

and sent it back to the state

you do realize this opinion does NOTHING nothing at all

except send it back to the lower courts to fix errs

and that ALL parties agreed to the ruling

but as usual you will sit here and spout your nonsense all day long

All parties bent to Republican pressure. They're elected. The Republicans threatened to Primary them. This case was rejected but the 5th because it was rendered moot. It still is, but you want to spend a lot of Texas taxpayer money to have that reiterated?

--LOL

sure buddy

--LOL

thanks for proving you are a crack pot

--LOL

For stating fact? Every piece written on this case mentions the political pressure put on the Texas Supreme Court to "un-reject" this case.

 

[Seawytch]

I see a lot of people cheering this ridiculous decision, but not a one actually trying to defend it.

Could it be because you realize how ludicrous it is even for Texas? You really expect the Federal Courts to rule that benefits can be denied some legally married couples?

It will and should be shot down. But it is and indication that, like Roe, Obergfell is not "settled" yet by any stretch of imagination.

No, nothing will be settled as long as insane people push an agenda.

Thinking everyone who opposes you is "insane" is the sign of a weak mind, and a inability to understand that your views are not the end-all be-all.

It's reeks of narcissism as well.

Assholes sound better? I can go with fucking assholes if you prefer.

Yes, because Fining someone $149k for not baking a cake is not being assholes at all.....

You support assholes on your own side, while I call a spade a spade.

This decision is actually terrible, and I can say that because I'm not a blind partisan hack.

Is it the law? Was a law broken? Why conflate separate issues?

This was a dick move....agreed.

But with Trump.as head Dick, this is the kinda stuff we will have to expect.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

The slanted, biased and woefully shallow article that you posted left out a few things:

Texas Supreme Court Rules That It’s Unclear Married Gay Couples Have Right to Government Spousal Benefits

The lawsuit, filed by two activists in 2013, attempts to repeal benefits for employees at the City of Houston who are married to a same-sex partner. But Friday’s ruling did not decide whether the couples should or should not get those employment benefits. Nor did the Texas court declare that the US Supreme Court’s marriage decision should be ignored in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case.

Rather, the 24-page opinion says that the activists behind the lawsuit can continue to help “the courts in fully exploring Obergefell’s reach and ramifications” by arguing their case in a lower court in the context of the Obergefell ruling.

So it is by no means the end of the road.

But some LGBT activists dispute the notion that this ruling is inherently consequential. Houston employees are continuing to obtain these benefits, they note. But by keeping the case alive, they say, Texas state court prolongs questions over whether same-sex couples can truly enjoy equal protection under the law.

Furthermore:

Lambda Legal responds:

The Texas Supreme Court today defied the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges which ushered in the freedom to marry for same-sex couples nationwide, saying it leaves open questions whether Texas municipalities must extend access to spousal benefits including health insurance to the legal same-sex spouses of municipal employees in the same way it does for other married employees. The ruling revives a case that was dead and sends it back to the trial court to give the parties another chance to attack the marriage of same-sex couples.

Today’s ruling, in the case Pidgeon v. Turner, also flies in the face of the Supreme Court summary reversal on Monday of an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling, in Pavan v. Smith, stating explicitly that states may not treat same-sex married couples differently than other married couples. Pidgeon v. Turner, originally filed in late 2013 as Pidgeon v. Parker, challenged then-Houston Mayor Annise Parker’s announcement that the city would begin offering health insurance and other benefits to the same-sex spouses of city employees.

So Bubba, what do you think will happen when this one gets to SCOTUS!??

 

[danielpalos]

Why is the devil singling out 6-10% of the population randomly?

Actually, population control is the opposite of against humanity...it ensures it's continuation.

You choose to sin. Homosexuality if lived the way it's wrote out. It is population control. Two of the same sex cannot have children withowithout outside help.

Proverbs 6:16-19

16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Good Google search, please don't cherry pick the bible as a non believer.

Morals are morals. Only the right wing has, nothing but repeal.

Actually a liberal telling the truth partfully.

Proverbs are more proverbial than anything else in the Bible.

 

[danielpalos]

We find that Con-servatives have a hard time distinguishing the difference between people and animals.

Not at all. We're some if the few with the ability to make that differentiation.

Y'all cannot tell the difference between the common Defense and the common Offense. Only one Term is specifically enumerated.

 

[danielpalos]

Texas Supreme Court denies benefits to married same-sex couples

Ah. Sanity is nice to see.

The slanted, biased and woefully shallow article that you posted left out a few things:

Texas Supreme Court Rules That It’s Unclear Married Gay Couples Have Right to Government Spousal Benefits

The lawsuit, filed by two activists in 2013, attempts to repeal benefits for employees at the City of Houston who are married to a same-sex partner. But Friday’s ruling did not decide whether the couples should or should not get those employment benefits. Nor did the Texas court declare that the US Supreme Court’s marriage decision should be ignored in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case.

Rather, the 24-page opinion says that the activists behind the lawsuit can continue to help “the courts in fully exploring Obergefell’s reach and ramifications” by arguing their case in a lower court in the context of the Obergefell ruling.

So it is by no means the end of the road.

But some LGBT activists dispute the notion that this ruling is inherently consequential. Houston employees are continuing to obtain these benefits, they note. But by keeping the case alive, they say, Texas state court prolongs questions over whether same-sex couples can truly enjoy equal protection under the law.

Furthermore:

Lambda Legal responds:

The Texas Supreme Court today defied the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges which ushered in the freedom to marry for same-sex couples nationwide, saying it leaves open questions whether Texas municipalities must extend access to spousal benefits including health insurance to the legal same-sex spouses of municipal employees in the same way it does for other married employees. The ruling revives a case that was dead and sends it back to the trial court to give the parties another chance to attack the marriage of same-sex couples.

Today’s ruling, in the case Pidgeon v. Turner, also flies in the face of the Supreme Court summary reversal on Monday of an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling, in Pavan v. Smith, stating explicitly that states may not treat same-sex married couples differently than other married couples. Pidgeon v. Turner, originally filed in late 2013 as Pidgeon v. Parker, challenged then-Houston Mayor Annise Parker’s announcement that the city would begin offering health insurance and other benefits to the same-sex spouses of city employees.

So Bubba, what do you think will happen when this one gets to SCOTUS!??

Only the right wing would come up with such, "red herrings".

Equal protection of the law, is in the Texas State Constitution.

 

[martybegan]

It will and should be shot down. But it is and indication that, like Roe, Obergfell is not "settled" yet by any stretch of imagination.

No, nothing will be settled as long as insane people push an agenda.

Thinking everyone who opposes you is "insane" is the sign of a weak mind, and a inability to understand that your views are not the end-all be-all.

It's reeks of narcissism as well.

Assholes sound better? I can go with fucking assholes if you prefer.

Yes, because Fining someone $149k for not baking a cake is not being assholes at all.....

You support assholes on your own side, while I call a spade a spade.

This decision is actually terrible, and I can say that because I'm not a blind partisan hack.

Is it the law? Was a law broken? Why conflate separate issues?

This was a dick move....agreed.

But with Trump.as head Dick, this is the kinda stuff we will have to expect.

Stop arguing the law is the law is the law and justify fining someone $149k for not baking a cake.

And Obama's admin was just as dickish, you just supported the dickery.

 

[deltex1]

Marriage is the natural environment for the natural union of a man and a woman, the purpose of which is to raise natural children in a natural world. People wanting to operate outside of that natural realm should establish their own definition for what they do and seek whatever protections they think just through the political system. Warping the natural world to fit their unnatural state is the wrong solution.

 

[danielpalos]

No, nothing will be settled as long as insane people push an agenda.

Thinking everyone who opposes you is "insane" is the sign of a weak mind, and a inability to understand that your views are not the end-all be-all.

It's reeks of narcissism as well.

Assholes sound better? I can go with fucking assholes if you prefer.

Yes, because Fining someone $149k for not baking a cake is not being assholes at all.....

You support assholes on your own side, while I call a spade a spade.

This decision is actually terrible, and I can say that because I'm not a blind partisan hack.

Is it the law? Was a law broken? Why conflate separate issues?

This was a dick move....agreed.

But with Trump.as head Dick, this is the kinda stuff we will have to expect.

Stop arguing the law is the law is the law and justify fining someone $149k for not baking a cake.

And Obama's admin was just as dickish, you just supported the dickery.

Our extra-Constitutional, War on Drugs may actually result in asset forfeiture and jail time. Thank goodness, those bakers could claim, "bakers morals" to get out of criminal proceedings.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Thinking everyone who opposes you is "insane" is the sign of a weak mind, and a inability to understand that your views are not the end-all be-all.

It's reeks of narcissism as well.

Assholes sound better? I can go with fucking assholes if you prefer.

Yes, because Fining someone $149k for not baking a cake is not being assholes at all.....

You support assholes on your own side, while I call a spade a spade.

This decision is actually terrible, and I can say that because I'm not a blind partisan hack.

Is it the law? Was a law broken? Why conflate separate issues?

This was a dick move....agreed.

But with Trump.as head Dick, this is the kinda stuff we will have to expect.

Stop arguing the law is the law is the law and justify fining someone $149k for not baking a cake.

And Obama's admin was just as dickish, you just supported the dickery.

Our extra-Constitutional, War on Drugs may actually result in asset forfeiture and jail time. Thank goodness, those bakers could claim, "bakers morals" to get out of criminal proceedings.

They're claiming religious freedom, stop making shit up

 

[danielpalos]

Marriage is the natural environment for the natural union of a man and a woman, the purpose of which is to raise natural children in a natural world. People wanting to operate outside of that natural realm should establish their own definition for what they do and seek whatever protections they think just through the political system. Warping the natural world to fit their unnatural state is the wrong solution.

We subscribe to Constitutional law, not religious laws.

 

[danielpalos]

Assholes sound better? I can go with fucking assholes if you prefer.

Yes, because Fining someone $149k for not baking a cake is not being assholes at all.....

You support assholes on your own side, while I call a spade a spade.

This decision is actually terrible, and I can say that because I'm not a blind partisan hack.

Is it the law? Was a law broken? Why conflate separate issues?

This was a dick move....agreed.

But with Trump.as head Dick, this is the kinda stuff we will have to expect.

Stop arguing the law is the law is the law and justify fining someone $149k for not baking a cake.

And Obama's admin was just as dickish, you just supported the dickery.

Our extra-Constitutional, War on Drugs may actually result in asset forfeiture and jail time. Thank goodness, those bakers could claim, "bakers morals" to get out of criminal proceedings.

They're claiming religious freedom, stop making shit up

Freedom to, "render unto Caesar that which pertains to him"? We have laws; public accommodation is for-profit in that case. That means, profit above morals. If y'all want morals over profit, go not-for-profit to prove you care less about lucre than you do morals.

 

[martybegan]

Thinking everyone who opposes you is "insane" is the sign of a weak mind, and a inability to understand that your views are not the end-all be-all.

It's reeks of narcissism as well.

Assholes sound better? I can go with fucking assholes if you prefer.

Yes, because Fining someone $149k for not baking a cake is not being assholes at all.....

You support assholes on your own side, while I call a spade a spade.

This decision is actually terrible, and I can say that because I'm not a blind partisan hack.

Is it the law? Was a law broken? Why conflate separate issues?

This was a dick move....agreed.

But with Trump.as head Dick, this is the kinda stuff we will have to expect.

Stop arguing the law is the law is the law and justify fining someone $149k for not baking a cake.

And Obama's admin was just as dickish, you just supported the dickery.

Our extra-Constitutional, War on Drugs may actually result in asset forfeiture and jail time. Thank goodness, those bakers could claim, "bakers morals" to get out of criminal proceedings.

Separate issue.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Yes, because Fining someone $149k for not baking a cake is not being assholes at all.....

You support assholes on your own side, while I call a spade a spade.

This decision is actually terrible, and I can say that because I'm not a blind partisan hack.

Is it the law? Was a law broken? Why conflate separate issues?

This was a dick move....agreed.

But with Trump.as head Dick, this is the kinda stuff we will have to expect.

Stop arguing the law is the law is the law and justify fining someone $149k for not baking a cake.

And Obama's admin was just as dickish, you just supported the dickery.

Our extra-Constitutional, War on Drugs may actually result in asset forfeiture and jail time. Thank goodness, those bakers could claim, "bakers morals" to get out of criminal proceedings.

They're claiming religious freedom, stop making shit up

Freedom to, "render unto Caesar that which pertains to him"? We have laws; public accommodation is for-profit in that case. That means, profit above morals. If y'all want morals over profit, go not-for-profit to prove you care less about lucre than you do morals.

Gibberish

 

[danielpalos]

Assholes sound better? I can go with fucking assholes if you prefer.

Yes, because Fining someone $149k for not baking a cake is not being assholes at all.....

You support assholes on your own side, while I call a spade a spade.

This decision is actually terrible, and I can say that because I'm not a blind partisan hack.

Is it the law? Was a law broken? Why conflate separate issues?

This was a dick move....agreed.

But with Trump.as head Dick, this is the kinda stuff we will have to expect.

Stop arguing the law is the law is the law and justify fining someone $149k for not baking a cake.

And Obama's admin was just as dickish, you just supported the dickery.

Our extra-Constitutional, War on Drugs may actually result in asset forfeiture and jail time. Thank goodness, those bakers could claim, "bakers morals" to get out of criminal proceedings.

Separate issue.

Some people would rather get fined 149k, than have their assets forfeited and possibly face incarceration for several years.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, because Fining someone $149k for not baking a cake is not being assholes at all.....

You support assholes on your own side, while I call a spade a spade.

This decision is actually terrible, and I can say that because I'm not a blind partisan hack.

Is it the law? Was a law broken? Why conflate separate issues?

This was a dick move....agreed.

But with Trump.as head Dick, this is the kinda stuff we will have to expect.

Stop arguing the law is the law is the law and justify fining someone $149k for not baking a cake.

And Obama's admin was just as dickish, you just supported the dickery.

Our extra-Constitutional, War on Drugs may actually result in asset forfeiture and jail time. Thank goodness, those bakers could claim, "bakers morals" to get out of criminal proceedings.

Separate issue.

Some people would rather get fined 149k, than have their assets forfeited and possibly face incarceration for several years.

Again, separate issues.

Try to stay on topic.

 

[deltex1]

Marriage is the natural environment for the natural union of a man and a woman, the purpose of which is to raise natural children in a natural world. People wanting to operate outside of that natural realm should establish their own definition for what they do and seek whatever protections they think just through the political system. Warping the natural world to fit their unnatural state is the wrong solution.

We subscribe to Constitutional law, not religious laws.

The constitution is based on Judeo Christian beliefs, Herb.

 

[danielpalos]

No. You just say homosexuals do not deserve justice because God told you so.

I was for civil unions when all this crap first came out. Which would give the all the rights they wanted, but that wasn't good enough. Redifinding marriage wasnt necessary.

What rights are missing in civil unions that are in marriage? Benefits packages?

None.

Then why would Texas see it otherwise and why would that be good?

Because its not considered a civil union. The redefined marriage.

A "distinction without a difference"? The law is, equal protection; there is no basis to deny or disparage privileges and immunities based on sex.