Roberts worked for gay rights activists

The Baltimore Sun ^ | 8/4/05 | Richard Serrano

[conserv13]

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for a coalition of gay rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people against discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

Then a private lawyer in Washington specializing in appellate work, Roberts helped represent the gay activists as part of his pro bono work at his law firm. He did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the high court; he was instrumental in reviewing the filings and preparing oral arguments, several lawyers intimately involved in the case said.

[Fred]

"The problem is the term "sexual orientation". Why shouldn't people be able to discriminate against a behavior that to them may be reprehensible. The problem is that sexual orientation is not equivalent to race and should not be a "protected class" and be included in discrimination law."

Sorry, common sense not allowed on the Roberts lacky suckup fest on this posting....

[MikefromOhio]

I O!!

don't worry, they won't but they think they are...

[MikefromOhio]

they need such a page to be interested in conservatism.

I didn't say that, but criticizing my page as being immature just makes someone look dumb honestly. And snobbish (at least to me).

[MikefromOhio]

(I mean of course besides Mike and his great graphics of people pissing, etc.)

What is your problem? Who pissed in your corn flakes (Nice and BORING with no sugar!! sugar is badd!!!) this morning I DON'T have any pics of anyone pissing, but I just might do that now if it will make you think I am immature.

[U.H. Conservative]

I think folks can disagree about the artistic merit of Calvin and Hobbes' urinary habits without opening themselves up to accusations of snobbery.

Now if we were talking about Ren and Stimpy....

[MikefromOhio]

while I like Calvin and Hobbes, they AREN'T on my webpage the last time I checked....

[jude24]

"[T]he State of Colorado... shall [not]... enforce... any statute... by which homosexual[s] ... claim any discrimination."

In other words, if a homosexual is discriminated against because of his sexual orientation - e.g., if his employer decides to fire him because he's gay, or if the police refuse to protect him, etc. - if any of those happen, gays are s-o-l. This amendment opened up carte blanche to discriminate against homosexuals, and the State of Colorado's enforcement mechanisms were closed to them.

[U.H. Conservative]

Who's that peein' on the M? Look an awful lot like Calvin to me.

[P-Marlowe]

As a graduate of USD, I take umbrage at the remark.

Just reading the opinions of the courts is an exercise in brainwashing. You don't need a professor to brainwash you when your homework assignment is to read a 75 page soliloquy by William O'Douglas or William Brennan or Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But if you are not careful you may need an exorcist.

[MikefromOhio]

Technically, that ISN'T calvin, but it is a likeness...

if he is pointing to that as a sign of my immaturity, he has issues....believe me....

[U.H. Conservative]

1. what year are you in? I don't say this to be rude but have you taken a Con Law class yet?

2. Giving gays rights to not be fires solely for their behavior is a special right. Adulterers, bigamists, Democrats, folks with piercings, dyed hair, etc. have no protection under the law. Yet you cannot honestly say all of these are protected classes, can you?

3. Even if you are correct that behavior is protected from discrimination, the Equal Protection clause only applies to state actors. It does not apply to businesses. that is why even after Brown, federal legislation needed to pass in order to ban private discrimination. Thus, any "right" to not be discriminated against in employment or housing (assuming the boss/landlord is a private entity) is created by statute and is thus special.

[MikefromOhio]

You're doing your part, that's for sure.

LOL. Glad my work is being appreciated LOL

[U.H. Conservative]

LOL. The exorcist is a wonderfully written opinion by Scalia. Though I do favor Thomas for the top slot.

And just as attending Berkeley made me conservative (it just showed me what happened when liberals actually got to do things their way), reading the drek of of Darth Bader or Kennedy can often serve as comic relief and an excellent lesson in the stupidity of a "living Constitution."

[fortheDeclaration]

The problem is that with the Supreme court you never know what you are getting. Ike said the greatest disappointment in his Presidency was appointing Earl Warren (I think that is who he appointed).

The real problem is accepting Judical review as the final say on the Constitution.

The Supreme Court needs a check as well as do the other two branches of Gov't.

[jude24]

what year are you in?

2L. Took (and did quite well in) Con Law.

Even if you are correct that behavior is protected from discrimination, the Equal Protection clause only applies to state actors. It does not apply to businesses.

Not entirely so. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments both have some application to private entities, Patterson v. McLean Credit Union (1989), and Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976).(Admittedly, those are both race-related.) But, ultimately, that is not germane to my point. My point is that the Government cannot single out a certain class of people, and say "the courts are closed to you on issues of discrimination." There are statutory rights that everyone has against discrimination. The government cannot deny it to a single group, especially not based directly upon a desire to harm that group. That violates Equal Protection. That is a governmental action. That is the object of my aim.

[jude24]

This should read: There are statutory rights that everyone has against certain kinds of discrimination. (E.g. housing, etc.)

[U.H. Conservative]

1. Glad you did well. Con Law is a great subject.

2. The 13th Amendment was directed at both private and government entities, so of course it has some application against private entities. The 13th Amendment also has no application in this issue as it has no part in the equal protection debate.

3. "There are statutory rights that everyone has against discrimination."

You seem to be thinking the anti-discrimination laws grant some general right for people to be protected from discrimination for any reason. They do not. They define protected classes. Amendment 13 merely said that homosexuality could not be defined as a protected class.

[U.H. Conservative]

Even then, your characterization is grossly incorrect. Everyone does not have those statutory right. Only defined classes have that right.

[Gaffer]

I don't know about him...... I'm operating on blind faith here with 'W's decision.

[Sir_Ed]

Boy, Free Republic sure is changing, huh?

Most of the people here seem to support homosexuals being able to claim discrimination if a Christian doesn't hire them or want them to be their roomates, and suspicions about Roberts being another Suiter are treated as tin-foil crackpottery...

I wonder if in five years or so, there will be no more Conservatives on this website...

I hope not.

Ed