BREAKING: Supreme Court Rejects Lambda Legal’s Appeal Of Mississippi Law Legalizing Anti-LGBT Discrimination By Businesses And Government Workers

Bloomberg reports:

The U.S. Supreme Court left intact a Mississippi law that lets businesses and government workers refuse on religious grounds to provide services to gay and transgender people. The justices turned away two appeals by state residents and organizations that contended the measure violates the Constitution. A federal appeals court said the opponents hadn’t suffered any injury that would let them press their claims in court.

The Mississippi fight in some ways represented the flip side of a Colorado case the high court is currently considering; the question in that instance is whether the state can require a baker who sells wedding cakes to make one for a same-sex couple’s wedding. The Mississippi law, by contrast, gives priority to religious rights. The state enacted its law less than a year after the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

  • Will Parkinson


    • (((GC)))

      [resists the impulse to post a NSFW illustration of that with two hunky longhaired bearded men!]

      • Will Parkinson

        Why would you be so mean?

        • (((GC)))

          Because I don’t know how to post a link to an image that doesn’t automagically expand into that image. Some people do read JMG at work, on public transportation, or in other places where discretion in navigating our uptight-about-nudity-and-sex (and religion) culture is a good thing.

          An image search, with “safe search” turned off, will quickly bring up the picture I’m thinking of.

  • liondon#iamnotatraitor

    There’s work to be done.

  • netxtown

    Well ok.
    I no longer sell to christians….

    • Tawreos

      Nice idea, but they are a protected class and will probably win no matter what.

      • netxtown

        then let’s go to court…

      • Michael R

        They are assuming religious beliefs only means one thing ,
        which is insane .

      • Gene Perry

        Assholes are not a protected class, however. And the fact that “asshole” and “Christian” are often overlapping catagories is just a lucky coinciedence.

    • KCMC
      • Boreal


        • KCMC

          Gifts can’t be stolen.
          Have at it.

          • Card

            Now I want to know where I can find the full video…lol

      • JT

        Watch out when you’re playing with yourself.

        • KCMC

          Daily devotion.

      • Danieruw

        Battle of the Planets! Loved that show when I was a kid.

    • Ragnar Lothbrok

      Or buy from

      • Gretchen

        I have been making a list when I hear a commercial or see an add that screams religious company. I definitely keep it in mind about where not to shop.

        • Michael White

          I quit going to hobby lobby years ago

          • Todd20036

            There’s a barbershop near me that’s closed on Sundays

            I have a feeling it’s a Christian thing.

            Wonder if I should yelp it

          • (((GC)))

            Do they give good haircuts to all comers the other six days of the week?

            (I also remember seeing, as a kid, a Chinese restaurant that on Sundays had a hand-lettered sign in the door that they were “closed to worship God”.)

          • JCF

            I’ve never been. The first time I’d ever heard of these assholes, was for their homophobia&misogyny.

          • (((GC)))

            Same here. Around here, Michael’s and A.C. Moore are the big craft and hobby chains. Pearl Art & Craft (with higher-quality art supplies) used to have a huge store in Philadelphia, while the company existed.

            There are still a few art supply chains and independent stores around here. Good to know that the chain Artist & Craftsman Supply is employee-owned.

        • pch1013

          Back when phone books were a thing, I would make a point of avoiding any business that displayed a Jesus fishie in its ad.

          Not sure how that would work now – maybe Yelp could add a “discrimination policy” category.

          • Gretchen

            I still get an annual copy of the yellow pages. I guess I could cross reference. The War on Christmas was very helpful. I heard a couple radio ads cheering how they could finally say Merry Christmas again, so I put them on the permanently boycotted listed.

    • ColdCountry

      You certainly refuse service to Republicans.

    • TheManicMechanic

      What you would need to do is establish or co-opt a religion first, then as a protected class yourself refuse to sell to Christians on certain grounds outlined in your beliefs. That would tend to work, but knowing the xtian taliban, your business would be vandalized as likely will be your home and you’ll definitely be harassed, receive death threats, etc.. If you (or anyone) is willing and able to take this route and stick with it, and are prepared with surveillance and other means to make sure you’ll catch any perps and be able to prosecute a steady stream of them, then, yes, you will make a difference.

      • John Kusters

        I would suggest that joining your local Satanic Temple could be a good first step. The Supremes have already branded them a legitimate religion, and I’m sure the Temple would enjoy tweaking Christian noses just a bit. 🙂

        • TheManicMechanic

          I had considered it before, though there are no local chapters. So much for potluck nights! 😉

          • John Kusters

            There’s one local to me, and I’m following them on Facebook. I can’t tell if they have regular meetings.

    • Paula

      No, have a sign on the window that says no open symbols of religion allowed in the store. No crosses on chains, no John 3:16 shit, I love jeebus shirts, see how they react.

  • olandp

    This is all the plan to re-institute Jim Crow.

    • Statistics Palin

      It’s what Southern Baptists do.

    • Falconlights

      Exactly. Once they get their way in this, they WILL start in on other minorities. The ultimate goal of Masterpiece Bakery is to nibble away at our rights until we have no protections against discrimination. Wedding cakes will be the least of it.

  • Larry Ft Pierce

    These states, MS, AL, KY.. all need to be punished. No business travel, no national conventions, starve them. (KY for giving us McConnell forever)

  • SkokieGuy [ChicagoAdjacentGuy]

    This doesn’t mean that it ISN’T unconstitutional, just that we will have to find better plaintiffs.

    This idea of not being able to sue without injury, well should we make attempted murder legal?

    • Trevor Brown

      Thanks Russian.

      • SkokieGuy [ChicagoAdjacentGuy]

        What on earth would make you say that?

    • Natty Enquirer

      Attempted murder is a crime, not a tort.

      • SkokieGuy [ChicagoAdjacentGuy]

        I know bad example but first thing that comes to mind.

      • The_Wretched

        It’s also a tort but civil actions based on criminal law violations are relatively rare. The family of Nicole Brown won a civil ‘wrongful death’ case against OJ even though he was acquitted on the criminal murder charge.

    • gaycuckhubby

      You’re exactly right. They did not rule on the Merit of the case they just insinuated it wasn’t a very good case to be brought up.

      • The_Wretched

        ” they just insinuated”

        They are SCOTUS. “just insinuating” isn’t law.

  • bkmn

    Then we shouldn’t have to pay taxes, right? If we are not worthy of equal rights, why pay taxes?

  • Mark

    I will no longer sell to christians. I’ll be too busy….

  • That_Looks_Delicious

    LL should’ve known better than to jump the gun with plaintiffs without standing. That’s like a Mat Staver move there.

    • As noted by the District Court Judge, this case has a lot of similarities to Romer v. Evans. So I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was a Mat Staver move, as there was actually precedent.

      • Jim Michaud

        That’s probably what’s needed. Bring someone that has standing and mention Romer vs. Evans.

  • Trevor Brown

    Let the negative business-destroying Yelp reviews commence!

  • 2guysnamedjoe
    • Xaca

      John Roberts, GODDAMN! Clarence Thomas, GODDAMN! Sam Alito, GODDAMN! Illegitimate Neil Gosuck, GODDAMN!

      “And I meant every word of it.”

      • TuuxKabin


      • jimbo65

        It angers me that at least two of those judges were appointed by the FIRST illegitimate president, GW Bush.

      • Todd20036

        And goddamn the Bernie bris who made this happen

        They were supposed to be our friends and betrayed us

        • Xaca

          Water under bridges that have already been burned.

          You do no good shitting on people we need as allies.

          An open hand is more powerful than a clenched fist.

          • AJD

            They fucked up in 2016, and a sizable number of them still refuse to admit it and continue to defend voting for Jill Stein or not voting at all. If they refuse again to vote for the Democrat in 2018 and 2020 because he/she isn’t pure enough for them, then the only open hand they’re getting is across their stupid faces.

          • Xaca

            If you have detailed numbers documenting difference-making votes in in Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan by Sanders supporters, please submit them for consideration.

            Otherwise, it’s just mindless, masturbative, told-you-so, big-dog leg hikin’.

            Assuming these Sanders supporters who swung the election to Trump exist, they likely won’t be persuaded with insults and threats. If you can’t realize that and discipline your message better, you’re hurting, not helping. Which makes you as dumb as the people you’re assailing.

          • (((GC)))

            Reposting a somewhat related link:
            The Election Was Stolen: Here’s How

            tRump’s victory margins in Michigan, Arizona, and North Carolina, awarding him all of those crucial electoral votes without which he wouldn’t have become president*, were up to 30 times smaller than the numbers of Americans of color targeted to be purged from voter rolls by Kris Kobach’s deliberately sloppy Crosscheck “detection” of people supposedly registered to vote in two states.

            (Tiffany Trump, Steven Mnuchin, and Steve Bannon were actually registered to vote in multiple states. If that’s a crime, LOCK THEM UP!)

          • Falconlights

            You should see them all over at AlterNet. They really don’t care who gets hurt.

      • IamSmartypants

        You must include Kennedy since it only takes support from four justices for the Supreme Court to hear a case. We can be pretty sure that Kagan, Ginsberg, and Sotommayor would at least want to review the Mississippi law.

        • Xaca

          I see the four as Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.

          Kennedy is the pivot.

          On the other hand, Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Gosuck could have voted to hear the case if they thought they had Kennedy’s vote.

      • Falconlights

        I love that song!!

    • iambu

      Fun fact: she wrote this whole song in an hour! All hail Nina!

    • gaycuckhubby

      I own more albums and songs by Nina Simone than any other artist. She saved my life when I was a closeted scared teenager

      • perversatile
        • gaycuckhubby

          Beautiful. And on that topic, when Trump was elected I often said “well at least we’ll get really good music and art out of this era.”
          Where the hell are the protest songs?

          • Falconlights

            I’d like to know that myself, though with the right buying all the radio stations, who knows if we can get airtime. When I was in high school, radio stations played all the good stuff–Melanie, Buffalo Springfield, etc. I hope someone rights songs and we find a way to get them out, especially to the young. My generation is letting down the side, big time.

    • kcken

      My favorite Nina song (remixed!)

      • TuuxKabin

        I can’t put a finger on my favorite. Take me to The River, live at a University auditorium. What you posted, new to me, didn’t know there was a re-mix. Thanks. The one and only time I got to see her, Berkeley Community Theater, she stopped playing, stood up addressed someone in the audience, something about “the brother obviously doesn’t know much.” and walked off the stage. And she got a standing ovation. Whoever the ‘brother’ was I couldn’t see. But hardly anyone complained. A lot of us were unreasonably loyal to her and rightly so.

        In memory: Four Women: Lisa Simone, Dianne Reeves, Lizz Wright, Angélique Kidjo

  • Gustav2

    “A federal appeals court said the opponents hadn’t suffered any injury that would let them press their claims in court.”


  • Jerry Kott

    This just adds insult to injury.

  • another_steve

    “A federal appeals court said the opponents hadn’t suffered any injury that would let them press their claims in court.”

    Is the Supreme Court’s ruling a technical one? No plaintiff has yet suffered damage?

    If so, that will change.

    • gaycuckhubby

      Yeah, the standing issue was tricky in this case. It’s important to note that they did not rule on the merits of the case this will certainly be Revisited this is not the end

      • another_steve

        That seems to be the trend when difficult constitutional matters come before the courts: They defer deciding on the merits until a plaintiff establishes personal harm or damage.

        • The_Wretched

          Why do you believe or agree with the conservative justices? Them saying something doesn’t make it right legally or morally.

          • another_steve

            I’m not agreeing it’s right. I’m just suggesting that that’s the way these cases seem to proceed.

          • Chris Baker

            it takes 4 justices to vote to accept to hear the case. Not even the 4 liberal justices voted to hear the case, so that has to point to how the case was not ready to be heard by the court.

          • The_Wretched

            post hoc back fill.

            that doesn’t mean the case isn’t valid legally. It’d mean the politics and strategics are in the fore.

        • gaycuckhubby

          Yes, and it’s frustrating and Justice is often delayed for a short period of time.

          • The_Wretched

            “short time” fvck you and your minimizing of harms to the LGBTQ community.

          • DUDE! Where did that come from?

          • The_Wretched

            He’s jumping up and down all over this thread as he does everytime there’s an anti-gay legal ruling telling us to sit down and shut up about bad rulings. It’s not ok.

  • BearEyes

    Bloomberg needs to know Colorado is about discrimination and not cake

  • crewman

    Let’s get a religion going, which has a core belief that members should not pay taxes, and then let’s see how quickly the government discovers common laws should actually be above religious beliefs after all.

    • That_Looks_Delicious

      Can I be ‘saved’ and then dance around repeating “I don’t like the wimmenz no more”?

      • Andymac3

        This girl tried it, lasted a couple of months, ran back to the gays, now more fabulous than ever.

      • (((GC)))

        And the problem with liking wimmenz and/or menz and/or any folks who are consenting adults or peers is… ?

        No religious busybody has ever been able to give a good answer that doesn’t depend on their own religious scripture or teachings. We simply do not need to be making as many baybeez as possible!

        I used to say that even if being gay were a “choice”, it would be a morally neutral one. But with migration crises, armed conflicts, more frequent and severe natural disasters from human-caused climate change, etc., etc. all ultimately caused by overpopulation — we’re on track to surpass 11 billion human beings on this rock by the end of the century — if some of us could choose to have no desire for relationships and sex that carry even a slight risk of baby-making, that could arguably be a moral choice!

        Real-world moral choices including using contraception when necessary, and working to ensure that all young people have reality-based sex education.

        • amati1684

          Speaking of making babies: what about all these christian parents having babies by the truckload to raise up an army for Jesus. They don’t know it, but all they’re doing is making more gay people. In the end, especially now, nature will win over nurture. It may be the only thing to finally persuade them that sexuality is not a choice.

          • Antonia

            Goo-g-le is pa-y-ing $97 per hour,with weekly p-a-youts.You can also a-v-ail this.
            O-n tuesday I got a brand new Land Rover Range Rover from having ear-n-ed $11752 this last four weeks..w-i-th-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ev-e-r done .. It s-o-unds unbelievable but you wont forgive yo-u-rself if you don’t check it
            >>>>> http://GoogleNewNetJobsLoveOpportunities/earn/hourly ♥♥♥U♥♥♥V♥♥♥O♥♥♥R♥♥♥H♥♥♥Q♥♥♥L♥♥♥V♥♥♥V♥♥♥J♥♥♥H♥♥♥C♥♥♥M♥♥♥V♥♥♥B♥♥♥A♥♥♥W:::::!wx134!jwehfe

          • (((GC)))

            You can a-v-ail yo-u-rself of getting thee hence. Hy-p-hens won’t save your spa-m-my s-c-a-m-s. Begone! Flagged and reported.

    • jimbo65

      I dunno, seems like the scientologists finally won their scam.

    • Joe in PA
    • JT

      Is that part of the religion that goes by the name of the Republican Party?

    • ted-

      I’m already paying membership dues to The Satanic Temple. I hope I’m allowed to have adopt multiple religions.

      Create one and I think many will join to avoid this Tax scam bill.

    • coram nobis

      The underlying issue here is the fact that the law affirms three narrow points of religious belief, so the Establishment Clause does have to come into this.

  • Randy503

    I’m furious too, but let’s be real here. IF there is no plaintiff, then there is no harm. It’s a matter of standing in court — you have to have someone who is actually harmed to bring a case. Lambda Legal should have known that. Wait until you have a really strong case, and then bring it to the courts. It takes longer, but we have to be cautiously deliberate. It’s how we won marriage equality, after all.

    • Xaca

      By that theory, there should be no such thing as an injunction.

      Also, don’t they only have to have four of the nine justices vote to accept a case? Possible that the minority judges do not want to have this case be heard with the current court, and have a harmful SC decision result.

      • Chris Baker

        yes, there are 4 liberal justices, so the liberal justices did not think it was ready, or they were concerned about how this current court might rule. The lower federal court also, apparently, did not rule on the merits of the case, only that the litigants did not have standing. So it was sort of a muddy case to start with, and wasn’t ready for SCOTUS.

  • MBear

    Well then – hope everyone sees what your cuntry really thinks of you

  • WKT20

    They need standing. Do you need someone who can show injury. This will be back in front of the court someday.

    • Rambie

      But how much farther to the right will the court be then?

      • Falconlights

        That is the question.

  • Jerry Hinnant

    I think there actually has to be someone who has been discriminated against for this to become a case. As long as there has been no discrimination caused by the law yet there is nothing for them to rule on.

    • Chris Baker

      Yes, that’s what it appears to be. No one has yet suffered harm, so there is no ‘case’ to be made, yet. They didn’t rule on the case, they just said, “this law has not been implemented yet so we can’t decide if the implementation is unconstitutional.” Perhaps the law is so broad (apparently couples who are having premarital sex can also be discriminated against) that they want to see how it is applied, and whether specific applications are unconstitutional.

    • The_Wretched

      Wrong. Legal history is full of court cases “on the face” of a law. The rise of ‘standing’ is a conservative legal movement to prevent cases being heard.

      • Jerry Hinnant

        Well if it is a conservative legal movement the that explains why it’s not being heard.

  • medaka
  • MusicBear88

    It is possible, though not necessarily likely, that they declined to hear this case because they’ve already heard Colorado case and their decision on it will render this case moot.

    • Rebecca Gardner

      I hope you’re right.

    • fuow

      Yeah, and that decision is against us.

    • j.martindale

      It is also possible that the decision is merely based on the narrow issue of “standing.” When a party does not have standing to bring a case to the court, it can be rejected regardless of the underlying issues.

      • John30013

        That’s how I interpreted the summary Joe posted. Which means, unfortunately, that SCOTUS won’t take a case until someone is actually denied a government service based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

      • narutomania

        Thank you, j.martindale. I think that is the case here. An important distinction, even though it leaves us with the shit end of the legal stick. Again.

    • The Milkman

      That’s what I was thinking, too. Although there’s the very real possibility that the Colorado decision will be against us, I continue to hold a very small glimmer of hope that this decision will follow the previous direction of the court. They have been moving consistently in our favor as the public opinion has shifted. Let’s hope that this is Kennedy’s swan song regarding LGBT equality.

  • Rebecca Gardner

    Bit by bit they are successfully chipping away at our Constitution, our Rights, and the ideals of our Nation while we stay focused on the next insane tweet from Trump. Even if he is removed from office the damage these fascist pigs have already done may never be undone. That only took them 12 months. Imagine the damage they can do over the next 36.

    R.I.P. U.S.A.

    • (((GC)))

      Imagine if the Rethuglicans flip a few more state legislatures. With 34 they can unilaterally call a Constitutional convention. With 38 they can unilaterally rewrite the Constitution in their own image, and ratify anything they like: turn the US into an official sexist, racist, heterosexist theocracy; obliterate the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, among many other things; and worst of all, repeal Article V of the Constitution, leaving NO (explicit constitutional) means to undo their looting and pillaging short of revolution.

      It wouldn’t take a nightmare emergency scenario such as the ones that set up the oppressive misogynist dystopias in The Handmaid’s Tale and Native Tongue.

      Every election matters.

  • Stephen Elliot Phillips

    thanks sarandon/berniecrats!

  • gaycuckhubby
    • The_Wretched

      Right on schedule. Your backfilling for the anti-gay bigots on SCOTUS is as ugly as it is predictable.

  • Boreal

    Seems the Stein/Bernie revolution is bearing fruit.

  • fuow

    While I understand (and hope) that the lack of standing was the reason this was rejected, the truth is – the refusal of far too many of us gay men to vote in November 2016 led to Justice Gorsuch. It put an end to the pained neutrality which Chief Justice Roberts had imposed upon the conservatives on the Court.
    So, yeah, before you dig out the dead horses being beaten and the whole ‘everyone I know who’s gay voted’, you might just want to actually do some research. It’s not the morning after the disaster in 2016 – there’s actual data out there.
    Oh, and dear dead horse people: I hope you’re the first to suffer from this Court’s anti-gay decisions. I really do.

    • Jmdintpa

      my favorite thing is when some wretched queen states out loud i just couldnt bring myself to vote for Hillary, its the principle of the matter and my principles, my morals, i just cant vote for hillary but i can vote for dumbass jill stein or some such non sense so long as i dont go against my “principles”.

  • The_Wretched

    Fundamentally lawless of the SCOTUS. Gorsuch is evil.

  • ben

    Is this another case of there not being the right plaintiff? IE was it gay rights orgs suing and not actual gay people with particularized injuries to plead?

    • gaycuckhubby


  • jimbo65

    Great. So I guess we can all guess where the decision for the bakery case is going to swing.

  • Makoto

    This is why I hate cases ruled on for simple standing much of the time. It’s the ultimate ‘kick the can’ move. They are just saying that they’re going to wait until someone:
    * has been harmed
    * and has the resources, time, and money to bring the case
    * and is willing to put up with the public ridicule bringing such a case will involve

    .. before doing anything. Can’t just sit down and say “yeah, that’s illegal, and will harm people in the future, so let’s cut it off now that it’s been brought to our attention”. And woe be unto the person who is no longer actively harmed by the law, say if they moved or something while the case was being appealed.

    • The_Wretched

      Justice delayed is justice denied.

    • Jim Michaud

      Yeah, the whole “standing” issue sucks for this case. But, it will also protect Obergefell from being struck down easily. Opponents of Marriage Equality will have to show that they’ve been harmed, awareness of the legal can of worms they’ll be opening, stare decisis, etc. There’s always a bright side to things.

      • Makoto

        True, it just seems like there are so many cases where ‘standing’ is used to just punt on the issue. Many of them related to schools trampling student rights and such (after graduation, appeals are being tossed because the student graduated).

        But even with Obergefell, sure, let them claim their case – their hurt feelings vs equal rights under the law, that seems like an easy case to decide. If they want to go religious, they can, but I’d hope that a decent lawyer would point out the inconsistencies in the religious observation around other nearby scripture used to claim the ‘I hate gays’ objection.

    • (((GC)))

      Sometimes narrow interpretations of standing lead to denying justice altogether — such as after delaying an abortion case until a particular woman is no longer pregnant.

  • Leo

    Temporary hold-over from ’01 earthquakes, deportations start in 2019

  • The_Wretched

    Really horrible anti-gay emotional issue? Check, queue the hate for the left. This happens with such regularity that yall should be suspecious of it and that you’ve been trained. Stop being tools.

    Folks, hate the right. They are the ones who want this underclass status for us. Not the left. Re-litigating the 2016 election gets us no where. Driving the left away from the polls by hating on them will not get you DEM wins.

    • Dakrat

      Perhaps there is a political lesson to be learnt by the DNC here; they didn’t push for Merrick Garland because they thought Hillary would win. Politics of being the aggrieved party doesn’t pay off.

      • Dakrat

        Or trying to present seemingly palatable choices to the GOP. Merrick Garland was the grayest nominee they could have thought of, instead they should have presented someone colorful and fought for him/her. 🙂

  • gaycuckhubby

    This is about the third LGBT case that has been misrepresented in headlines. we have every reason to worry that our rights are getting stripped away. But Supreme Court rulings are Very seldom home run wins or losses. This was rejected probably because of a lack of standing and this issue will be Revisited again.

    • The_Wretched

      “Standing” is the legal equivalent of stuffing your ears with your fingers, closing your eyes and going “la la la la” can’t hear you.

      • That_Looks_Delicious

        Not really. That is how our judicial system has always worked. Not so long ago, a case brought by an anti-gay group was thrown out for the exact same reason. Their plaintiffs could not show how the law they were opposed to had affected them in any way, so they did not have standing to bring the suit.

        • The_Wretched

          ‘Standing’ showing up rarely vs ‘standing’ showing up regularly. There’s law journals with articles on it.

          The situations are not parallel. A law that says you get to discriminate will have a class of harmed persons very soon. A law that says gay folks can marry will not have a harmed class of persons ever.

  • SoCalVet

    I will take in any LGBT Mississippi asylum seekers here in California.

    • boatboy_srq

      Maybe it’s time for a full-scale JMG-BnB database for fleeing LGBT Southerners. There are enough of us in less-unfriendly locales with at least an extra room.

      • i’ll kick out my renter (he’s a republican white asshole) and rent our room to anyone who seeks to flee. it’s sorta cold up here, but i will take you to the stores we have here and help you buy a nice coat and some boots. it’s a cheap room, by most standards, and there is lots of space to garden.

        • boatboy_srq


          I’m moving in a couple months, but even after that I’ll have a little space, and I know others here who have similar spaces.

          I know I’m as guilty as anyone else of the “get outta there” approach to LGBT folks in oppressive states: the least we can do is offer to help the ones that want to leave and don’t have a good plan for where to land.

          • for various reasons, i was forced to live in TX for a while. i’m a northerner born and bred. it was fucked up and i hated it. the really funny part? the woman who rented me the place i was at was the same way and she gave it to me really cheap because she wanted to flee the South *that* bad. so i get it.

            i know we all have reasons that prevent us from living in a palace at the location of our fondest desire. well, maybe some of us get that. but for those who don’t? yeah, take my advice.

            get. out. just leave. go. Drive away Daddy, drive away!

            good people in the south: we need you up here, to help us prepare for the second civil war. it’s coming.

          • boatboy_srq

            For me, it’s the simple logic that while we need a more powerful presence in Red States that shouldn’t mean our LGBT brothers and sisters risk physical harm or unemployment or homelessness to achieve that.

          • Gretchen

            I’m so afraid you are right about coming war. We have talked ad nauseam about moving, but there are so many things to consider including my husband’s job. He is about 10 years from retirement based on work service, but not even close to social security and Medicare. We have property that would need to be sold first, and our son gets services through the state as an adult with special needs. I’m good with moving away from our family, but neither of them are right now. Its overwhelming to think about moving away from somewhere you have lived your entire life, and my husband doesn’t do anything quickly. He doesn’t see the future as dangerous the way I do, so he’s not motivated to get away.

      • SoCalVet

        yes. totally!

      • Vista-Cruiser

        Any JMG readers in Canada willing to stash us in their basements?

  • gaycuckhubby

    In America judicial system you can’t sue for something that you fear might happen in the future. You have to show concrete damages

    • DaveMiller135

      Succinct. What’s the action if they had enacted a law saying you can shoot a gay person who enters your Christian store? Not being a jerk, the last twelve months of Trump have convinced me that there’s some slippage in the checks and balances I’ve always relied on.

      • boatboy_srq

        There are Twinkies and Gay Panic defenses that still work in some places. I doubt that even the 10th casualty would get justice in any state that enacted such a law.

    • The_Wretched

      Bullshit. Laws have always been challenable on the face of the law absent retro-harms. Future and obvious harms count. At least they do if you don’t have a right wing jurist hell bent on denying people rights.

  • Sam_Handwich

    this is essentially the same reason Vaughan Walker’s decision stood in the Prop 8 trial.

    • fuow

      True, but it still hurts.

    • gaycuckhubby

      Yep. This is our system.

      • The_Wretched

        No it is not and it does not have to be like this.

  • TexasBoy

    In other words, no one has been refused thus far, or if they have those people have chosen not to file suit. Damages have to happen before you have a case.

  • yeah, i really want some of them to start doing that so str8 folk can understand. oh, you’re a jew? a divorced woman? someone who ate a food gawd doesn’t like? no cake for you!

    then maybe they’d understand why these laws are so unconstitutional and awful.

  • Halou

    They’ll only decide on the matter when someone is directly affected by it?

    • MBear

      Which means they refuse to recognize the oppression and violence against their own citizens for like… ever.

  • Sam_Handwich

    I seem to recall the district court judge (what’s his name?) writing a very thoughtful opinion blocking the law. But why do trial court judges so often gloss over the standing issue?

    • The_Wretched

      They don’t. The conservatives are running a snowjob in the comments here and on the court.

      Lower courts are also more likely to hear cases on the merits just in case they should have developed a record for the higher courts. It’s the job of higher courts to pull a political move and kill a case. That’s what happened here.

      I’m fairly disgusted by the higher courts and the people here saying “gee, it’s not so bad” and “let’s believe what the anti-gay conservatives tell us”.

      • That_Looks_Delicious

        LOL. Are you calling me “conservative”? You would probably be the first person who has ever done that.

        • The_Wretched

          No but I think you’re falling for a line.

          • That_Looks_Delicious

            We still have the same 9 justices that ruled on Windsor and Obergefell essentially. Gorsuch just replaced Scalia so that’s a wash. I really don’t think, unless Trump replaces further justices with whackjobs, that they would rule in favor of the Mississippi law. LL just needs to find better plaintiffs before there are any further changes on the Court.

            It’s important to note that they did *not* rule in favor of the MS law.. They just said “you need better plaintiffs to bring this case.”

          • The_Wretched

            Kicking it down the road is bad for us. Kicking cases on standing is bad for us.

        • gaycuckhubby

          I get called a Nazi/Russian/conservative/troll all the time. I consider myself a reasonable liberal.

  • Dana Chilton

    How is this the flip side? As I see it, a baker in Colorado refuses to serve gay people. In Mississippi, all businesses and government employees can refuse to serve gay people. In which case are religious persons targeted for discrimination?

    • Sam_Handwich

      legally, it’s not the flip-side at all

      • fuow

        True, but it sure is a slap in the face.

    • Dana Chilton

      But Hillary’s emails!

  • Though the 5th Circuit ruled that plaintiffs don’t have standing to challenge HB1523, and now the Supreme Court has declined to review that decision, the challenge to HB 1523 isn’t entirely dead.

    Back in district court, Judge Reeves has allowed the plaintiffs who brought the challenge to the Mississippi marriage law to reopen the marriage case to challenge the magistrate recusal provision of HB 1523.

    • gaycuckhubby

      Thank you! And thank you for the invaluable work you’ve done over the years

    • MrRobotoLA

      Is it possible this may be s good sign in the Masterpiece case? Would a decision in that case that affirms public accommodation laws render this one null and void. Or am I hoping too much here?

      • Unfortunately, one doesn’t follow from the other. If we win in Masterpiece, it just means that it’s okay for states to pass nondiscrimination laws like the one in Colorado. That’s not the same as saying states MUST pass these laws, nor that laws that protect discrimination, like the one in MS, necessarily run afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

        That said, the reasoning used in Masterpiece – good or bad – will likely have an impact on the outcome of any eventual challenge to laws like MS’s HB 1523.

        • This might be a good time to note something that seems to have escaped the public consciousness in a lot of circles. If we lose Masterpiece, that means that nondiscrimination laws that currently exist around the country will be unenforceable – at least as to any provisions in those laws that are analogous to whatever provisions of the Colorado law are struck down.

          • LSMC1987

            I’m successful person, but I don’t know what this means.

          • It just means that this isn’t just about Colorado.

            Right now, even though there is no federal public accommodation law protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, there are state and local laws around the country. There is a tendency to think that we’re safe in places like New York and California because we have strong state laws, like Colorado’s, protecting from the kind of discrimination experienced by the couple in Colorado. If SCOTUS strike down the Colorado law, it means similar laws in states like NY and CA are also unconstitutional.

            What I meant by “at least as to any provisions in those laws that are analogous to whatever provisions of the Colorado law are struck down” is that even if we lose Masterpiece, SCOTUS is unlikely to strike down the entire public accommodation law in Colorado. A more likely negative outcome would be to strike it down in some limited way – as to certain circumstances, or type of business, etc. If that happens, then the similar laws in other states would be likewise limited in their enforceability.

          • David L. Caster

            This particular circle is for the most part well aware of those consequences.

          • Yes, JMG folks are definitely better informed than most. I’m kind of shocked how often, outside of engaged activist crowds, I encounter people who don’t seem to get what a big deal Masterpiece could be if we lose. Unlike in the marriage cases where, if we lost, states could still continue to pass inclusive marriage laws, if we lose this case, it limits the ability of states to pass laws that protect against discrimination.

          • David L. Caster

            The Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended is woefully insufficient. We could be in for some bumpy times if Masterpiece goes the haters’ way.

          • (((GC)))

            It feels like only a year or two ago we were talking about pushing to amend the Civil Rights Act to explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity and expression as protected classes.

            But with the current political climate (read: Republicans), the last thing we want to do is give them an opportunity to make it weaker rather than stronger.

  • ColdCountry

    Let me get this straight. You can break the law if no one is injured? Guess that means no more tickets for rolling through stop signs, or speeding right?

    • The_Wretched

      You meant ‘can’t’. and yup somehow ‘harms to the citizens as a whole’ are entirely being ignored by the pro-standing comments here.

      • ColdCountry

        No, they said it’s OK to break the law as no one is injured. Ignoring stop signs when no one is coming hurts no one. Right? Am I missing something? (Like a /s tag?)

    • Natty Enquirer

      Ever heard of civil law?

      • The_Wretched

        Half the comments here seem perfectly happy to ignore vast swaths of law.

      • ColdCountry

        Hell no! The Supreme Court says I kin do it, so I kin! I no ma rites!

    • That_Looks_Delicious

      I think they’re saying that the person bringing suit has to be able to show that the law has at least affected them in some real-time way and not just hypothetically how it will affect them in the future. A guy in a city I used to live in was opposed to those speed bumps that residential neighborhoods install to deter people taking short-cuts down their streets during rush hour. So he sued the city to strike down the ordinance that allows them, claiming it was illegal. Which was a long shot at best. But his suit was allowed to proceed because he could show that some recently installed speed bumps (the ones on my street) were on his home-go-work route. He lost that case, as would be expected.

      • ColdCountry

        I’m surprised that LL brought the suit without a real plaintive, even though it’s unconstitutional. You’d think that’d be enough, but I guess not. Not when the other person is “religious.”

  • Ninja0980

    Sucks that you have to wait until someone can show harm based on this law when we all know it’s based on discrimination.

  • Uncle Mark

    Can we argue that people, who treat their religious laws/commandments as a buffet, where they pick and choose which rules to follow and which to ignore, actually invalidates their “religious right” to discriminate?

    Clearly, in discriminating against others, these Christianistas are ignoring the second most important commandment in their sacred tome. Matthew. 22:36-40: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

    Needless to say, I can just envision the pretzeled logic these RWNJs would employ in claiming that their discrimination is love.

    • m_lp_ql_m

      Using the Bible to argue against the Bible is an old, old tactic of theirs. It’s all meaningless anyway. No progress ever gets made this way as it still gives the Bible credence that just doesn’t exist.

      • coram nobis

        We need a definitive ruling, instead, arguing the Constitution against the Constitution. At this point, the Free Exercise Clause seems to trump the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. The district court did note that Establishment Clause litigation is a very specialized practice.

        Given the pervasiveness of Christianity here, some Mississippians might consider it fitting to have explicitly Christian laws and policies. They also might think that the Establishment Clause is a technicality that lets atheists and members of minority religions thwart their majority (Christian) rule. The public may be surprised to know the true origins of the Establishment Clause. As
        chronicled by the Supreme Court, history reveals that the Clause was not originally intended to protect atheists and members of minority faiths. It was written to protect Christians from other Christians.
        — Federal court decision at p. 43

      • Uncle Mark

        Granted that some of them will use their bible to argue against the bible. However, I’ve found that many don’t even know their own sacred tome well enough to formulate an effective argument. I found nothing enrages them more than a “godless liberal” telling them about their own religion. Often it provides an opportunity to show others the blatant hypocrisy of these Christers

    • (((GC)))

      A religion doesn’t have to make sense to be protected.

      There should be NO special rights because you and a few (dozen/​thousand/​million/​billion) others devoutly believe that GodSaidSo… but we’re not there yet.


      [p.s. – web savants: is there an easy way to get a zero-width space, or something else to allow line breaks after the slashes? I keep having to look up “zero-width space”, and always forget the incantation afterward.]

      • customartist

        In some other discussion forum a commenter stated that there are SCOTUS precedents which ruled that allowing for Equal Protection [like in the case of Transgender protective laws] DOES NOT abridge the religious rights of others [like cake shop owners]. However, I cannot cite a reference. I hope that that particular commenter was correct.

  • Fifth-and-a-Half Element
  • That_Looks_Delicious

    It might take Lambda Legal a while to get good plaintiffs for this. The reason is that, although right-wing politicians love passing laws like this supposedly in the name of the business community (but really to appease their base), the business community actually HATES these laws.

    I was living in Arizona when the Republicans in the state legislature unanimously passed SB 1062, which was the granddaddy of this type of “religious freedom” laws. It was all the business groups, the chambers if commerce,etc. that fought SB 1062 the hardest, and eventually convinced Jan Brewer to veto it. Businesses do not want these laws.

    • Blake J Butler

      Glendale was chosen for the supper bowl that was coming up, the Arizona raisin wasn’t about to sign a bill she knew would backfire, she wasn’t that stupid.

      • That_Looks_Delicious

        The NFL was one factor. Another was that Apple threatened to cancel the facility they were planning on building in AZ. The AZ tourism board, the Phoenix CoC, the Tucson CoC and many others lobbied hard against it.

  • Paula

    Well, color me unsurprised at that ruling.

  • gaycuckhubby

    So even the liberal justices didn’t bite on this case?

    • We don’t really know. The only thing for certain is that there weren’t the 4 votes needed to grant cert.

      • gaycuckhubby


    • Mike_Bernard

      I’m guessing that the liberal judges can’t act until someone is victimized by the law. Then they can consider granting relief from it.

  • Statistics Palin

    Here’s to the state of Mississippi! Find yourself another country to be part of.

  • David

    Of course they did.

  • Reasonoverhate

    It was a bad case with no harm shown. I’m not too worried about it. Now the CO baker case…..there’s one to be worried about!

  • Not that there’s a lot of vacationing to be done in Mississippi, but we should make sure their decision to allow discrimination coincides with a financial boycott of the redneck state. They made their bed, now let them wallow in it!

  • AdamTh

    “… the opponents hadn’t suffered any injury that would let them press their claims in court.”

    It’s all about standing; the right to be in court. So find someone that has suffered actual injury by the law. In MS, that shouldn’t take long.

    • jruffdc

      That’s what I was thinking.

  • mpatreyu

    The fact is, the case that LL was bringing was weak. I would much rather have SCOTUS turn down hearing a weak case where we would most likely lose. Then we would really be screwed. Much better to wait for a solid case and win.

  • Hank


    • customartist

      When Equal Protection is absent

  • Phillip in L.A.

    Note to Lambda Legal: Challenges to State laws do NOT need to be filed in Federal Court, and State-court standing doctrines are much less strict.(*) Many States even have “taxpayer” standing, so anyone who pays taxes can complain about an illegal or unconstitutional law–even if they were not directly damaged by it. (E.g., California.)

    If you had litigated this case in Mississippi State Court, you still probably would have lost, though, and perhaps on the merits, so good job! (???)

    (*) For all those complaining about this case, go read Article III (esp. § 2) of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that the federal courts have jurisdiction only to resolve, “cases . . and controversies.” The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the “cases and controversies” language is the well-spring of all “standing” jurisprudence.

    • customartist

      The Colorado case will resolve this case as well.

      • coram nobis

        Maybe not in a way we’d like.

        • customartist

          Educating the general public is a helpful factor

  • Phillip in L.A.

    O/T: Joe, did you post about Manson dying in November? I totally missed that. It appears there is now a probate proceeding brewing in LA Superior Court, regarding his “estate”

  • Hue-Man

    Does MS have neither B&Bs nor lesbians/gays?
    Gay couple wins B.C. human rights case after being barred by Christian B&B owners
    “The Molnars admitted to accepting the reservation in June 2009, but
    cancelled it minutes later, after confirming Thomas and Eadie are gay.”

    • Vista-Cruiser

      Canada and the US: same planet, different worlds.

  • david fairfield

    I suppose the same argument could have been used for “white only” establishments. Black people didn’t actually suffer any harm, they could just keep going until they found a place that would accommodate them. No harm, right? Humiliation isn’t harm, right? In fact let’s take a look at all laws regarding discrimination and reverse some of the decisions made to protect second class, second rate citizens based on not being a white straight christian fuckwad. This. Is. INFURIATING.

    • customartist

      Religious objections did factually exist during the original civil rights era.

      “God did not intend for the races to ‘intermix'” was an actual statement.

      It didn’t work then, and it cannot be allowed to work now.

      Equal Protection.

      • david fairfield

        Except that it did.

        • customartist

          *See: Woolworth’s Lunch Counter Case

      • david fairfield

        I would have expected Obergfell to set precedence for future discrimination against the lgbt community. By not hearing this case and letting this stand we are taking a CLEAR path in the opposite direction from where we were before this administration. They will not stop until they have dismantled our progress. Nobody is fucking doing anything about it, or if they are it’s not working…

        • (((GC)))

          A huge danger is that federal courts — including the Supreme Court — will be further stacked to the right wrong by then.

          • customartist

            Not if Democrats win the House in 2018.
            Then everything changes.
            A crucial race.
            Is everyone here doing all they can to win?
            Locate your local Democratic office and participate.
            Do not be intimidated.
            Just attend ONE meeting.

          • (((GC)))

            2018 too.

          • customartist

            I meant to say 2018. (corrected now)

      • (((GC)))

        And at least one judge said so, “God created the races separate” or some such, in his ruling!

  • Anti-choice, anti-choice, anti-choice. It all boils down to that.

  • Larry L

    Freedom of religion also includes freedom FROM religion. Discrimination is the problem but, republican based legal discrimination is the ultimate insult.

  • JWC

    the fight is never over

    • customartist

      Democracy requires perpetual diligence

      • JWC

        you know it Look how it been eroded in the past 12 months

        • customartist

          We have a prime opportunity in 2018.

          If we win the House then:

          A.) If Trump and Pence are removed then we will not automatically have Paul Ryan as President.

          B.) SCOTUS nominees will get fair opportunity.

          • JWC

            It would be interesting to see f the legality of any appointments made by a bogus administration could be revoked on that premise

  • Gigi

    We can’t refuse to serve Talibangelists but they can refuse to serve us. Why do they get special rights? Time to get rid of all anti-discrimination protections and let the free market level the playing field.

    • customartist

      Just CLAIM that you BELIEVE them to be gay, and that your religion allows you to refuse them service

      • coram nobis

        Which, the way this law is drawn, means that the paramedics can leave you bleeding by the side of the road. At least in Mississippi.

  • Ron Robertson

    They’re letting government workers refuse? Then no gay person should pay taxes since we are not getting equal representation. That’d sure change their tune fast enough.

  • JAKvirginia

    There’s really no compelling reason to visit Alabama anyway. Let them die in their own poison.

  • Mihangel apYrs

    Join the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
    Try to buy a suitable item
    Scream religious persecution

  • David Walker

    This is chillingly not off topic. Remember the stories last year about the brutal abduction and torture of gay men in Chechnya? The paper that broke the story and stayed with reports today in photo interviews what has happened to 12 of the 106 men who have found homes in new countries. It is probably in Russian; ask Google or some other service to translate. It kind of reminds me of what these fucking rednecks would like to do to us.

  • coram nobis

    These cases were part of a big wad of cert. denials today.

    It means 3 or fewer Justices wanted to hear it, so we’re left to guess if it’s a ripeness-mootness-standing procedural question — no one could claim actual injury — or if they wanted to settle the cakeshop case first.

    The District Court in Mississippi did address those questions (see link to decision below in Barber v. Bryant), but apparently not enough to satisfy the higher courts.

    There’s also the Establishment Clause question. The law was very precise on what particular religious belief it wanted to uphold. From the district court decision:

    HB 1523 enumerates three “sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions” entitled
    to special legal protection. They are,
    (a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;
    (b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and
    (c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological
    sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.

    • (((GC)))

      That ought to be an open-and-shut case that HB 1523 is unconstitutional on its face.

      Hopefully the Supreme Court will actually rule correctly before Rethuglicans further stack it to the right wrong.

      • coram nobis

        So far, it looks like they parried it on a procedural point: no actual harm means that the plaintiffs need to show an imminent harm of some kind. The district court:

        To receive a preliminary injunction, the movant must show “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any harm that the injunction might cause to the defendant; and (4) that the injunction will not disserve the public interest.”

        That can be difficult, while in a case like Loving v. Virginia, the couple had actually been arrested and tried.

        • Just for clarification, the part you’re quoting here is the standard for granting a preliminary injunction, which is not the same as for standing. Plaintiffs could have standing to bring the lawsuit without necessarily meeting the standard for a preliminary injunction.

          When I get done wrapping up some reporting on something else from SCOTUS, I’ll add a bit more here.

          • coram nobis

            The question would be the remedy, since the case should have some kind of result. Nothing to remedy might mean no case, even if the plaintiffs demonstrate, as a part of the initial complaint, a likelihood to prevail on the merits.

            Circuit court ruling wasn’t available on Findlaw, but the ADF website did have a copy.


            The appellate court decision was all about injury-in-fact and standing generally. Worth reading.

          • Standing is always a threshold question. And, as noted above, Judge Reeves addressed that in the district court (it just wasn’t the part you quoted).

            As an aside, and nothing to do with the legal arguments at all… 5th Circuit oral argument was held at a district court in Lubbock, Texas. Robbie Kaplan’s appearance in town was a BFD to the LGBT community there. 🙂

            I was also pleasantly surprised at the general reaction I heard from a number of people I encountered during my couple of days in town. Example: My Lyft driver, on learning he’s taking me to the courthouse and what case I’m going to hear, “Oh, I heard about that. I hope you win.” I note that I want the plaintiffs to win, not the state. His response, “Oh, yes, that’s what I mean. No state should get away with passing a law like that.”

          • coram nobis

            An interesting point. Sentiment in the country is generally, if mildly, on our side. The trouble with this kind of RFRA law means that any of us are at the mercy of anybody at a nurses’ station.

            I noticed that the Bryant courts raised several avenues on standing, and then turned them down. Flast,, Establishment Clause, “stigmatic injury”, Santa Fe v. Doe, Equal Protection Clause. Nonetheless they say:

            Future injuries can provide the basis for standing, but they “must be certainly impending to constitute injury in fact,” and ‘[a]llegations of possible future injury’ are not sufficient.”

            Apparently we’re going to need another Janice Langbehn as a plaintiff.

          • Yes, the problem is finding plaintiffs who have suffered actual harm, or meet the legal standard for imminent harm, for each of the aspects of the law.

            As I noted somewhere else here, the challenge to the magistrate recusal portion of the law is ongoing – not in the original case brought by CSE, but through a reopening of the Mississippi marriage case (which is confusingly also titled CSE v. Bryant).

        • I’m back. Judge Reeves addresses standing beginning on pg. 17 of the district court decision you linked above.

          This is actually two cases, Barber v. Bryant (Lambda Legal’s case) and CSE v. Bryant (CSE’s challenge, with plaintiffs rep’d by Roberta Kaplan). The cases were consolidated at the 5th Circuit. The 5th Circuit opinion is here:

          For all of the case filings, links to oral argument audio, etc., see here:

          • coram nobis

            Here, at ADF website, is the circuit court ruling (Findlaw hyperlink seems dead).

            (edited) “Equality Case Files” hyperlink above is probably better than linking to ADF.

          • if you don’t want to give hits to ADF site, we have the 5th Circuit opinion here:

      • customartist

        Winning the House in 2018 is imperative.

  • JAKvirginia

    Fine, SCOTUS. Um, listen, just what do you plan to do when someone out there ignores your decision(s) because of religion? You’ve just rendered yourself irrelevant under law. Asshats.

  • Lars Littlefield

    Welp, I guess I better git busy and cancel our dream-of-a-life-time vacation to Biloxi.

  • netxtown
    • (((GC)))

      Brava, Notorious R.B.G.!

  • GanymedeRenard

    Not a good thing. At all.

  • Chaz Antonelli

    We need to revisit the “Everyone is welcome here” door stickers for businesses.

  • Terry

    This seems very…counter to other legal precedents that said that a Plaintiff has to show that they would be concretely harmed by said law to pre empt it and enjoin its enforcement.

  • JCF
  • MassageBear
  • WTHella

    “Southern Miss Baseball Forced To Cancel Series Due To Anti-Gay Marriage Law”

    Southern Mississippi baseball is a frequent NCAA tournament team. Last year, the Golden Eagles went 50-16, and for the 2018 season, the team has a preseason All-American in sophomore outfielder Matt Wallner. But the upcoming season will be slightly shorter than usual: A planned February series against Stony Brook had to be canceled because of Mississippi’s “religious liberty” law.

    The Protecting Freedom of Conscience From Government Discrimination Act, HB 1523, says that marriage is defined to one man and one woman, that sex should only happen in marriage and that gender is biological and defined at birth. The law went into effect in October.

    In response to this law, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed an executive order prohibiting “non-essential” travel to Mississippi. That means Stony Brook, part of the SUNY system, had to cancel its road trip.”


  • Sporkfighter

    “A federal appeals court said the opponents hadn’t suffered any injury that would let them press their claims in court.”

    So we have to wait for an LGBTQ (or a black or hispanic) citizen to be denied medical treatment based on religious convictions and die before they can sue in federal court?

  • SDG

    Wow… this is REALLY REALLY bad.

  • Theo McKinney

    this is exactly right.

    It’s called “Article III” Standing. You must have a party that presents injury from the law once the law is enacted and then acted upon someone, injuring them in some civil way. The only parties with standing are the law-makers, with a right to make law, versus the party who can prove the enactment of the law has harmed them; harm of course being the legal definition, and this, under oath, and cross examination.

    Constitutional law is written to favor “the will of the people” precisely UNTIL the will of the people has DEFACTO overridden the plaintiffs’ civil rights.

    Marriage equality was the same way. The Flop 8 supporters were not permitted to defend CA’s failed Floposition 8 because they could not prove legal “harm” would come to them if the “law” was stricken.

    In that case too, the lower court took precedent, invalidating Proposition 8 on the terms it was first stricken by Judge Vaughn (A republican appointee BTW) in the 9th circuit. The CA Supreme court had to give NoM special rights to even defend it in CA’s Supreme court.

    You must have an injured party that can prove injury under oath to proceed. That is the Supreme Court.

    And again, for the reason you give actually, I believe this same court will find that LGBTQIs are deserving of “Suspect Class” status, which grants LGBQTs equal status as all other legally recognized minorities based on race, gender, religion, etc…

    That clear out come kills the MS “law” case that they just refused to hear; it will then be moot and illegal to do what MS wants to do to Gays and only gays anywhere in the country>

    Next Summer is coming sooner than any case to rise up out of the swamps of Mississippi. The SCOTUS is just being efficient and stealth for now.

    Suspect classification blows up the wingnuts for good, legally speaking.