Gay court case
Lawrence v. Texas
Overview
Lawrence v. Texas () is a landmark case, in which the Supreme Court of the United States, in conclusion, invalidated sodomy law across the United States, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every State and United States territory. The majority opinion in this case, written by justice Kennedy, overturned the previous ruling of the Supreme Court on the identical issue in Bowers v. Hardwick (), where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute and did not find a constitutional protection of sexual privacy. The court in Lawrence v. Texas explicitly held that intimate consensual sexual deeds was part of the liberty protected by the substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The conclusion in this case was a breakthrough for the gay rights movement and helped to set the stage for Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized the same-sex marriage as a fundamental right under the United States Constitution.
Background
Before Lawrence v. Texas, legal punishments for sodomy included fines, life prison sentences or both. In the adv 19th and early
US Supreme Court says queer , transgender workers protected by law
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court dictated Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and gender non-conforming people from discrimination in employment, a resounding victory for LGBT rights from a conservative court.
The court decided by a vote that a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of known as Title VII that bars job discrimination because of sex, among other reasons, encompasses bias against people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
"An employer who fires an individual for being queer or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court. "Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids."
The decision was a defeat not just for the employers, but also the Trump administration, which argued that the law's plain wording compelled a decree for the employers. Gorsuch, a conservative appointee of President Donald Trum
Once opponents in the Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex attracted marriage, now they're friends
COLUMBUS, Ohio — The case behind the U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide a decade ago is known as Obergefell v. Hodges, but the two Ohio men whose names became that title weren't so at odds as it would sound , and are now friends.
One year after the Supreme Court's June 26, , decision, lead plaintiff Jim Obergefell was at an event for an LGBTQ advocacy organization when its former director asked if he wanted to convene Rick Hodges, who'd been the title defendant in his capacity as mention health director in Ohio, one of the states challenged for not allowing same-sex couples to marry.
"I don't recognize, you tell me. Do I yearn to meet Rick Hodges?" Obergefell recalls responding.
The two met for coffee in a hotel and hit it off.
Hodges said he wanted to meet Obergefell because he's an "icon." He said he remembers telling Obergefell something along the lines of: "I don't understand if congratulations are in order because this began with you losing your husband, but I'm gla
Gay couple wins case against florist after Supreme Court rejects appeal
Over the objections of three conservative justices, the US Supreme Court has turned away an appeal from a Washington Declare flower shop that violated mention anti-discrimination law by refusing to serve a same-sex couple on religious grounds.
The decision means a California Supreme Court judgment against Arlene's Flowers and owner Barronelle Stutzman will stand. In , Stutzman refused to arrange wedding flowers for a pair of long-time customers -- Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed -- saying that doing so would violate her religious beliefs.
"After Curt and I were turned away from our local flower shop, we cancelled the plans for our dream wedding because we were afraid it would happen again. We had a small ceremony at home instead," said Robert Ingersoll in a statement. "We hope this decision sends a message to other LGBTQ people that no one should hold to experience the hurt that we did."
With help from the ACLU, the couple sued the shop under Washington's anti-discrimina