Score one for Equality. What area of discrimination should fall next?

Auggie beat ya

I am very happy. I wish they would not have struck down the Voting Rights Act.

People’s right to marry whomever they wish is upheld!

I think we need to keep in mind that today’s decisions were quite narrow. DOMA was overturned, but that only means that same-sex couples can received benefits in places where they are already recognized. The Proposition 8 case was dismissed, but that only means that California can continue marrying same-sex couples. Neither case brought about marriage equality, so we shouldn’t be talking about moving on quite yet. The next battleground is marriage equality in all 50 states.

This doesn’t mean that we cannot fight on other fronts at the same time, though. There are plenty of other issues to be worried about.

What @SavoirFaire said. What happened today was certainly a victory worth celebrating, but the fight is far from over.

Ugly baldheaded old white guys like me must unite and fight against the discrimination against us! HA!

Republicans and religious folks will never stop fighting to keep the traditional definition of marriage from being changed.

Polygamy. Combined with an air-tight prenup, it seems like an entertaining notion.

I’m pretty fucking sick and tired of everybody trying to keep a bald man down.

Polygamy should be allowed as long as they don’t turn into money pits for the state govt to fill. It could work. Everyone should be subject to nasty divorces, alimony, and child support. Makes it more fair.

The next minority in desperate need of equality is the disabled.

I agree with @downtide that people with disabilities are right up there on the list. Thankfully here our government has introduced disability insurance that will mean there will be funding for those who suffer from some sort of disability.

I would also add refugees to the ‘must act’ list. Increasingly, people will seek asylum and the more affluent countries most of us live in will be at the frontier of finding solutions. Not only because of various conflicts around the world but also because of the impact of climate change. I hope we can find more humane ways to manage the asylum seeker crisis. My country is doing a very poor job at this time.

The Catholic Church is one of the world’s largest organization where discrimination is part of the official program. I’m actually in favor of making it illegal for the Catholic Church in our countries to dismiss an application for the job as priest simply because the applicant is a woman. I would encourage all Catholic women to study theology and then apply like crazy. When such refusals happen the women can sue the Catholic Church for discrimination. The courts have to follow the laws of their country. They would be forced to rule in favor of the women.

@mattbrowne I do not disagree with you on the issue of women priests, but I do disagree with your interpretation of how US law is enforced by the courts. Clergy are not employees, but are a special circumstance under the religious tenets of a faith, and as such any church has rights under the First Amendment to not have employment laws imposed on them.

A court’s ruling on such a lawsuit very well would be “go start your own church”.

@uberbatman So I learned. I searched before writing my original version of this, and there was nothing there. So I commenced to writing, but Augie beat me to it. So I edited it to this.

@marinelife I’m very much with you there. It probably is time for Congress to revisit the section struck down, but with the current partisan gridlock, that cannot possibly happen. And Republican strategy is clearly to ignore changing demographics when it comes to policy and instead concentrate on state laws that make it ever more difficult for anyone but right-wing whites to vote. Pretty funny stuff coming from a Party that claims that voter fraud cost them the last two elections.

@zenvelo That’s got to be a good thing.

@SavoirFaire While you are quite right about the scope of the decision on DOMA, Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion refers over and over to the fact that denying the legal benefits of marriage based purely on gender preference is a violation of the 14th Amendment’s requirement that no state can draft legislation denying equal protection under the law. He also wrote that the law appeared capricious and that its defenders had failed to show any compelling social interest served by it. That’s going to make it VERY easy, in fact almost mandatory, for Federal Circuit courts to strike down discriminatory state laws.

@livelaughlove21 I’m certainly not suggesting by the above that the fight is over. There are still 37 states that have their own versions of DOMA discrimination in place.

@gondwanalon & @Blondesjon Time to draft a “Let bald men be balled!” petition on Whitehouse.gov.

@josie Divorce lawyers would form a HUGE support block for that. :-)

@woodcutter Just needs to be OK for rich cougars to collect a stable of hunks like rich roué collected their stable of vixens. As to the financial impact, see above comment to @josie.

@downtide Indeed. In the name of wrong-headed austerity, we’ve been slashing programs to care for our disabled in order to provide more help to our most needy, the billionaires.

@Bellatrix Duly included. Thanks.

@mattbrowne Under German law, that can work. As @zenvelo notes, it would not stand a chance in the US. But if it works in enough countries, it will change the church. The infallible popes have been forced to admit they were wrong on so many occasions now.

There are no limits how far religious tenets can go? What if someone founded a new religion with highly unethical rules?

@ETpro I agree that this decision makes the result we want almost inevitable. Even Scalia noted that in his dissent, albeit mournfully. But one of the best ways to undermine the putatively inevitable is to move on to something else before the job is finished. Thus my reminder that we can’t let this go quite yet.

I would like to see the way that single people are discriminated against come to an end. I also wish that alcohol abusers users would stop supporting laws that discriminate against pot users abusers.

@mattbrowne Seems to me there have been a number of people over here, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite… who have done just that.

@SavoirFaire How right you are. In 37 of our 50 states, marriage equality is only a pipe dream at present.

@Paradox25 Me too two. Agreed on both points. I’m just not a big fan of discrimination of any kind.

Discrimination biased on height and weight.

@talljasperman Certain jobs have height and weight requirements for very good reasons, namely for safety reasons.

@talljasperman I agree that needless discrimination based on height and weight is bad, but @Paradox25 is right that some such requirements are justified by the job in question. A 3-foot tall midget isn’t going to be able to hold his own as a center in the NBA. He might not even survive the collisions in the paint with guys 6’ 10” or better and weighing 280 pounds or more. And even a skyscraper isn’t going to last through a single NFL playing center if he is rail thin and weighs in at 125 lbs. He’s going to be smashing into guys who tip the scales at 300 pounds or more and spend so much time working out they could pick up Ford pickup.

And a woman with a face like a horse isn’t going to workout in an ad for CoverGirl. Was that politically correct to point out? No, and it wasn’t meant to be. It was meant to be more like the truth.