U.S. Supreme Court: Celebs Rumors

+3

Massachusetts Senate Passes Bill for Anti-Sodomy Law Repeal

Lawrence v. Texas invalidated state-level sodomy laws as unconstitutional.However, unless a state proactively removes prohibitions on same-sex intimacy, local law enforcement authorities could choose to selectively enforce the law with the intent of targeting LGBTQ people — forcing them to expend money and energy defending themselves in court, even if the charges would ultimately be dismissed.Additionally, if the Supreme Court were to reverse its finding in the Lawrence case, those 12 states where anti-sodomy statutes have not been repealed would immediately be revived and could be used to prosecute LGBTQ people.Under Massachusetts’ anti-sodomy statute, which equates same-sex activity with bestiality, a person could be imprisoned for 20 years in prison for violating the law.A similar law punishes those convicted of an “unnatural and lascivious act” with a five-year prison sentence and a fine of up to $1,000.The anti-sodomy and “unnatural acts” laws are being targeted for repeal by some more liberal members of the state legislature, who are seeking to repeal or erase other outdated laws governing personal conduct, typically known as “morality” laws.One such law is a prohibition on “night walking,” which critics say can be used to harass individuals, especially transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals, for simply being out in public, allowing law enforcement to claim that such people intend to engage in prostitution.However, despite arguments from opponents, repealing the “night walking” law would not change other commonwealth laws declaring prostitution illegal.The Senate also added an amendment repealing a ban on “blasphemy,” a rarely-enforced statute in which Massachusetts residents are supposed to be punished
metroweekly.com

All news where U.S. Supreme Court is mentioned

metroweekly.com
Massachusetts Senate Passes Bill for Anti-Sodomy Law Repeal
Lawrence v. Texas invalidated state-level sodomy laws as unconstitutional.However, unless a state proactively removes prohibitions on same-sex intimacy, local law enforcement authorities could choose to selectively enforce the law with the intent of targeting LGBTQ people — forcing them to expend money and energy defending themselves in court, even if the charges would ultimately be dismissed.Additionally, if the Supreme Court were to reverse its finding in the Lawrence case, those 12 states where anti-sodomy statutes have not been repealed would immediately be revived and could be used to prosecute LGBTQ people.Under Massachusetts’ anti-sodomy statute, which equates same-sex activity with bestiality, a person could be imprisoned for 20 years in prison for violating the law.A similar law punishes those convicted of an “unnatural and lascivious act” with a five-year prison sentence and a fine of up to $1,000.The anti-sodomy and “unnatural acts” laws are being targeted for repeal by some more liberal members of the state legislature, who are seeking to repeal or erase other outdated laws governing personal conduct, typically known as “morality” laws.One such law is a prohibition on “night walking,” which critics say can be used to harass individuals, especially transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals, for simply being out in public, allowing law enforcement to claim that such people intend to engage in prostitution.However, despite arguments from opponents, repealing the “night walking” law would not change other commonwealth laws declaring prostitution illegal.The Senate also added an amendment repealing a ban on “blasphemy,” a rarely-enforced statute in which Massachusetts residents are supposed to be punished
metroweekly.com
Supreme Court Blocks West Virginia from Enforcing Trans Sports Ban
signed into law in 2021.However, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, saying they would have granted Morrisey’s request.A federal judge previously blocked the law from taking effect while a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ban proceeds.The plaintiff in the case, 12-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson, is a transgender girl who tried to join her middle school girls’ cross-country team, but was informed that she would be barred from the team due to the law prohibiting transgender athletes from competing in female-designated sports.Pepper-Jackson sued state officials, her local school board, the West Virginia Board of Education, and the West Virginia Secondary School Activities Commission, arguing that the law is unconstitutional and discriminatory.In July 2021, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Goodwin, of the Southern District of West Virginia, issued an injunction blocking the law from taking effect on the grounds that Pepper-Jackson was likely to prevail in her claim that the law is discriminatory.Six months later, Goodwin rejected Pepper-Jackson’s claim that the law violates Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination, finding the ban constitutional and asserting that the state had a legitimate interest in ensuring cisgender female athletes are not disadvantaged by having to compete against athletes assigned male at birth.
metroweekly.com
Bakery Owners Ask Supreme Court to Hear Religious Refusal Case
fined $135,000 by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries following a 2013 incident in which the Kleins refused to bake a wedding cake for Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer, a lesbian couple of 10 years.When Aaron Klein found out that the custom-made cake was intended for a lesbian wedding, he allegedly said, “We don’t do same-sex weddings” and called the couple an “abomination,” citing the Bible as justification.The Kleins have repeatedly claimed their religious beliefs opposing homosexuality prevent them from providing goods or services for a same-sex wedding.The Bowman-Cryers filed discrimination complaints with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and the Department of Justice.In response, the Kleins attempted to defend their refusal to bake the cake, “doxxing” the Bowman-Cryers in the process by sharing private information about them, including their address.The Bowman-Cryers were inundated with so many hateful messages and death threats that their two foster children had to be removed from the home for their own protection.The Bureau of Labor and Industries found that the Kleins had violated the Oregon Public Accommodations Law and ordered them to pay financial restitution to the Bowman-Cryers.The Kleins appealed the decision, which the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld. The Kleins then appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case, before appealing to the U.S.
metroweekly.com
Republicans in Congress Urge Supreme Court to Allow Website Designer to Refuse Same-Sex Wedding Clients
brief, which casts Smith’s refusal to serve same-sex couples as a matter of religious freedom and artistic expression protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Smith, the owner of the firm 303 Creative LLC, claims that she should be allowed to refuse to create websites for same-sex couples on the basis of her personal religious beliefs opposing homosexuality, and her refusal to communicate a message that implicitly supports same-sex marriage.Enlisting the help of the anti-LGBTQ legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, Smith sued the state of Colorado in 2016, demanding an exemption from the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses that open themselves up as places of public accommodation from discriminating against people based on sexual orientation.Smith claims she will do some work for LGBTQ clients, but creating wedding websites for those individuals would not only violate her religious beliefs but would violate her freedom of artistic expression, as each website she creates is a specially-tailored, one-of-a-kind product reflecting her own creativity.A federal district judge ruled against Smith in September 2019, finding that her proposal to post a statement outlining her objection to promoting same-sex weddings “proposes an unlawful act” because it would deny services to same-sex couples on the basis of their sexual orientation.
DMCA