Cuccinelli Dismisses SCOTUS Precedent, Says 14th Amendment Not Designed To Protect Gay People

There are 19 comments on the Jun 28, 2010, wonkroom.thinkprogress.org story titled Cuccinelli Dismisses SCOTUS Precedent, Says 14th Amendment Not Designed To Protect Gay People. In it, wonkroom.thinkprogress.org reports that:

In March, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli asked the state's colleges and universities to rescind policies that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, arguing that schools have no legal authority to adopt such statements.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at wonkroom.thinkprogress.org.

“Homosapien ”

Since: Jan 07

Minneapolis

#1 Jun 28, 2010
The Universities did not create a group to be protected they recognized that this group existed and deserved equal protection. I bet they find this guy in a gay bath house within five years.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#2 Jun 28, 2010
And here I was worried that I agreed with this jackass on the Phelps case, turns out he just got lucky on that one. I just knew that lightning could never strike twice in the same place and in his case, that same place would be sanity. Glad to hear he's drifted back off into the right wing Christofascist fantasyland that we all know and despise him for.

But to make such a pronouncement at Boy's State must have been pretty traumatizing. From my experience, that gathering was second only to the state theater festival in terms of the numbers of gay high school boys in attendance...

Since: May 09

United States

#3 Jun 28, 2010
Here is what the 14th amendment says: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I do believe most of us are Citizens of the united states.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#4 Jun 28, 2010
Court: Christian group can't bar gays, get funding
Share

WASHINGTON -- An ideologically split Supreme Court ruled Monday that a law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won't let gays join, with one justice saying that the First Amendment does not require a public university to validate or support the group's "discriminatory practices."
The court turned away an appeal from the Christian Legal Society, which sued to get funding and recognition from the University of California's Hastings College of the Law. The CLS requires that voting members sign a statement of faith and regards "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle" as being inconsistent with that faith.
But Hastings, which is in San Francisco, said no recognized campus groups may exclude people due to religious belief or sexual orientation.
The court on a 5-4 judgment upheld the lower court rulings saying the Christian group's First Amendment rights of association, free speech and free exercise were not violated by the college's nondiscrimination policy.
"In requiring CLS - in common with all other student organizations - to choose between welcoming all students and forgoing the benefits of official recognition, we hold, Hastings did not transgress constitutional limitations," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote the 5-4 majority opinion for the court's liberals and moderate Anthony Kennedy. "CLS, it bears emphasis, seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings' policy."
Justice Samuel Alito wrote a strong dissent for the court's conservatives, saying the opinion was "a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country."
"Our proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express 'the thought that we hate,'" Alito said, quoting a previous court decision. "Today's decision rests on a very different principle: no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country's institutions of higher learning."
Leo Martinez, Hastings College of the Law's acting chancellor and dean, said the ruling "validates our policy, which is rooted in equity and fairness."
But the decision is a large setback for the Christian Legal Society, which has chapters at universities nationwide and has won similar lawsuits in other courts....
"A school quite properly may conclude that allowing an oath or belief-affirming requirement, or an outside conduct requirement, could be divisive for student relations and inconsistent with the basic concept that a view's validity should be tested through free and open discussion," Kennedy said.
Justice John Paul Stevens was even harsher, saying while the Constitution "may protect CLS's discriminatory practices off campus, it does not require a public university to validate or support them."
Stevens, who plans to retire this summer, added that "other groups may exclude or mistreat Jews, blacks and women - or those who do not share their contempt for Jews, blacks and women. A free society must tolerate such groups. It need not subsidize them, give them its official imprimatur, or grant them equal access to law school facilities."
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the decision a "huge step forward for fundamental fairness and equal treatment."
"Religious discrimination is wrong, and a public school should be able to take steps to eradicate it," Lynn said. "Today's court ruling makes it easier for colleges and universities to do that."

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/06/28/2854692/cour...
true

United States

#5 Jun 29, 2010
mixed wrote:
The Universities did not create a group to be protected they recognized that this group existed and deserved equal protection. I bet they find this guy in a gay bath house within five years.
if they do i bet you find obaaama there too, but him and bathhouses is already known

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6 Jun 29, 2010
What a moron. Typical southern bigot. I'm sure he would love to bring back slavery as well......

Since: Jun 09

United States

#7 Jun 29, 2010
Rev Ray wrote:
Here is what the 14th amendment says: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of heterosexual citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any heterosexual person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any heterosexual person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I do believe most of us are Citizens of the united states.
fixed your mistake there, you left a few words out of the amendment!

Since: Mar 07

Washington DC

#8 Jun 29, 2010
Using his flimsy legaleze and the date of the amendment, it shouldn't apply to women either. The 14th was put into place in 1868. Women didn't get the vote until 1920...

Wonder who else this jack@ss would exclude.
Spider

Alpharetta, GA

#9 Jun 29, 2010
Barney Stinson wrote:
<quoted text>
fixed your mistake there, you left a few words out of the amendment!
LOL2tears! Coffee is everywhere

Since: Jan 07

Ann Arbor, MI

#10 Jun 29, 2010
Rev Ray wrote:
Here is what the 14th amendment says: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I do believe most of us are Citizens of the united states.
Precisely. It doesn't say non-gay citizens of the United States. To give it that effect would require a Constitutional amendment.

Unless there's some law in Virginia that bars Universities from exercising any autonomy in creating their policies, this has to be a gross overreach by the state's Attorney General.

Since: Jan 07

Ann Arbor, MI

#11 Jun 29, 2010
Watch for Michigan and like states to jump on this bandwagon.

“Choose wisely!”

Since: Jul 07

Los Angeles

#12 Jun 29, 2010
Rev Ray wrote:
Here is what the 14th amendment says: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I do believe most of us are Citizens of the united states.
I second this view.

Cuccinelli is wrong. This is of course the same guy who took the Federal Government to Court over the National Healthcare bill and promised his taxpayers that it would not cost the State of Virginia even a penny (did he forget how much it costs to FILE the case in Federal Court? What about State attorney pay, materials, etc.?)

The State of Virginia's Governor and Attorney General get the legality of these issues WRONG more often than not.

Eric

Since: May 10

beverly hills

#13 Jun 29, 2010
this guy is an idiot. why purposely go out of your way to not protect our fellow american citizens from discrimination? I cannot conceive why any reasonable person would do this. It's a horrible leap backwards.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#14 Jun 29, 2010
I suppose he would support the university being forced to recognize and fund a KKK chapter as well. There is no difference--both are christian groups that require a certain code of conduct and expressly denigrate other sectors of the american populace.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#15 Jan 12, 2014
Terry McCaulife-the Governor of the State the GOP cant afford to loose again

Progressives going into North Carolina next-winning is everything!

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#16 Jan 12, 2014
CPeter1313 has great posts

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#17 Jan 12, 2014
What is happening in Utah now is the beginning of the end for the anti-gays and their cause. The Windsor decision will eventually be applied to all other State bans against SSM.

Under Windsor SCOTUS made it clear that gays and lesbians have a right to equal protection under marriage laws.

Ask the NRA what happens when a State tries to deny a citizen a Federal Right.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#18 Jan 12, 2014
McCaulife is the 72nd Governor of Va.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#19 Jan 16, 2014
Wrong move Cuccinelli, youve lost Va. and the Democrats are guaranteed 250 votes

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Virginia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Anti-LGBT Groups Hope To Make Virginia 'Ground ... 4 hr Cordwainer Trout 2
News DEA's Leonhart Doomed? Committee Declares 'No C... Apr 21 Mark Winshel 1
mitochondria dna and shield go to king richard,... Apr 20 KIND ANNETTE SPECIES 1
I hate all teenagers (Dec '08) Apr 17 CynicalKitten 821
News Civil War Figures: Ulysses S. Grant Apr 16 ellie 1
peanut and bambi Apr 15 lookingtofindher 1
ellen degeneres deal with the lesbian annette m... Apr 13 ANNETTE STALKER 1
More from around the web