Search for: "People v. Gay"
Results 1921 - 1940
of 2,212
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jun 2007, 7:36 am
In Bowers v. [read post]
11 Jul 2018, 8:05 am
” Briefly: Following Lucia v. [read post]
23 Jul 2013, 10:24 am
It doesn’t work for straight people . . . . [read post]
3 Oct 2022, 4:45 am
Wade in Dobbs v. [read post]
18 Jul 2019, 9:00 pm
Supreme Court’s landmark case Price Waterhouse v. [read post]
17 Dec 2019, 12:15 pm
Bickel’s account – essentially, to emphasize the principles underlying the 14th Amendment and its capacity for growth, rather than how people at the time understood it – is of a piece with one of the ways originalists try to save their approach from generating unacceptable conclusions. [read post]
11 Jun 2022, 12:26 pm
EW v. [read post]
25 Nov 2012, 2:28 pm
In the courts Smith v Trafford Housing Trust [2012] EWHC 3221 (Ch) - Housing trust worker was wrongfully dismissed after he posted privately on Facebook that gay marriage would be an “equality too far” [case comments here and here]. [read post]
29 Jan 2023, 4:40 am
He quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church in saying that gay people must be welcomed and respected and should not be marginalized or discriminated against: “We are all children of God, and God loves us as we are and for the strength that each of us fights for our dignity”. [read post]
27 Jun 2009, 8:42 pm
Again, few people had heard of the gay newspaper or of James Kirkup before the Lemon case was brought to court. [read post]
25 Sep 2013, 8:00 am
Weisman and Santa Fe Independent School District v. [read post]
21 Aug 2012, 9:32 am
United States and NFIB v. [read post]
4 May 2013, 12:06 pm
Duty of candor: if people were afraid to search “am I gay? [read post]
2 Jan 2012, 12:39 am
Then along came Lawrence v. [read post]
18 Oct 2008, 7:30 pm
Unusually among influential ministers, he has been pro-diversity, pro-coalition building and healing among the races, pro-gay rights, pro-women's rights, a true believer in the equality of all people before the Creator. [read post]
21 Oct 2013, 5:30 am
Abigail Alliance v. [read post]
11 Jun 2011, 5:39 pm
The fact that tens of thousands of people have named the claimant on the internet confirms that the claimant and his family need protection from intrusion into their private and family life. [read post]
4 Feb 2017, 12:27 pm
It's also noteworthy that both parties' Supreme Court selections were (and are) very likely to support the Court's most recent holding, in Glossip v. [read post]
29 Sep 2022, 3:56 am
The 2020 Supreme Court case Bostock v. [read post]
2 May 2014, 12:24 pm
Yes, because anti-gay bigotry has no place in our society. [read post]
