06-05-2018, 10:45 AM
(06-04-2018, 11:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have to agree with those who stated it was a good thing they did. Basing such an important ruling on a flawed case opens up the ruling for immense criticism and dispute. Better to let a properly handled case of this nature reach them so they can make a clean, "from now on", ruling.
I agree. Making this such a narrow ruling was important. I also agree with the ruling. I think laws/policies regarding LGBTQ discrimination are legal (and necessary), but we must apply these policies in an equitable manner. If there is hostility or bias in the application of the policy, then the initial determination should be reversed. If the biased application of the policy was a result of the fallibility of the policy itself, then the policy needs to be evaluated.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
