When Liberals Lose…

The first course of action is to threaten those that oppose them, physically attack anyone identified specifically as supporting the opposing winning side. Simultaneously they head to the courts to declare that people, that is the voters, have no right to amend the constitution.
Well, hush ma mouf! All these years I labored under the misconception that was how constitutions were amended. Whadda know!

Here’s the definitive word from the California Supreme Court of Clowns:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - California’s highest court has agreed to hear legal challenges to a new ban on gay marriage, but is refusing to allow gay couples to resume marrying until it rules.

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted three lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8. The amendment passed this month with 52 percent of the vote. The court did not elaborate on its decision.

All three cases claim the ban abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change. (emphasis mine)

U.S. court says Web site can’t ask

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A roommate-finding site cannot require users to disclose their sexual orientation, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday, in the latest skirmish over whether anti-discrimination rules apply to the Web.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Roommates.com, which obliges users to list their sexual orientation, was different than Internet sites where people can volunteer or withhold personal information.

To inquire electronically about sexual orientation would not be different from asking people in person or by telephone if they were black or Jewish before conducting business, the panel said in an 8-3 ruling that partly overturns a lower federal court decision. [snip]

The court contrasted such requests for information with online search engines such as Google, which could allow people to search for terms such as “white roommate.” [snip]

Three judges dissented, saying the court was creating a dangerous precedent and future confusion for Internet firms.

“The majority’s unprecedented expansion of liability for Internet service providers threatens to chill the robust development of the Internet that Congress envisioned,” Judge Margaret McKeown wrote.

Roommates.com “should be afforded no less protection than Google, Yahoo, or other search engines.”

The Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley and the Fair Housing Council of San Diego filed suit against the Web site, claiming it violated the Fair Housing Act and various state laws.

 So, in CA, you have to room with anyone that answers the ad. No questions huh? Does this include gender questions, smoking preferences, personal cleanliness and all other profiling inquiries?

Well, one expects this from the 9^th Circuit Court, the most overturned in all Federal Courts.

Guarantee that I’ll discriminate vigorously. You won’t?