Money might not buy happiness, but it sure as hell solves a lot of problems that make people unhappy.
It's not a step, they literally are allowed to discriminate, under US law.
First off, the only protection US law gives is towards "sex", not "sexual orientation". The right to gay marriage isn't about sexual orientation, rather the 14th amendment merely states that the law must treat all citizens equally. The state cannot refuse to hear a civil suit filed by a black man, and the state cannot refuse the marriage of gay people. It only applies to the government (as well as those contracted by the government per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act).
Second, US law only considers sex a protected class in matters of employment. Title II of the Civil Rights Act governs inter-state commerce only, and only grants protections against discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin. It does not cover sex/gender, and does not cover sexual orientation, and only applies when the business involves a significant number of customers from out of state or products whose supply chains involve other states.
The way it's supposed to work is that states can set their own laws on the matter. However, states must set their laws within the bounds of the Constitution. What happened with 303 Creative v. Elenis is that the Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment right to free speech supercedes any law the state makes, thus, unless Federal law says discrimination is illegal then it is a-ok in law.
As it is, there is no federal law protecting against discrimination for sexual orientation specifically, and discrimination based on sex is only protected in matters involving employment.
US law is shiiiiiiiite. I wouldn't hold my breath for a Republican Congress, too busy fingering their own assholes, to actually make some proper legislation.
No one actually wanted to do business with the photographer here, he sued the state so that he wouldn't be subject to the law. Now, he can post that he doesn't do business with gay people on his website. However because it was settled out of court it only applies to him and him alone.
That's true, but getting a critical mass to do that with industrial software is like pulling teeth out your toenails. Most of the people writing it only know Windows.
Until Windows updates and overwrites the boot manager.
Lol you're assuming that everyone had the internet in 1990? Most households didn't get it until the 00's. I was in the early group, and I didn't get it until around '95 (I still have dodgeball.exe downloaded from the Cartoon Network website in 1996). Most people I went to school with didn't have internet at all, many didn't even have a computer.
Even if you were clued up, is it really appropriate for parents to snoop on everything their child does? As they get older, it's expected that they have a little privacy to themselves, and arguably not giving them some privacy could be considered abuse.
Back in the dial up days, my dad installed a switch in the phone socket in his room (which was wired before the phone socket in the computer room) so he could disable the internet at night. I used to sneak in while he was snoring and crawl around the bed to switch it back on.
Point being, there's only so much you can do to prevent kids from accessing things they shouldn't. The right way to parent is to try and direct your kids towards the right things, but also offer age-appropriate yet honest explanations for the things they do find. But it's a difficult balance, as kids get older they deserve more privacy, and it's difficult enough for an individual to stay ahead of the tech curve than to keep your whole family on top of it.
That didn't matter in the death sentence appeal where the court ruled the testimony as unreliable: https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/2010/20229.html
They ruled that the testimony was unreliable, but still let the sentence stand. If all Brewer was arguing was the testimony, then the court would have reached the same conclusion.
This is the 2010 trial in which Coons was declared unreliable: https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/2010/20229.html
In that appeal, they considered 25 points. While they agreed with points 3 and 4 regarding Coons' testimony, they still upheld the conviction and death sentence. It was the same Texas Court of Appeals that considered that hearing as well as Brewer's request for appeal.
Brewer and his lawyer were trying to get an appeal based on Coons' statement, but this almost certainly wouldn't be enough to change the sentencing, based on their 2010 ruling. I haven't dug up Brewer's appeal to see if there were any other reasons, but the fact that they were focusing on this one suggests that there wasn't much else they could have argued.
Absolutely, I can understand why he would say he felt sorry for the family. But saying sorry for the pain he caused is an admission of guilt.
I think the timeline went like this:
- 1990 Brewer (then 19) and his girlfriend attack Laminack, killing him.
- 1991 Brewer is convicted and sentenced to death.
- 2007 Supreme Court overturns the decision because of a technicality on the jurors' instructions.
- 2009 Brewer is re-tried, and again convicted, in part due to expert testimony from Coons.
- 2010 In another trial, Coons' testimony was ruled as "insufficiently reliable".
- Brewer's lawyer then raises an appeal in Texas over Coons' testimony in 2009. Appeals court says "you should've said that in 2009".
- Brewer's lawyers escalate to the Supreme Court, however they decline to hear the case, deferring to the Texas Appeals Court's judgement.
Presumably, Coons' testimony could have been challenged in 2009 in exactly the same way as it was in 2010, but they didn't do this. I'm sure Coons is now seen as an unreliable witness, but he was considered reliable up until 2010.
It was actually the Texas Appeals Court that ruled that Coons was unreliable, however presumably the appeal in which they established that was granted for other reasons than his statement alone. Indeed, this is the 2010 case, there were 25 points in question. While the court ruled that Coons' testimony was unreliable, they still reaffirmed the conviction.
Brewer has long expressed remorse for the killing and a desire to apologize to Laminack’s family.
“I will never be able to repay or replace the hurt (and) worry (and) pain I caused you. I come to you in true humility and honest heart and ask for your forgiveness,” Brewer wrote in a letter to Laminack’s family that was included in his clemency application to the parole board.
So did he do it then? Because it sounds like they were trying to get him off on a technicality, rather than because he didn't do it and was falsely accused.
Is that the Terry Pratchett boot thing? I'll be disappointed if that isn't mentioned.
Edit: There we go: