I have a really hard time believing that the ruling would completely overturn Colorado's (and any other states/municipalities) anti-discrimination law. It was in Colorado that they passed Amendment 2 and subsequently Kennedy authored Romer vs. Evans to overturn that. While Kennedy might be upset at the tone of the Colorado commission, I can't see him doing more than carving out some sort of exception for certain types of public accommodations. And if he attempts that, it'll have to be worded in some very specific way so as to not endanger these laws nationwide.
I'm not sure either, but I would guess a city wouldn't qualify if the non-discrimination law weren't enforceable. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Charlotte only passed the law regarding public accommodations, they still didn't have an ordinance that covered employment and housing.
It's good there's one sane justice on that court. Moore and Parker are what happens when an extremely bigoted and uneducated electorate is allowed to elect the personnel to their high court.
I can understand somewhat why the pan-European courts are hesitant to act. As much as I hate to admit it, California has more in common with Alabama than the UK does with Armenia. What surprises me more is the lack of action by the courts in supposedly liberal countries who have majorities in favor of marriage and adoption equality. There is definitely a more trepidatious environment at those courts.
None of those you mentioned have reversed discriminatory laws against same-sex marriage (the Portuguese ruling, I assume, followed a review of the vote to enact marriage equality in Parliament). Others have touched on civil unions but that is still discriminatory. The only one that seemed to change anything was Austria's court rejecting the adoption ban. It's VERY unimpressive compared to the Americas. The courts in Europe have been unwilling to get ahead of the legislatures in Europe, for the most part.
Has there been any court in Europe that has reviewed anti-gay marriage and adoption laws and reversed them, to date? That's so far been reserved for courts in the Americas.
I find this one very curious since, as we all recall, Arkansas passed a law that said that local municipalities could not pass non-discrimination ordinances that include groups that aren't covered by the state-wide ordinances. Will it and the similar law in Eureka Springs ultimately stand up in court?
Sure. The problem is, Gov. Beshear seemed to think that this was out of his purview and that only the legislature could act on it. Perhaps he was just grandstanding, or perhaps Bevin is just grandstanding. Should be interesting.
I never realized the Chattanooga non-discrimination measure was so limited in scope and still failed. Tennessee must be a hard place to live for LGBT folks.
It's hard to say. There have been a few losses now where the other side has focused on this issue successfully (Houston, Anchorage, AK, El Paso, TX, Chattanooga, TN, Springfield, MO). But we've also won a few referenda in Gainesville, FL and recently a notable re-do in Fayetteville, AR. We'll have to see if this Houston vote galvanizes their side nationally and they start to successfully chip away at existing rights in places which offer them already.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Production