Gay couple sue Hawaii B&B, claim discrimination

[Danno 1,228]

http://blogs.findlaw...o-lesbians.html

Looks like the law has been in force since 1986, though the law has been amended several times since then (most recently in 2006). I can't tell from looking at the bare legislation whether or not the inclusion of sexual orientation has been in effect since 1986 or whether it was added during one of the several, later amendments. Nevertheless, this is the law. You don't like it? Sorry. We can't pick and choose which laws to follow. If you don't want to welcome everyone that the law requires you to welcome, don't operate a B&B.

Why should they sue? Personally, if it were me, I wouldn't. But this is not necessarily about money here -- this is about the importance of upholding the law as it stands. It's about enforcing the law. A remedy is available and these women are availing themselves of it.

What if she decided she didn't want to have any Indonesian guests? The same law prevents her from discriminating on that basis. We are a nation of laws, and proudly so. If you're not happy with how the country makes and enforces its laws, do what you can to change things. Don't just whinge about how unfair it is, and how people should just be able to do what they want. Tough titties.

Edit to add: link to the legislation -- http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol11_Ch0476-0490/HRS0489/HRS_0489-.htm

If LAW and the Upholding the law is such a high minded principle.... why did Obama abandon the Law by abandoning -THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT?

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

If LAW and the Upholding the law is such a high minded principle.... why did Obama abandon the Law by abandoning -THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT?

He hasn't abandoned it. See Eric Holder's letter to John Boehner:

Notwithstanding this determination [that DOMA is unconstitutional], the President has informed me that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch. To that end, the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality. This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.

Full text here:

http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/23/attorney-general-declares-doma-unconstitutional/

[Danno 1,228]

He hasn't abandoned it. See Eric Holder's letter to John Boehner:

Full text here:

http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/23/attorney-general-declares-doma-unconstitutional/

Theyhave no choice but to uphold it, they have decided not to defend it in court because "They" decided it is not constitutional..... I guess we pick and choose.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Danno

[The_Dude 1,142]

Theyhave no choice but to uphold it, they have decided not to defend it in court because "They" decided it is not constitutional..... I guess we pick and choose.

That is quite an inconversant interpretation Danno. Do you realize the massive implications of overturning DOMA? It goes beyond allowing gay couples to marry. It would involve altering laws that concern custody, family benefits etc.