Realizing that she was being treated with anything but equality and knowing that if she or her spouse had of been a man there would have been no taxes, and that this was clear discrimination. Edie found a lawyer willing to challenge the Defense Of Marriage Act and the battle began!
In a 5–4 decision issued on Wednesday, June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court struck down section 3 of DOMA (codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7) "as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment."[1]
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the majority opinion, joined by Associate Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
EQUAL = EQUAL
Hmm. I wonder how they would do with age discrimination. I feel discriminated against every time I see I sign advertising seniors discounts...
ReplyDeleteSeriously??! Using that logic my health insurance premiums should be the same as a 20-year-old.
DeleteNope, not the same thing at all Bill.
DeleteThat's the point! A senior discount being offered by a business is not the same thing at all as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution granting ALL citizens equal protection of the laws and my comparison was just as disconnected as yours.
DeleteBill: I was surprised they cited the 5th rather than the 14th in their decision. We have always had restrictions on the ability to make a contract based on age or competency but gender, only regarding the marriage contract. Too close to that separation between church and state for my comfort.
DeleteKevin just doesn't understand that DOMA was a Federal Law that discriminated against people based on their sexual orientation thus it was ruled unconstitutional in the US. There is no Federal Law governing seniors discounts so his argument is moot.
DeleteGood point Norm. RE: 5th due process clause.
DeleteKevin definitely understands Rick the situation regarding DOMA.
DeleteAnd not surprisingly, it is YOU who does not understand Rick. There IS a Canadian Federal Law governing age discrimination (although it is interpreted differently at the Provincial level) and seniors discounts, however they have chose to justify Seniors Discounts to prove that equal is in fact not equal. The same way they have done with the Indians in Canada. Croft puts in bold letters the fact that equal is equal...my point is that in many facets of the discrimination laws the system has chosen to make exceptions that apparently prove that we are not all equal.
You still don't get it Kevin. You may think senior discounts are illegal because they discriminate on the basis of age. After all, customers 55 and older get a cut-rate on goods and services that younger customers don't get. However, federal age discrimination laws apply only to employment. Employers can't fire or refuse to hire someone based on his age.
DeleteSeniors discounts are perfectly legal so long as some general rules are followed. The discounts have to be given equally. Companies and businesses offering services and goods to the public - such as food, lodging, gasoline and entertainment - can't discriminate against customers based upon their race, color, religion, or national origin.
So, senior discounts have to be given to all senior customers or patrons. A restaurant can't refuse to give discount to white or Catholic seniors while giving them to African-American or Jewish senior citizens.
What you have offered is your opinion. An opinion is not a fact. Facts require proof. DOMA was a fact and it has been overturned. You seem to have some kind of federal law in mind regarding "senior citizen discounts". Perhaps you'd like to share it so we can all see what it says.
I would have thought that you would have known how to google something to find it for yourself. But since this is easier for you, I'll provide it here. The discrimination laws in Canada are broad based and do NOT only apply to employment:
Deletehttp://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/fulltext.html
See 2. the purpose of the act. Then, see 5 (b). I'm not a lawyer, and either are you but it looks pretty clear to me. It says that you cannot treat one person differently than another because of their age. And with providing goods, services, facilities, or accommodation you cannot differentiate adversely in relation to any individual on a prohibited ground of discrimination. Which, with regards to seniors discounts...is age!
None of that has anything to do with UNITED STATES law, the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court or the DOMA, which was the topic of Croft's post and his equal = equal. A senior discount hardly rises to the level of constitutional discrimination.
DeleteNot to belabor the point any further but the Human Rights Act only further supports my argument re employment. If Kevin really believes the act he references is relevant, which it is not, then he has a remedy - take it to court like DOMA and see how far it gets.
DeleteIn the meantime, I'm off to pay my property taxes and because I'm over 65 I get an extra $280 Homeowner Grant more than those under 65. If such a practice were discriminatory, like Kevin insists, then I'm sure this practice would have been stopped decades ago after it was first introduced.
By the way, Kevin, I also get an Old Age Pension based simply on being 65. Don't you think you should EVERYONE should get one too? After all, that's how you read the act, right?
And 10 year olds should be able to have a drivers licence! To deny them one is age discrimination, right?
DeleteSo Rick, tell me where in the act it says that it relates only to employment. Or is that just your "opinion"?
DeleteYou lefties are hilarious. You ask for the facts...I show them to you...and you still don't believe them!
And Croft, the act specifically mention the ages of 16 and 18...anything younger does not apply in the act, so your drivers licence comparison isn't valid.
DeleteDoes she have a case in winning back the taxes she paid?
ReplyDeleteI think that is a given, Chris. That is what she challenged.
DeleteWhat I find fascinating about the DOMA and VRA decisions is the staggering hypocrisy and deceit shown by Justice Scalia and his cohorts.
ReplyDeleteThey decry the fact that Justices overturned DOMA as passed by Congress - elected representatives - activist judges!
But, they are perfectly o.k. with the same Justices overturning another law passed by Congress - the Voting Rights Act - non-activist judges?
It is interesting that Edith and her lawyers were told by many Gay Rights organizations that this was the wrong time and the wrong case to use to attempt to challenge DOMA. They thought that the "right" had too much of a stranglehold on US society right now and that the challenge would fail, making it difficult, if not impossible to mount subsequent challenges.
ReplyDeleteBut it turns out, like martin Luther King said, "There is never a wrong time to do the right thing".