This entry was posted
on Thursday, November 20th, 2008 at 1:29 pm and is filed under Sex & Metropolis.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 318 views |
Trackback | Print this page |
Even the Fox analysts got it wrong.
The Court got it wrong, and for the wrong reason.
This is not a civil rights case – since no claim that gays were blocked, excluded, discouraged, deprecated or treated differently in any way.
This is a commerce case.
Gay insist on purchasing a product from a manufacturer that does not offer it.
The proper analogy is to require General Motors to make a car with no doors and 5 wheels, and the Court said that was reasonable.
What’s next – demand Coors sell you beer in your choice of flavor?
Even the Fox analysts got it wrong.
The Court got it wrong, and for the wrong reason.
This is not a civil rights case – since no claim that gays were blocked, excluded, discouraged, deprecated or treated differently in any way.
This is a commerce case.
Gay insist on purchasing a product from a manufacturer that does not offer it.
The proper analogy is to require General Motors to make a car with no doors and 5 wheels, and the Court said that was reasonable.
What’s next – demand Coors sell you beer in your choice of flavor?