I'm puzzled -- do Romer and Lawrence really justify not just
protection of gays against governmental discrimination, but a different
First Amendment rule for antigay speech than for pro-gay-rights speech
or a wide range of other speech?
Eugene
Michael Newsom writes:
> That said, I have no idea of what the Court would do with
> this case, but my guess is that the Court would overturn the
> jury verdict 5-4, although Kennedy, on the strength of Romer
> and Lawrence, might vote with the moderates and the case
> would come out the other way, 5-4 to uphold the jury verdict
> (although the punitive damages might be reduced, the Court
> likely to send a signal, I think, in the Valdez case that it
> is prepared to rein in punitive damages).
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
