A Compromise Is Defined As An Agreement Or Settlement Of A Dispute

“Prejudice and Homosexuality”, by Richard D. Mohr, is an essay about how gays and lesbians are subject to discrimination because of different beliefs. Mohr says that when we are evaluating the morality of behavior is to be prescriptive, or normative, not descriptive. In this essay, Mohr says that “Gays are discriminated against in several ways, including private-sector employment, housing, public accommodations, insurance of all types, custody, adoption, and zoning regulations that bar ‘singles’ or ‘nonrelated’ couples from living together” (Mackinnon 246). I completely agree with him.

The first amendment, the right of freedom of speech is one of the most important classic fantasy to almost anyone living in the United States, building the foundation of our nation. This right gives us plenty of different opportunities to express our opinions and political viewpoints on any issues in America. But it comes with a price, people have been protesting multiple different events trying to prevent people from expressing opposing opinions or political viewpoints on that has issues in America. For the minority of people, expressing a different opinion should be protected no matter how controversial or insensitive it may be.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender

This case affects all of us today because it prevents local and federal government determine what is appropriate or over the line when we are expressing ourselves.

Compromise—that means to come to an agreement, a settlement that brings peace, but not without some discomfort for both sides. This compromise is hopefully long-lasting and satisfying to both sides and brings with it a rest. The Compromise of 1850 sounds like exactly that, but there is more to this compromise. This “compromise” came when there was much dispute about the future of the western lands recently acquired from the Mexican government—California, Utah, and New Mexico. The Southerners of America wanted the states entered into the union as slave states, while the Northerners wanted them entered as free states. When this issue became more heated and continued to escalate, "The Great Compromiser,” Mr. Henry Clay himself, came out of retirement to do “his thing” and create a compromise. He proposed that California would enter the union as a Slave State and Utah and New Mexico would enter as neutral, being neither a slave nor free state. Parts of both the North and the South hated and liked this plan. Some misanthropists in the South threatened to secede from the union and while the majority knew that to be rubbish at the time, it did eventually come true with the start of the Civil War. The North wanted to see slavery come to an end and were fighting tooth and nail to see that through. After months of debating and changes made to Clay’s compromise it was eventually put into action. There was still unrest in both the North and South, and the compromise only

After many years of growth and agreement, the people of the United States faced a threat to their country. At the time of the Emancipation Proclamation and Lincoln’s Presidency, compromise was a necessary factor to keeping the country together. Compromise is the foundation of our country beginning with our founding fathers and has kept American feeling safe and secure. However, in the middle of the 19th century, tensions regarding slavery and political divisions in the government eventually led to compromise no longer being a feasible goal. Political differences between the North and the South made compromise very difficult to achieve.

Herndon, President Abraham Lincoln’s law partner in illinois, wrote a letter to Charles Sumner describing his concerns with the issue of compromises in 1860. In his letter he stated, “Fools may compromise and reason that all is peace; but those who have read human history---those who know human nature, . . . know that compromise aggravates in the end all our difficulties” (Sumner 1). His words gathers the idea that compromise only settles the problem for an amount of time but does not actually end the problem. This relates to the split issue of Slavery between the North and South and how the United States never addressed the problem but instead made countless compromises and treaties that at the time ‘settled’ the issue. In the end these compromise’s did nothing but make the problem worse which led to the irrepressible act of a Civil War.

The history of LGBTQIA+ rights in the United States is long and complicated. The identities within the LGBTQIA+ community that are accepted have shifted over the years as the majority of the population comes to understand some identities to be commonplace and struggles to understand others. However, the gaining of rights and acceptance by the LGBTQIA+ community has nearly always been tied to legal recognition. Lawrence v. Texas questions whether or not a Texas statute that bans homosexual sodomy is constitutional. Although LGBTQIA+ rights issues are controversial, the statute that convicted John Lawrence and Tyson Garner for having private, consensual gay sex as well as the means of conviction are clearly unconstitutional on several grounds,

The Supreme Court has made clear in a series of cases that symbolic expression (or expressive conduct) may be protected by the First Amendment (Cline, 2011.) However, of the approximately 100 demonstrators, Johnson alone was charged with a crime. Johnson appealed his conviction and his case eventually went to the Supreme Court.

The First Amendment has its flaws; it does not protect against all forms speech and articles with negative intent. In each of the cases, newspaper organizations were tried for using their freedom of press. Time, place and manner regulation treats all acts of speech the same. Under this guideline, people may socialize freely in public, but may not talk at a time or place that would cause major traffic blockage, because it’s affecting the rights of other individuals. The Court developed the time, place, and manner regulation to decide if federal jurisdictions of free speech were legal under the Constitution. In this rule, limitations on free speech are solely constitutional if the speech’s content is neutral. The right’s granted under the First

Phelps (2011) in regards to what kind of speech should be protected under the 1st Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. While it is understandable that people are entitled to the freedom of speech, even with a buffer zone enabled, but I found compelling is in the content and impact the case permitted in the aftermath. Freedom of speech? Or fighting words? The United States has reviewed similar cases such as Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell (1988); the exception is the issue of the picket signs held by members of the Westboro Baptist Church, while protesting the funeral of a fallen soldier as a matter of public concern regarding whether or not to cause emotional distress to a grieving family as a matter of a debate, but an 8-1 ruling ensured that even hateful speech was protected. I find it hard to believe that there was little to nothing SCOTUS would list as a constituting a compromise for both sides and how the majority claimed that Snyder’s right to privacy was not infringed upon—with only Justice Antonin Scalia dissenting, claiming that “in order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims.” As such, the Supreme Court’s ruling on this case led to a vulnerability in similar civil liberties: what

Multiple groups of same sex couples sued their state agencies in four different states Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky to challenge the constitutionality of those four states ‘ban on same sex marriage. The plaintiffs of each case argued that the states’ statues violated the Equal Protection Clause and their Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. One plaintiff group also brought up claims under the Civil Rights Act. The Trial court found in favor to all of the plaintiffs cases. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed and held that the states’ ban on same sex marriage and refusal

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance, which requires a permit for parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest (53).

In a hypothetical scenario in which same-sex marriage and religious freedom are brought to a legal confrontation, the constitutional rights of both plaintiffs and defendants bring forth a nationwide debate on civil liberties and rights—yet it is easy to mistake one for the other. In this scenario, after lesbian couples Donna and Theodora married in the state of Massachusetts instead of North Carolina (Theodora’s home state), both decided to move to North Carolina in the city of Clinton where they found jobs to financially support one another. However, when both couples contacted a local bakery shop for a wedding cake, they were denied by the shop’s owner who cited North Carolina’s recently enacted law that allows businesses to refuse the patronage of homosexuals when the business owners themselves have a religious objection to homosexuality and same-sex marriage. When Donna and Theodora tried to hire a photographer for when they planned to recite their wedding vows, the photographer refused—with the issue of religious freedom again been cited in her arguments. Although this initially didn’t come as a surprise to Donna and Theodora, Donna was more concerned about the maid of honor, Bernice, a transgender person being able to use the women’s restroom. Because Bernice was born male, under the rules of House Bill 2—more formally addressed as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act (aka “the bathroom bill”)—that would exclude Bernice from using the bathroom of her choice

Professor Johnson’s lecture sparked conversation about whether or not the Supreme Court ruling accomplished enough for the LGBT community. At the time, I was unaware of how the ruling could be something that wasn’t an all-around win for the community, but after being introduced to queer politics