I did read the ruling and I’m sorry but it doesn’t change anything. The whole premise of the case was built on people claiming they were discriminated against but that IS ALREADY ILLEGAL IN CALIFORNIA. The question presented by the person who made the comment I responded to was “were people being denied specific rights?” and I’m sorry but they aren’t.
Then I'm sorry but you clearly don't understand Constitutional law. One of the first lines in the article is the proposal that this proposition be rendered as applicable to homosexuals as a suspect class, meaning that the law should be rendered as a judgement under strict scrutiny. The circumstances and testimony clearly supported overturning the law on the basis of strict scrutiny.
