Re: Your question about Lawrence: That case dealt with a criminal statute directed at certain acts, which were protected by the bedroom privacy found in prior cases (IIRC, which I probably don't, it was Casey that discovered the right to privacy in the bedroom). The Montana statute only appears to address special remedies available in civil cases to plaintiffs asserting discrimination by a private party.
So, the differences: * Lawrence involved the government, this does not * Lawrence involved criminal penalties, this does not * Lawrence dealt with specific protected acts, not orientation
So, the two deal with totally different rights, existing in totally different scenarios, and ascribed to totally different parties. Or: It's totally different from Lawrence.
How does the second one have anything to do with the privacy rights in Lawrence? Or were you just directing the question to the first one?
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
You need a better ConLaw outline
Date: 24/2/11 01:04 (UTC)So, the differences:
* Lawrence involved the government, this does not
* Lawrence involved criminal penalties, this does not
* Lawrence dealt with specific protected acts, not orientation
So, the two deal with totally different rights, existing in totally different scenarios, and ascribed to totally different parties. Or: It's totally different from Lawrence.
How does the second one have anything to do with the privacy rights in Lawrence? Or were you just directing the question to the first one?