Well done King & Spaulding.
I wish more companies were like you!
Well done King and Spaulding. I’d be interested to see the NRA’s reasoning in more detail, because I suspect that it’s more to do with their seeming to back down in the face of public pressure (not exactly desirable in a law firm) than to do with the case itself.
It’s no long ago that lawyers who wanted public popularity ought to have refused to represent the gay rights cause. I think we should remember that.
That said King & Spaulding still haven’t (as far as I am aware) given a meaningful explanation as to why they dropped the case.
The idea of filing a lawsuit to stop people from loving whom they wish is abominable. How do these people live with themselves?
I guess, as with all haters, they are extremely proud of forcing others to live by their values or lack there of.
Fred-they sure did give a good reason! Current clients and current employees demanded they drop the case. NOt to mention the lobbying efforts of gay groups.The NRA is not a significant client-only one case in the past 2 years so no big deal..
I was aware of that clause, but not of any statement by the firm sighting that clause as a reason. I would be grateful if you could point me in the direction of such a statement.
Please ignore the above reply, it was posted in error.
I don’t regard public pressure as a good reason.
then you wont be in support of:
1) women having the vote
2) black people having the vote
3) the end of slavery
4) the abolition of trans fats in the US
6) US Republicanism (ironically)
7) the fact that America is no longer controlled by Britain and other European powers
8) etc etc etc etc etc!
ALL rights have to be fought for – regularly! – by ‘the public’ asserting ‘pressure’. If it were just left in the hands of the ruling elite we would ALL still be serfs forced to work on the land of our ‘land lord’ and required to ask their permission before we married!
Thank FCK! we dont have to! HOORAH! for ‘public pressure’! lol
I think Fred meant that public pressure is not a good reason to break a contract. It isn’t really, but a law firm would be able to find a way to make it work.
I do not regard public pressure as a good reason for lawyers to decline/refuse to represent a current or prospective client. I believe in a right to seek justice.
I am not the bizarre idiot you accuse me of being, I am not against causes because the public is for them, I am just not for causes *because* the public is for them.
I consider that the end of slavery was a good thing and I applaud the public pressure that achieved it. I just don’t think it was a good thing *because* the public were in favour it. To believe that the end of slavery was a good thing because the public were in favour of it implies first, that it wouldn’t have been a good thing for it to have ended earlier when the public still supported slavery, and second, a complete lack of a moral backbone of one’s own!
Great – King and Spaulding have divested themselves of two nasty organisations and one nasty employee. A good result for them
Quite right – and with any luck they’ll gain a number of clients who will appreciate the stance they’ve taken.
I will turn in my NRA card since they think that only straight people should be members. Screw you NRA!
How can anyone admit to being a member of the National Rifle Associarion or how can anyone Be a member of the NRA ffs? One of the vilest organisation on the planet. Did they know you were Queer?
King and Spalding are obviously a ethical firm who put equality before profit. Remember that when you are in the market for a good law firm on the other side of the Pond, lads.
Presumably then you regard the U.S. Constitution which guarantees the right to bear arms as one of the vilest laws on the planet, even if it does invalidate DOMA?
You presume wrong, but I believe other constitutions are stronger, where the citizens are not given a god given right to carry weapons for what ever kicks and self esteem issues they wish to overcome. Guns are for one purpose only:- to kill. The fact its written in your constitution to arm its entitle populace only suggests your constitution is badly out of date.
Here, Here Will!!
Yes….in australia every beer drinking, illiterate hick doesn’t have the right to bear arms!!! And we feel so much safer because of it!! There is so much gun violence and murders in the US- its an incredibly vile and stupid law thankyou!
………..That particular amendment, yes. It is well past its sell by date. I’m sure you are aware how many Americans were killed by people using guns last year!
However, the US Constitution is a credit to its writers and your attempt to make it look like my post refers to it in its entirety, is to say the least, a childish and disingeneious jibe which fails it’s intention miserably…….
The gun law was written at a time when everyone carried a gun of some sort but we live in the 21st century and no longer need such barbarity..That is why we have law enforcement officers….Police.
Fair point, except that if we can pick and choose which parts we find acceptable and which we don’t then so can anybody else. Equal protection springs to mind as a part of the Constitution that many find unacceptable if it implies same-sex marriage.
I would have thought that we off all people would have the humility not to call those who are fighting to defend their Constitutionally protected rights as being vile. (Deeply misguided though I think they are.)
Also the second amendment has nothing to do with crime prevention and law enforcement, it is to do with a “well regulated militia”. The authors did not foresee the new Republic having standing army and, likely, would not have approved of it.
Yeah, you just have bands of Pakistani youth going wilding in your beach towns and assaulting the women and gay men who happen to be outside at the moment. And then you have truckloads of yobs riding out to Pakistani neighborhoods to take random racial revenge.
We don;t have any of THAT in the US of A, thank goodness. :p
Perhaps read a real newspaper, or better yet, get a passport and visit the UK. Then you’ll see how fcuking stupid that last comment was.
Whatever their motives, good for them. They have dropped a commitment to defend a discriminatory law.
Excellent News and glad this kind of action is being noticed.
There are no real arguments against marriage Equality just discriminating ones.
The fact the Republicans are still willing to fight this Equality even though numerous polls suggest the public as a whole are supportive shows how out of touch they really are.
Sadly there will be someone that takes up the offer but it weakens their arguement more and more when these companies refuse to represent them.
In all though Good News.
Well done King & Spalding!
Good to see a legal firm taking an ethical stand.
I understand the viewpoint of the partner who quit saying that legal firms should not choose which work to do based on ethics. But, in practice it simply isnt the case: most legal firms DO decide which work to do and which to turn down based on their company’s ethical policies.
It is also fully acceptable that a legal firm (like any other firm) has the right to say ‘no’ and turn down work they think will not be right for them.
The Right will lose this case – it may take a year it may take 10 years but they will lose.
And history will not look kindly on those bigots who decided to use such vast amounts of money to defend the indefensible.
The argument put forward here is that everyone deserves a lawyer…. but DOMA is not a person and it does not benefit anyone at all it simply exists to deny equal rights to LGBT persons.
The point is whether the US House of Representatives deserves a lawyer? Whilst I agree that DOMA does not benefit anyone, there are others that disagree. According to U.S. law it is for the courts to make the final determination on that issue. If the court is to be fair there needs to be lawyers on both sides.
Fred, the courts have already made their determination on that issue unless the Supreme Court decides to take the case. The US Justice Department decided not to appeal the ruling. The Republican controlled House decided to appeal the ruling which raises question in my mind whether they should have the right to do so, especially considering the decision of the Justice Department, a division of the Executive Branch. It seems to me this action by the House is an usurption of the powers reserved for the Executive branch under the US Consititution.
An interesting point. However my understanding was that the Attorney General expressly wrote to Congress informing them of the decision not to appeal so that they could, if they saw fit.