Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100
It's not unheard of in matters of property. It is completely unheard of in matters of civil rights.
|
False. The sheds and garages are property. HOA Rules do not carry the weight of our Constitution, yet protection of property is present nonetheless.
A civil right is part of the
Bill of Rights, in the
US Constitution. The
Right to Keep and Bare Arms is in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, and part of the Bill of Rights as well as all other Civil Rights.
Yes, an armament is property. You dont lose the property simply because the law regarding that Civil Right for that particular weapon changed. The gun or other now-illegal weapon is 'grandfathered in'. You may own it and use it for the rest of your life, but no one else may buy it, and own it and use it.
My comparison of these two Civil Rights both involve property. Why would someone lose their business, which is also property, for not wanting to supply goods to a
marriage that according to her religion - which Freedom of Religion is also a Civil Right found in the Fourteenth Amendment?
Sure, she cant discriminate against gay people, but does she have to enter into a contract for a Now-protected gay marriage that goes against her protected Freedom of Religion?
A case in point, involving an interracial marriage in Virginia in 1967 -
The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...
To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.
So, the marriage
is protected. Likewise, I would think the gay marriage
is protected.
The stumbling block here is the effect on the Civil Rights of others legally.
She cant legally stop anyone from getting married. She is not accused of stopping anyone from getting married. She did not stop the couple from getting flowers. She did refuse to contract for Wedding Flowers based on her religous beliefs.
So, it is false to say it doesnt apply to Civil Rights. The couple had their Wedding. She did nothing to prevent the nuptials. She refused to participate based on her religous beliefs.
In the case above, the couple did not sue the State of Virginia for an inability to secure the products they wanted from a
particular vendor.
They sued for the right to the nuptials themselves.
If the gay couple wanted barbequed pork ribs served at their wedding, would they have the right to demand those pork ribs be provided from a Kosher/Halal vendor? These
particular vendors are in the business of providing groceries and/or prepared foods.
Do they have a right to refuse to provide pork products based on their Civil Rights, Freedom of Relgion, covered by the fourteenth amendment?
Its a clash of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.