Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
State/local laws aren't adequate. They're superceded by Constitutional Rights and federal law, which is why the baker will prevail in this case against a Colorado state agency. Federal legislation adding LGBT as a protected class under the CRA needs to be enacted. That's where efforts need to be focused. LGBT supporters/advocates have inexplicably dropped the ball on that.
State and local laws would actually provide more protection because of RFRA.
The CRA is NOT RELEVANT for the millionth time.
I can’t keep debating constitutional law any further with someone who is so unfamiliar with it. Again, I’d love to know your qualifications. I’d also be more than happy to debate this issue with you if you made an honest effort to learn what you don’t know. But you won’t, so this is pointless.
Incorrect. It no more targets religion than the CRA does. It no more targets religion than the Oregon Dept of human resources did. The law doesn't even mention any religion it simply says that if you sell goods or services you can not deny the sales of those based on sexual orientation among other things. It is a generally applicable law.
Read the Supremacy Clause. It indicates otherwise. The Constitutionality of a federal law can be challenged in Federal Court, but when it comes to state/local laws, they're always superceded by Constitutional Rights, according to the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Phillips said he doesn’t create wedding cakes for same-sex couples because it would violate his religious beliefs.
And the law in Colorado says that if you choose to offer a good or service you can not discriminate based on sexual orientation. He chose to offer the service of custom wedding cakes, he broke the law by refusing a couple based on their sexual orientation.
Maurice Bessinger said that he would not allow blacks inside his restaurant, but would serve them from a pick up window, based on his religious beliefs. The court said that won't fly.
State and local laws would actually provide more protection because of RFRA.
The CRA is NOT RELEVANT for the millionth time.
Constitutional Rights ARE relevant. They automatically trump state/local laws according to the Supremacy Clause. Exactly why DC lost DC v. Heller.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
