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.
Well, it's a specifically enumerated Constitutional Right. 13th Amendment. Involuntary servitude is unConstitutional, unless one is an imprisoned convict.
I mean it's convergent with the right to free association, free expression, free exercise, in this case, since that's what is being discussed.
I do not mean that the prohibition on involuntary servitude is not a constitutional protection.
If you’re marrying the same sex you can’t necessarily hide that when you’re looking to buy a cake for your wedding. But that isn’t the point. The issue is why a gay person should have to “hide” who they are what does that have to do with discriminatory laws? There are a lot of characteristics which fall under a protected class that can be “hidden” They still deserve the same protection of the law.
If you’re marrying the same sex you can’t necessarily hide that when you’re looking to buy a cake for your wedding. But that isn’t the point. The issue is why a gay person should have to “hide” who they are what does that have to do with discriminatory laws? There are a lot of characteristics which fall under a protected class that can be “hidden” They still deserve the same protection of the law.
Read my earlier post on why this happens:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
This still needs to be sorted, though, because in the meantime, neither the Fed Gov nor most cities or states have passed anti-discrimination (specific to LGBTs) laws, and though many people would consider a place to live a necessity, it is still legal to discriminate in housing in most areas. NPR has a good explanation of the issue:
Every couple of years or so, a bill is introduced in Congress, but always dies in committee. The holdup seems to be it clashes directly with the First Amendment. Applying any such law would be unConstitutional at least some of the time.
I've argued that from the start. A court isn't going to overturn something they agree with because a commissioner was mean in coming to their conclusion.
My take on this (putting the legality aside), why would anyone want to seek out a service from one who did not want to provide it? I mean SSM is now supported by two thirds of the country and there are tons of bakeries, businesses and services that would love to have the business. Give your business to those that want it, not to those that do not.
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.
