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.
No man has a right to force any private citizen into a business contract that they do not wish to enter.
Except when it is illegal discriminatory practices that the private citizen business owner uses to back out of the deal. Denying a gun carrier business isn't discriminatory as gun ownership isn't a protected class. Denying a drunk to purchase alcohol isn't discriminatory because being a drunk is not a protected class. Denying a homosexual is hard to do unless there is an identifier maybe discriminatory if the state mandates it. See the difference?
Speaking as a gay man married to another man, I fully support this dude's right to having that sign up. I'm a strong believer in free speech, including speech that people don't like.
He has the right to post his sign. And I have the right to not shop there. That's how its suppose to work. I absolutely hate it that gay people are suing. Just go somewhere else for goodness sake.
I'm sticking with the coasts where this kind of crap would not be tolerated. If you are okay with being a 2nd class citizen, then that is what you deserve. Remember, hospitals used to deny service to Black people. You want to bring back those day? Wow.
Doesn't matter. SCOTUS concurs. And I'll remind you again that the First and 13th Amendments supercede Colorado state law.
Specifically in regards to the First Amendment, from the ruling:
"The government, consistent with the Constitution's guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices"
That's the bar that must be cleared from here on out. If a local, state, or federal law, proposed or currently existing, is hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens, it cannot be imposed.
Banging my head against a brick wall. The law itself is not hostile to religion. Kennedy did not say the law itself is hostile to religion. The CCRC behaved in a hostile manner toward religion in reaching its ruling against the baker.
Except when it is illegal discriminatory practices that the private citizen business owner uses to back out of the deal.
Moot point. The private citizen business owner has the Constitutional Right to not even enter into the deal (contract for a commissioned/custom-ordered product) in the first place. 13th Amendment.
Involuntary Servitude: the condition of an individual who works for another individual against his or her will as a result of force, coercion, or imprisonment, regardless of whether the individual is paid for the labor.
Quote:
Denying a gun carrier business isn't discriminatory as gun ownership isn't a protected class. Denying a drunk to purchase alcohol isn't discriminatory because being a drunk is not a protected class. Denying a homosexual is hard to do unless there is an identifier maybe discriminatory if the state mandates it. See the difference?
WHY are so many of you ignoring the fact that Constitutional Rights supercede state and local laws? WHY does the following have to be repeated and many of you are STILL in denial?
As has already been noted, THIS is the bar SCOTUS has set to be cleared with this most recent ruling, which when you think about it logically... cannot be done:
Kennedy, in the ruling:
"The government, consistent with the Constitution's guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices"
The crucial point is that in the US, Constitutional Rights supercede state law. That's why it's a fool's errand to pursue any of those laws at the state or local level. US Congress has attempted several times to pass a Federal Law, but it never makes it out of committee. Why? Because such a law would be unConstitutional at least some of the time, and would thus be stricken.
What a lot of you are missing is that BOTH parties were claiming rights. The baker: Constitutional Rights. The same-sex couple: rights conveyed by a state law.
The problem with that for the couple? 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."
That is EXACTLY why several of us said this was a slam dunk for the baker in the original thread last year. And it was.
Banging my head against a brick wall. The law itself is not hostile to religion.
Yes, it is. It attempts to remove affected citizens' First Amendment Rights by force/coercion, which is exactly WHY Kennedy ruled:
"The government, consistent with the Constitution's guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizensandcannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices"
Two prohibitions there. Cannot impose in the first place, and then cannot act to enforce that imposition.
But man does have the right to impede on the freedoms of others by making a purchase more difficult simply because of who they are?
How do you square this logic?
They don't even try. It's like trying to nail jelly to a tree.
So MANY constitutional scholars right here on CD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakformonday
I'm sticking with the coasts where this kind of crap would not be tolerated. If you are okay with being a 2nd class citizen, then that is what you deserve. Remember, hospitals used to deny service to Black people. You want to bring back those day? Wow.
I totally agree.
Thank God this mouth breather lives in out in BFE and likely married to his first cousin. No doubt others like him will flock to his ratty looking store.
Gross.
Cause Jeezus said don't sell a hammer to a gay person!
They don't even try. It's like trying to nail jelly to a tree.
So MANY constitutional scholars right here on CD.
Kennedy directly cited the Constitution in the recent ruling FOR the baker. Sorry you hate the fact that every US citizen has Constitutional Rights. I know you'd much prefer the US to be a fascist, dictatorial country.
It really paints the area in a negative light, but my guess is that the majority of the folks in that county feel similarly. It's probably not that controversial locally.
Yes, it is. It attempts to remove affected citizens' First Amendment Rights by force/coercion, which is exactly WHY Kennedy ruled:
"The government, consistent with the Constitution's guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizensandcannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices"
Two prohibitions there. Cannot impose in the first place, and then cannot act to enforce that imposition.
What Kennedy did Not say is that the law covering sexual orientation is hostile to religion. What the ruling said is that the government [CCRC] Did act in a hostile manner toward the baker and his beliefs in this particular case.
I'm figuring you're capable of understanding the difference, but have staked out a position and will rather be forever wrong than admit you are wrong.
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.
