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.
I guess all the SC need do then is point to the Supremacy Clause and call it a day! Why are they even taking this case we must wonder?
Very possibly to point to the Supremacy Clause and make it binding precedent.
State laws cannot usurp Constitutional Rights. That is a fact.
The ACLU lawyers knew that, which is why they filed in state court instead of Federal Court. They have no case under Federal Law and the US Constitution.
Very possibly to point to the Supremacy Clause and make it binding precedent.
State laws cannot usurp Constitutional Rights. That is a fact.
The ACLU lawyers knew that, which is why they filed in state court instead of Federal Court. They have no case under Federal Law and the US Constitution.
This comment almost sounds like you are not just repeating yourself! I'm sorry I have to sign off now...
This comment almost sounds like you are not just repeating yourself! I'm sorry I have to sign off now...
You can't refute anything I've posted.
State laws cannot usurp Constitutional Rights. That is a fact.
The same sex couple's ACLU lawyers knew that, which is why they filed in state court instead of Federal Court. They have no case under Federal Law and the US Constitution.
And that's where he needs to make his choice. The point is, that due to the First Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause, that's HIS choice, and HIS choice, alone, to make.
Do I agree with the woman in Pennsylvania who p*ssed on the American flag? No. Is it her Constitutional Right to do so? Absolutely.
If its strictly his choice alone then Black people would still be sitting at the back of the bus and using separate water fountains. These people doing this are out for nothing more than notoriety they simply could have said we are booked on that date. The gay couple would have walked away, end of story. I can only assume you have never been the object of discrimination, you are truly blessed.
Government, the law, does allow a business to require another business to be open 24/7...
Or you won't likely get that 7/11 franchise, or most privately run service stations, convenience stores that fly a flag of a major oil company.
Again, this isn't government. These are business interests establishing laws that provide rules of doing business through contractual agreement, not in conflict with our constitution.
We are talking about government not voluntary contacts between people.
You just seem to love the idea of a government that has complete control over everyone.
If its strictly his choice alone then Black people would still be sitting at the back of the bus and using separate water fountains. These people doing this are out for nothing more than notoriety they simply could have said we are booked on that date. The gay couple would have walked away, end of story. I can only assume you have never been the object of discrimination, you are truly blessed.
The gay couple and the state of Colorado have no right to discriminate against the baker. Religion is a Federally Protected Class, LGBT status is not. Furthermore, the Baker has First Amendment Rights. I'm sorry you and some others don't like it, but due to the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause, the First Amendment and the baker being a member of a Federally Protected Class under the Civil Rights Act supercede Colorado state law.
Stupidity. Sheer stupidity that any of us bother with crap like this. Who Cares? I don't give a fig if Jonathan wants to marry Sean. Their money is still green. If it gets your religious panties in a bunch, not my problem. Someone else will take the money.
Stupidity. Sheer stupidity that any of us bother with crap like this. Who Cares? I don't give a fig if Jonathan wants to marry Sean. Their money is still green. If it gets your religious panties in a bunch, not my problem. Someone else will take the money.
You can find isolated quotes to support either side. This, for example, supports the baker:
"The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest."
There's no overriding governmental interest in purchasing wedding cakes or flowers from a business of your choice.
Even the Muhammad case you cited is generally supportive of the baker. The SC ordered the Department of Corrections to accommodate the Muslim prisoner's desire to grow a 1/2 inch beard because there was no legitimate reason not to.
You're correct in saying there are quotes contained in the pages & pages of Supreme Court cases documented in the links provided, which support a particular position, isn't that the point of having a case heard? What's your point? Are these interrelated issues 'settled' & therefore deserve no hearing or review? On whose authority?
To clarify my gist or drift, some folks use words (from religious texts to the words of the US Constitution, & so on), evidence, facts, figures, diagrams, schematics, statistics, etc. much like a drunkard uses a lamppost ~ rather than using the light for its intended purpose i.e. for illumination &/or to light them on their way ~ drunkards cling to lampposts for support & often to conceal their instability or unsteadiness of position.
If you catch my drift.
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.
