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.
Same sex marriage (sexual relationship, etc.) is an act taken by two consenting parties. Therefore, since there is no conflict between the parties involved in the same sex marriage (in other words, neither is being forced to take such action), there is no compelling reason for government to prohibit same sex marriage or same sex sexual relationships.
The problem with the baker vs Colorado case is that there IS a conflict between the baker and the same sex couple and subsequently, the state forced the baker to either violate his First Amendment Rights or give up pursuit of his livelihood and creative expression. That's clearly unConstitutional.
this is your opinions I am talking about the law if the law does not recognize the lgbt class as a protected class...
the supreme court not have can find the right to same sex marriage in the constitution and could not even say that homosexuals have the right to sexual privacy .
that's the point ... the Supreme Court has created a jurisprudence in which lgbt is rather an implicitly protected class and thus managed to bring gay marriage, legalized sodomy, and can make the baker lose that question, It is not as easy as you think it will be
When a gun is stuck in your back and the assailant says "you must work for this man/woman" its slavery.
So, we're agreed. This has nothing to do with slavery. Since no one is sticking a gun to anyone's back. So you can quit spouting off about slavery since, according to your own definition, this is not slavery.
How is baking a cake violating their religious belief?
Could that same baker refuse to bake a cake for a Jewish couple?
I suppose if a baker had a sincere religious belief that a Jewish couple should not marry each other, that such a marriage violates God will, he could refuse to bake the cake for them. I haven't heard about cases involving anyone, anywhere refusing to bake a cake because the couple marrying are Jewish, but hey, if you want to use a strange 'what if', that's my answer.
More recent case, from a lower Federal Court: Merced v. Kasson
The government cannot substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion without advancing a compelling governmental interest using the least restrictive means.
Incidentally, that was the same reasoning stated in the Hobby Lobby ruling. Hobby Lobby won.
Merced v. Kasson or Santeria do not apply, in both cases the petitioners were prevented directly from practicing their religion.
this is your opinions I am talking about the law if the law does not recognize the lgbt class as a protected class...
the supreme court not have can find the right to same sex marriage in the constitution and could not even say that homosexuals have the right to sexual privacy .
Not true. The rulings were not based on LGBT being a protected class. They were based on the fact that since there was no conflict between the parties involved in taking the action (same sex marriage, same sex sexual relationship), there was no compelling reason for the government to prohibit it.
Quote:
that's the point ... the Supreme Court has created a jurisprudence in which lgbt is rather an implicitly protected class and thus managed to bring gay marriage, legalized sodomy, and can make the baker lose that question, It is not as easy as you think it will be
Incorrect. Even NPR and LGBT advocacy groups know that:
Quote:
"Most states have no nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people," says David Stacy, government affairs director for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay-rights group. "With limited or no federal protections, an LGBT person can get legally married in most states, but then be evicted from an apartment and denied a home loan."
Why should we have laws dealing with non-essential inconveniences?
And once again I will remind you Pedro, that discrimination is not merely inconvenient. It is based in hate and bigotry and should not be allowed. The hatred expressed by some so called Christians shouldn't trample over people's rights, yet so often it has. My wife and I had to go to North Carolina to get married in 2015 before the SCOTUS decision was finally handed down. We traveled over 1000 miles. That's how much we were "inconvenienced" thanks to Texas "Christians" and the wishes of their silent invisible God.
How is walking into a bakery and expecting to buy a cake any different than walking into a restaurant and expecting to buy a meal?
If the restaurant makes one of their salads with poppy seed dressing and, you request they leave it off because you are allergic to poppy seeds, they can refuse to do so if they want. They don't have to change how they make their salad at your request. Granted, it would be a dumb from a business standpoint, just like turning away a wedding cake order, but it would be their choice to make.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Not true. The rulings were not based on LGBT being a protected class. They were based on the fact that since there was no conflict between the parties involved in taking the action (same sex marriage, same sex sexual relationship), there was no compelling reason for the government to prohibit it.
I think you're not sure about the case, I suggest reading about each one of them and especially about scalia's disagreement.
especially in romer v evans.
That case is absolutely NOT about federal protections for LGBT. It's about whether states can enact or prohibit protections for LGBT. Some states do enact protections for LGBT. They can, so they do. Others don't. US Congress has to date, despite several attempts, declined to enact protections for LGBT at the Federal level.
When there's a conflict between a state law vs. Federal Law or the US Constitution, the Supremacy Clause specifically indicates that the latter overrules the former.
And that's what's going on in the baker vs Colorado case. The baker has First Amendment Rights. Colorado cannot usurp those Rights.
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.
