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.
Again, due to the Supremacy Clause, state law cannot usurp First Amendment Rights.
Did the baker sell baked goods to the same sex couple? Yes.
The baker declined to create a custom-order wedding cake for them, as is his First Amendment Right. Muslim bakeries do the same thing, and no one has a problem with it.
Again, due to the Supremacy Clause, state law cannot usurp First Amendment Rights.
Did the baker sell baked goods to the same sex couple? Yes.
The baker declined to create a custom-order wedding cake for them, as is his First Amendment Right. Muslim bakeries do the same thing, and no one has a problem with it.
Maybe you should tell that to the judges who ruled on that case that the state law was A-OK.
Again, due to the Supremacy Clause, state law cannot usurp First Amendment Rights.
Did the baker sell baked goods to the same sex couple? Yes.
The baker declined to create a custom-order wedding cake for them, as is his First Amendment Right. Muslim bakeries do the same thing, and no one has a problem with it.
They care, but they fear the Charlie Hebdo solution if they pushed it.
It's also disingenuous. Woolworth's lunch counter was bound to follow law, and those laws stated that either they served whites or blacks. Rosa Parks is celebrated for violating law (not that she was violating the bus companies rules), and she should be because the law was unjust. As is any law that demands anyone perform any action involuntarily, regardless of the reason for refusal. Ms. Parks didn't voluntarily sit at the back of the bus, but was following the law until she broke it.
Now 50 years later we're having the same argument about allowing government to determine how businesses serve customers without any regard of history, and you know what they say about people who do not learn from history.
I also appreciate Mr. Sanayana's wisdom, I like what he said about mistakes & loyalty.
Quote:
Born at the midpoint of the Civil War, Santayana captures the Confederate legacy in a line
1863, December 16: In the middle of the Civil War, far away, George Santayana is born in Madrid, Spain.
He is remembered most, I believe, for a single line, which has become almost cliched: “Those who do not remember history, are condemned to repeat it.”
Yet I found another quotation from Santayana, just as pithy, just as meaningful and certainly appropriate for any look back into slavery’s dark days.
“Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes.”
The following describes one of the 'Greensboro sit-ins':
Quote:
...On February 1, 1960, at 4:30pm, the four sat down at the lunch counter inside the Woolworth store at 132 South Elm Street in Greensboro.[3] The men, later also known as the A&T Four or the Greensboro Four, had purchased toothpaste and other products from a desegregated counter at the store with no problems, and then were refused service at the store's lunch counter when they each asked for a cup of coffee.[2][8][9] Following store policy, staff refused to serve the black men at the "whites only" counter and store manager Clarence Harris asked them to leave.[10] However, the four freshmen stayed until the store closed that night. ...
People used the same argument for discriminating against blacks, just go find another place. All they are asking for is to be treated like everyone else, who cares what they do outside your place of business.
Baffling how some folks consider being "treated like everyone else" to be a "special right". Only in a hierarchical society, I suppose.
People used the same argument for discriminating against blacks, just go find another place. All they are asking for is to be treated like everyone else, who cares what they do outside your place of business.
The baker didn't care what they did outside his business. He simply didn't want his business to make a cake to acknowledge, celebrate, or commemorate their marriage.
In state courts, yes. But SCOTUS reviews cases when there's a conflict between local/state law and Constitutional Rights, as in this case.
The supreme court ruled on employment div v smith. That case was between state law and Religious practice (Constitutional right). The SUPREME COURT ruled that states can pass generally applicable law.
SAME THING. Generally applicable laws trump religious belief.
The baker didn't care what they did outside his business. He simply didn't want his business to make a cake to acknowledge, celebrate, or commemorate their marriage.
Then he should not offer wedding cakes in his store.
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.
Baffling how some folks consider being "treated like everyone else" to be a "special right". Only in a hierarchical society, I suppose.