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.
KENNEDY: Counselor, tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of [the baker's] religious beliefs.
In others words, we as a society must also be tolerant of store owners who show mixed race couples out the door because he believes God does not want races to mix.
I agree with this. It's absolutely mindnumbing how much hatred there is for the LGBT community, especially here in the Deep South. I can easily see "No Gays" becoming a very common thing here if the ruling isn't narrow enough.
They drive away anyone who is different. Monoculture is just not healthy, it is exchange of ideas and the difference between people that makes places exceptional.
They did, and then they reported the baker to the state for violating the states laws. The state won their case in two courts, then the baker decided to appeal to the supreme court.
And there's an important reason why he did so: the Constitution's Supremacy clause. The Constitution and/or federal law supercede state and local laws. In this case, Colorado state law violated the baker's First Amendment Rights. That's a big no-no.
On a federal level, no we do not. There are no federal protections for LGBT. And due to the Constitution's Supremacy clause, either the Constitution or federal law supercedes any state law to the contrary, such as in this case in which the baker's First Amendment Rights were violated.
That article does not say that state level laws aren't valid. Scalia said in regards to a state law that religious belief does not allow a person to violate generally applicable laws.
"Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself"
And there's an important reason why he did so: the Constitution's Supremacy clause. The Constitution and/or federal law supercede state and local laws. In this case, Colorado state law violated the baker's First Amendment Rights. That's a big no-no.
State laws of general applicability have been ruled a-ok by the supreme court even in regards to religious beliefs. Even Scalia said that religious beliefs do not trump generally applicable laws.
Restaurant owners should be able to serve who they want and keep out those they don’t want to serve. If some retard wants to put up a “know blacks” sign (misspelled on purpose to show the stupidity of said racist), that should be his right. Government has no business forcing non-essential businesses to serve anyone.
People need to eat. If a restaurant is a non-essential business then what is?
The only thing that would have made that picture better would have been if the illustrator depicted Jesus as some forensic scientists have implied. Think more like the guy selling you a falafel in your nearby bodega and less like Keana Reeves wearing a sandy blond, long hair wig.
EXACTLY! Sick of them trying to ram 'acceptance of their perversion" on society! So happy the Supreme Court ruled in the baker's favor!
If a town has two bakeries and both don't want to bake wedding cakes for cakes, then they can't go elsewhere.
Speaking of perversion, do you think a baker should turn down wedding cake sales to any heterosexuals whose sexual behavior he disapproves of, for instance, a straight couple living together and engaging in fornication before their wedding.
The only thing that would have made that picture better would have been if the illustrator depicted Jesus as some forensic scientists have implied. Think more like the guy selling you a falafel in your nearby bodega and less like Keana Reeves wearing a sandy blond, long hair wig.
I'm not Christian and agree that the pic was ****e. Jesus, if he existed, was a kinky haired dark skinned, brown eyed person. The message was more important. These "Christians" are ones that love Jesus b/c he hates everyone they do! Complete utter rubbish.
On a federal level, no we do not. There are no federal protections for LGBT. And due to the Constitution's Supremacy clause, either the Constitution or federal law supercedes any state law to the contrary, such as in this case in which the baker's First Amendment Rights were violated.
I wouldnt use that link as it explains that activists are urging states to pass laws exactly like this one, it certainly isn’t saying that this discrimination is legal where a state law applies.
I can assure you you have NO idea what you’re talking about!
The Supremacy Clause does mean the US Constitution and federal law preempt state law, but this would only apply in situations where there is a conflict (or in the case of field preemption, but that isn’t the case here either) between state and federal law. Just because the state law adds some protected classes doesn’t mean it conflicts with federal law.
If you are trying to argue that federal anti-discrimination laws protect the business owner’s religious beliefs, this isn’t the case. The law protects customers of the businesses, not the business owners. So there is no conflict.
Case law from the U.S. Supreme Court is also crystal clear that a religious belief does not exempt you from compliance with a generally applicable law. This law is applicable to everyone regardless of religious beliefs. They’re making an argument for this law not to be applicable here on the grounds of freedom of speech and expression, but not that the anti-discrimination law is unconstitutional because of the Supremacy Clause. If it was such a slam dunk, wouldn’t they be making that argument?
I know you’ll bring up RFRA. It’s irrelevant as the U.S. Supreme Court has already held it only applies to federal law.
For the record, I have mixed feelings about this. But I read some of the sheer absurdity you posted on the last thread about this, but didn’t really have the time then to get into posting on the thread, and I had to jump in on this one.
Oh, and you’re going to make a laughing stock of yourself if you try and debate this with me using a few things you picked up here and there from google searches. I can assure you you’re way out of your league.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 12-05-2017 at 08:59 PM..
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.
