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.
And the Employment div case was a STATE law. Is that clear? The Supreme court ruled that the 1st amendment did not trump generally applicable law in that case.
All is not as you wish it to be.
It’s just that she gets an idea in her head based on very limited knowledge, likely solely derived from a google search or two and maybe reading a blog or two, and then can’t let it go when she gets called out on how limited her knowledge is.
I can’t waste my time arguing with the wall here any longer... Everyone have a good evening.
The US Constitution trumps any federal or state law.
The issue there was the First Amendment didn’t give him that right.
Based on what? The First Amendment grants both the freedom to exercise one's religion and free speech which includes artistic expression. The baker is asserting both. As Constitutional Rights trump Colorado state law, this is a slam dunk for the baker.
I don't recall you defending the people the gay coffee shop owner kicked out in Seattle. But that's not surprising, liberals always have double standards.
He did not refuse service to them, he kicked them out after serving them based on their actions (passing out anti-abortion and anti-gay fliers). What actions did the couple in the cake case do to be refused service?
I think the coffee shop owner was WAY over the top, but political statements are not a protected class under the law.
Based on what? The First Amendment grants both the freedom to exercise one's religion and free speech which includes artistic expression. The baker is asserting both. As Constitutional Rights trump Colorado state law, this is a slam dunk for the baker.
Based on what? The First Amendment grants both the freedom to exercise one's religion and free speech which includes artistic expression. The baker is asserting both. As Constitutional Rights trump Colorado state law, this is a slam dunk for the baker.
Employment Division v. Smith holds that a generally applicable state law applies regardless of religious beliefs.
It is completely true that constitutional rights trump Colorado state law, but the First Amendment isn’t absolute. All this is is a test of how far the First Amendment’s protections extend.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 12-05-2017 at 09:21 PM..
So many people up in arms about this situation. IMO the judgment is right, the Baker is entitled to his beliefs same as the gay couple are entitled to be gay. There are plenty if bakers who would have made the cake. The lawsuit to destroy the baker and others like him was an attack on the Christianity by the former administration. It was nothing more than religious persecution and it shouldn't be tolerated. I'm Catholic, I pray to God every single day.I love God and the baby Jesus. Had I had I been the baker I would have made them the cake because I like money and, I need money to live and take care of my family. Plus, Jesus ain't paying my bills or making the payments on my Benz.
Scalia was ruling on a case regarding OREGON state law, not a federal law.
The quote you provided:
"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"
A Scalia.
...is actually from THIS case regarding the challenge to a federal law.
So many people up in arms about this situation. IMO the judgment is right, the Baker is entitled to his beliefs same as the gay couple are entitled to be gay. There are plenty if bakers who would have made the cake. The lawsuit to destroy the baker and others like him was an attack on the Christianity by the former administration. It was nothing more than religious persecution and it shouldn't be tolerated. I'm Catholic, I love God and the baby Jesus. Had I had I been the baker I would have made them the cake because I like money. Jesus ain't making the payments on my Benz.
There was no judgement, unless you are referring to the lower court judgement in favor of the state anti-discrimination law.
So many people up in arms about this situation. IMO the judgment is right, the Baker is entitled to his beliefs same as the gay couple are entitled to be gay. There are plenty if bakers who would have made the cake. The lawsuit to destroy the baker and others like him was an attack on the Christianity by the former administration. It was nothing more than religious persecution and it shouldn't be tolerated. I'm Catholic, I pray to God every single day.I love God and the baby Jesus. Had I had I been the baker I would have made them the cake because I like money. Jesus ain't making the payments on my Benz.
You don't choose to be gay. But you do choose whether to tolerate the very simple and unproblematic fact that others are gay. Intolerance has no excuse, really. I mean, it is what it is, but... no excuse.
Yes, but it pointed out that it isn’t under many state laws.
State laws cannot usurp anyone's Constitutional Rights. Period. As soon as you understand that, the discussion will be more productive.
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.
