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.
You are talking about two completely different things here. Informedconsent is taking about federal statutes, while you are talking about the Equal Protection Clause. Neither are relevant to this case.
No, what I am saying is that the bakers aren't the only ones with Constitutional rights and protections here. InformedConsent keeps saying the Constitution trumps state law (and God, really really harping on it) but it's about more than that. It isn't that simple. If it were, it wouldn't be so litigated, all the way to the Supreme Court.
Actually, they sometimes can and do if SCOTUS rules such. Newman v. Piggie Park upheld federal law over the defendant's Constitutional Right to religious freedom.
To see why, consider the exact wording of the Supremacy Clause:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
SCOTUS is simply saying that the right to religious freedom doesn’t permit a violation of federal law, just as it said that it didn’t permit a violation of state law in the Employment Division case.
Case in point, regarding a F to M (but still anatomically female) trans student expelled from a state university for using the men's locker/shower room facilities on campus:
Quote:
"Federal Judge Kim R. Gibson dismissed Johnston's suit, saying that his transgender status was not covered by either the Constitution's equal-protection clause or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars sex discrimination by institutions receiving federal funds.
With regard to the equal-protection clause, Gibson writes that transgender status is not a "suspect class" under equal-protection review, so that Pitt can prevail as long as it shows a "rational basis" for its actions. The university "explained that its policy is based on the need to ensure the privacy of its students to disrobe and shower outside of the presence of members of the opposite sex. This justification has been repeatedly upheld by courts," Gibson writes."
No, what I am saying is that the bakers aren't the only ones with Constitutional rights and protections here. InformedConsent keeps saying the Constitution trumps state law (and God, really really harping on it) but it's about more than that. It isn't that simple. If it were, it wouldn't be so litigated, all the way to the Supreme Court.
Actually, you’re both making this more complicated than it really is.
The Equal Protection Clause doesn’t apply here. There is no constitutional right to not be discriminated against by a private business, even if it were because of race. For certain protected classes, there is a statutory right under both federal law and most (if not all) states’ laws. But this is a private business.
Protected classes under federal statutory law don’t matter because this is about a state law that isn’t preempted by the federal law.
This is solely about the First Amendment and the Colorado state law.
I really am too exhausted with this to continue arguing with a wall. Have a good evening everyone (even you, InformedConsent).
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 12-05-2017 at 10:21 PM..
Actually, you’re both making this more complicated than it really is.
The Equal Protection Clause doesn’t apply here. There is no constitutional right to not be discriminated against by a private business, even if it were because of race. There is a statutory right under both federal law and most (if not all) states’ laws. But this is a private business.
Protected classes under federal statutory law don’t matter because this is about a state law that isn’t preempted by the federal law.
This is solely about the First Amendment and the Colorado state law.
I really am too exhausted with this to continue arguing with a wall. Have a good evening everyone (even you, InformedConsent).
No, I am not complicating it. I know full well what is going on here.
This is about discrimination. Someone is denying business to certain classes of people based on supposed religious beliefs.
DC v. Heller. Constitutional Rights prevailed over state/local law.
Yes, the Supreme Court decides how far a constitutional right extends when it seems to conflict with the law whether state, local, or federal. That’s what it did in DC v. Heller, Employment Division v. Smith, and many, many other cases....
Actually, they sometimes can and do if SCOTUS rules such. Newman v. Piggie Park upheld federal law over the defendant's Constitutional Right to religious freedom.
To see why, consider the exact wording of the Supremacy Clause:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
And SCOTUS also ruled that state laws can and sometimes do take precedence over the first amendment.
"Respondents in the present case, however, seek to carry the meaning of "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" one large step further. They contend that their religious motivation for using peyote places them beyond the reach of a criminal law that is not specifically directed at their religious practice, and that is concededly constitutional as applied to those who use the drug for other reasons. They assert, in other words, that "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires). As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning. It is no more necessary to regard the collection of a general tax, for example, as "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" by those citizens who believe support of organized government to be sinful than it is to regard the same tax as "abridging the freedom . . . of the press" of those publishing companies that must pay the tax as a condition of staying in business. It is a permissible reading of the text, in the one case as in the other, to say that, if prohibiting the exercise of religion (or burdening the activity of printing) is not the object of the tax, but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended."
The Colorado law is a generally applicable law.
Now, he has dropped the religious freedom angle and is going for speech and freedom of expression. Is there any speech involved? We don't know since they didn't discuss any design or theme for the cake before refusal. Is it expression? depends on the cake I guess, but again they didn't discuss design. Is the cake the expression of the baker or the couple who tells the baker what they want?
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.
