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, because you're continuing to fail to understand... State and local laws are superceded by Constitutional Rights and/or federal law. The baker's First Amendment Rights were violated by Colorado's state law, and LGBT is not a federally protected class under the CRA. There just isn't any legal basis to find for anyone other than the baker in this case.
And Scalia was referring to federal law, not a state's law. BIG difference, due to the Supremacy Clause.
Actually, that was state law.
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. I can teach you, but you obviously don’t care to learn, you’d rather spout nonsense all day.
DOJ ? should they really being weighing in on issues like this? I don't care if you are left or right liberal or conservative.
this does not sound like something the DOJ should be getting involved in.
The court has a tough case, i am betting they will find a way to keep the ruling narrow, otherwise expect to see some towns where some poeple can't enter many businesses...
The whole point of the gay couple targeting this Baker was to get it to court. Why else would they do so? I’m glad the guy is fighting back, but he’s going to probably lose his business because he won’t be able to afford this stuff. When these gay couples target Muslim bakeries, I wonder what would happen.
And yet Scalia wrote the majority opinion in a case of religious freedom vs a state law. He said that religious belief does not trump generally applicable state laws.
Then he probably thought a state should have the right for people to discriminate against blacks and other races, due to some belief found in the bible that God did not intend for the races to mix.
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.
Doesn't matter. With no federal law providing protection for LGBTs, state laws cannot violate anyone's First Amendment Rights: US Constitution's Supremacy Clause. NPR even specifically stated discriminating against LGBTs was legal in regards to federal law.
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"
A Scalia.
You're under-informed. Scalia stated that in Reynolds v. US, in which a federal law against bigamy was being challenged. The baker's case is in regards to a state law violating the baker's First Amendment Rights, which it cannot legally do. State and local laws are superceded by Constitutional Rights and/or federal law. That's exactly why state and local Jim Crow laws were struck down after the CRA was enacted; they violated the federal CRA.
Actually, the baker is arguing that it’s about his freedom of speech and expression, so it’s a different argument entirely.
The baker isn’t arguing he has the right to refuse service to gay people altogether. This is about designing a cake.
That would mean that he object to the speech or expression of the cake. How would he know what was to be expressed in the design if he didn't even wait to hear what the couple wanted?
I could agree with refusing to make a cake with objectionable words or pictures, but they may have wanted a three tier white cake with red roses just like number 22 from his display book. If he had already made the same cake for Jack and Jill why would he oppose it for Jack and Bill if not for the person buying the cake?
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.
Read the case: Reynolds v US. That was in regards to a federal law, not a state or local law. BIG difference due to the Supremacy Clause.
In fact, it does. That's why even NPR specifically states it's legal to discriminate against LGBT according to federal law.
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.
