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.
Exactly. And so far, no one has been able to enact federal legal protections for LGBT, despite multiple attempts to do so.
How many times would do I have to explain that doesn’t matter?
You could still challenge the federal law on freedom of speech and expression grounds. Whether it’s state or federal doesn’t matter, the First Amendment is applicable. Which classes are federally protected is a separate issue entirely.
She’ll just keep going on and on about how there’s no federal LGBT protections and that somehow preempts state protections... Watch her.
Actually, the baker's Constitutional Rights preempt Colorado state law: Supremacy Clause. State and local laws cannot usurp anyone's Constitutional Rights. SCOTUS has already begun to realize such, as in DC v. Heller.
I wonder, do any (like these) Christian bakers also refuse service to those getting remarried after divorce? Maybe those who cheated on their previous spouses with one another, so double whammy - adultery and divorce remarriage? Those who had a kid before marriage, thus sex before marriage, but are now marrying? Or is it just gays they have a "religious" issue with?
That may be suspect to the Supreme Court. Looks more discriminatory than just basic religious beliefs/principles. Gays are a protected class, they have constitutional protections in certain contexts. SCOTUS could expand those protections. They allowed Congress to extend anti-racial discrimination laws to the public sector with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and upheld it under the Commerce Clause of all things, even though the 14th Amendment equal protection, constitutionally, applies to the states and not any individual or private business.
However, the baker would be very wrong for refusing to make a custom wedding cake for a mixed race couple. Right? First Amendments rights can't be made to apply.
Race is a federally legally protected class under the CRA. SCOTUS upholds federal law in such cases. At issue in this case is a state law. State and local laws cannot usurp Constitutional Rights due to the Supremacy Clause. See DC v. Heller.
Actually, the baker's Constitutional Rights preempt Colorado state law: Supremacy Clause. State and local laws cannot usurp anyone's Constitutional Rights. SCOTUS has already begun to realize such, as in DC v. Heller.
I never said otherwise, but federal law cannot usurp constitutional rights either.
It might interest you to know that RFRA actually makes the standard for federal law tougher than the standard for state law. So a similar federal law being challenged on these same grounds would actually be more likely to be struck down.
Race is a federally legally protected class under the CRA. SCOTUS upholds federal law in such cases.
There isn’t a federal law here to uphold... Federal anti-discrimination laws don’t preempt state ones, so the federal laws are irrelevant here.
A repost from before:
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 clear that a religious belief does not exempt you from compliance with a generally applicable state 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.
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.
