In major Supreme Court case, Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple (companies, race)

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

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.

SCOTUS has also ruled that generally applicable laws can in fact trump the 1st amendment. Employment div v Smith.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

All this is correct.

But I actually understand, unlike you.

The difference is this law does not usurp federal law.

It usurps the baker's Constitutional Rights. See DC v. Heller.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by jjrose

And the Employment div case was a STATE law. Is that clear?

Then why demolish your own point by quoting directly from a case that challenged federal law?

[afoigrokerkok]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

It usurps the baker's Constitutional Rights. See DC v. Heller.

But not according to Employment Division v. Smith.

[afoigrokerkok]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Then why demolish your own point by quoting directly from a case that challenged federal law?

Employment Division quoted Reynolds.. she likely got the quote from Employment Division.

[ambient]

Originally Posted by hawaiiancoconut

I believe consumer business should reserve the right to refuse service based on their religious beliefs. We are the land of religious freedom.

So like... You're stuck on the aide of the road with a busted car. It's getting dark and you're miles from civilization. The tow truck comes.

Guy gets out and says, "are you an atheist? I only serve those.".

"Ummm...not really," you say.

"Ok then, good luck," he says and drives off.

That's the world you want to live in? :-)

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

Then why demolish your own point by quoting directly from a case that challenged federal law?

Employment div v Smith was a STATE law case.

Respondents Smith and Black were fired by a private drug rehabilitation organization because they ingested peyote, a hallucinogenic drug, for sacramental purposes at a ceremony of their Native American Church. Their applications for unemployment compensation were denied by the State of Oregon under a state law disqualifying employees discharged for work-related "misconduct."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872

First paragraph, not hard to find.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok

How many times would do I have to explain that doesn’t matter?

None, because you're wrong. It's exactly why DC lost in DC v. Heller. State and local laws cannot usurp anyone's Constitutional Rights.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by hawaiiancoconut

I believe consumer business should reserve the right to refuse service based on their religious beliefs. We are the land of religious freedom.

So if a Jewish person shows up at a Christian bakery and wants a cake that says "Happy Bar Mitzvah" the baker should be able to refuse?

[afoigrokerkok]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

None, because you're wrong. It's exactly why DC lost in DC v. Heller. State and local laws cannot usurp anyone's Constitutional Rights.

When did I ever say that state or local law can usurp anyone’s constitutional rights? I have said repeatedly it cannot.

What I said didn’t matter was the fact that race was a protected class under federal discrimination law. It doesn’t matter because federal discrimination law is not relevant here.