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.
Looks more discriminatory than just basic religious beliefs/principles. Gays are a protected class, they have constitutional protections in certain contexts.
LGBT is not a federally protected class, despite several attempts over the years to enact such legislation.
LGBT is not a federally protected class, despite several attempts over the years to enact such legislation.
Yes it is. It does not need to be a legislative decision, the federal courts may decide so, and an Appeals court recently decided so earlier this year.
Gender is also a protected class, SCOTUS has heard various cases on it through the years, as well as disability. Race gets the highest scrutiny level. Protected classes are those which have historically been marginalized and oppressed and need additional protections.
And how is defending the right of someone to discriminate considered just?
When the rights are in conflict with each other. There has to be mutual agreement reached. If not continue the shopping experience. The more you shop the better you will get at it. Zero tolerance for forced labor.
LGBT is not a federally protected class, despite several attempts over the years to enact such legislation.
Correct.
But that’s irrelevant. I can assure you you’re making yourself look like a fool by continuing to harp on this. I encourage you to re-read the long post I made that I reposted for you several times.
I never said otherwise, but federal law cannot usurp constitutional rights either.
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.
Yes it is. It does not need to be a legislative decision, the federal courts may decide so, and an Appeals court recently decided so earlier this year.
Gender is also a protected class, SCOTUS has heard various cases on it through the years, as well as disability. Race gets the highest scrutiny level.
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.
It only is for companies who hold contracts with the federal government.
It can and likely will expand. The 14th Amendment EPC originally only applied to the states, then the Civil Rights Act came along and changed the game for many private businesses, which could no longer discriminate on the basis of race.
When did I ever say that state or local law can usurp anyone’s constitutional rights? I have said repeatedly it cannot.
Exactly, which is why the baker prevails.
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.
