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.
I honestly say, if they rule against the baker, I hope the ensuing backlash makes Ferguson look like a fist fight at a soccer game! Cuz I've had ENOUGH of the Left and their tyranny!
There will be little backlash, at most just a few isolated instances. When same sex marriage was made legal, did the governor of Arkansas or Alabama block entry to the courthouse door to stop a gay couple from getting a marriage license? NO!
Then he is still in violation of the state law that says a business can not discriminate in the sales of goods or services based on sexual orientation.
Therein lies the reason the baker prevails. Constitutional Rights supercede state and local laws: US Constitution's Supremacy Clause.
In addition, LGBT is not a federally protected class under the US Civil Rights Act.
In addition, LGBT is not a federally protected class under the US Civil Rights Act.
This doesn’t matter at all. But keep on thinking you know what you’re talking about.
If they were a federally protected class and the Supreme Court found this law (or the federal law) violated the baker’s right to speech or expression, it would be unconstitutional just the same. It would be no more or less likely to be constitutional because it is irrelevant.
Therein lies the reason the baker prevails. Constitutional Rights supercede state and local laws: US Constitution's Supremacy Clause.
In addition, LGBT is not a federally protected class under the US Civil Rights Act.
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.
"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.
Colorado state law is superceded by Constitutional Rights and/or federal law via the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause. There are no anti-discrimination protections for LGBT under federal law, hence, no "law of the land." Therefore, a state law cannot violate the baker's First Amendment Rights.
Colorado state law is superceded by Constitutional Rights and/or federal law via the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause. There are no anti-discrimination protections for LGBT under federal law, hence, no "law of the land." Therefore, a state law cannot violate the baker's First Amendment Rights.
Then why did Scalia rule that the Oregon state law can be held above religious belief? Peyote users were not a federally protected class, yet he ruled that the states laws could in fact ban people who were fired for peyote use from collecting unemployment payments.
Seems that uber conservative Scalia disagreed with your belief.
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.
