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.
Colorado state law is superceded by Constitutional Rights and/or federal law via the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause.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.
Your last sentence is completely correct. That is what the Supreme Court is being asked to determine - whether the First Amendment rights of the baker were violated.
The fact that there are not LGBT protections under federal law is not relevant because federal anti-discrimination laws do not preempt state anti-discrimination laws since there is no conflict (or field preemption, which is also essentially about conflict between state and federal law - not that you’d have a clue).
You’re making yourself look ridiculous every time you spout that there are no LGBT protections under federal law. It doesn’t matter, and the attorneys here aren’t bringing it up because it’s completely irrelevant.
However, both federal and state law must comply with the First Amendment. Whether a state law complies has nothing to do with the lack of federal LGBT protections.
That article does not say that state level laws aren't valid.
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 State and local laws are superceded by Constitutional Rights and/or federal law.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.
Your last sentence is completely correct. That is what the Supreme Court is being asked to determine - whether the First Amendment rights of the baker were violated.
The fact that there are not LGBT protections under federal law is not relevant because federal anti-discrimination laws do not preempt state anti-discrimination laws since there is no conflict (or field preemption, which is also essentially about conflict between state and federal law - not that you’d have a clue).
However, both federal and state law must comply with the First Amendment.
You’re making yourself look hilarious.
Even then the first amendment is not absolute in regards to anti-discrimination laws. Maurice Bessinger claimed religious belief to deny seating to blacks in violation of the CRA. He was ruled against.
Even then the first amendment is not absolute in regards to anti-discrimination laws. Maurice Bessinger claimed religious belief to deny seating to blacks in violation of the CRA. He was ruled against.
The US Constitution trumps any federal or state law.
The issue there was the First Amendment didn’t give him that right. That’s all this is about - trying to figure out whether the First Amendment gives a baker the right to refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings.
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.
Scalia was ruling on a case regarding OREGON state law, not a federal law. The case was Employment division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith. "At the time, intentional possession of peyote was a crime under Oregon law"
Maybe you can point out the federal law involved in that case.
The US Constitution trumps any federal or state law.
The issue there was the First Amendment didn’t give him that right. That’s all this is about - trying to figure out whether the First Amendment gives a baker the right to refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings.
It didn't allow Bessinger the right to refuse service to blacks. What makes the bakers first amendment claim more valid than Bessingers?
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.
