Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-05-2017, 08:46 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,422,102 times
Reputation: 4586

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Doesn't matter. With no federal law providing protection for LGBTs,
THIS DOESN’T MATTER!!!!

I would really like to know where you got the idea it did. And don’t say “Supremacy Clause.” Yes, under the Supremacy Clause federal law can preempt state law if it conflicts with the federal law. But it doesn’t here as I’ve already explained. This is about determining whether the state law conflicts with the First Amendment itself, which has nothing to do with federal anti-discrimination law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
state laws cannot violate anyone's First Amendment Rights: US Constitution's Supremacy Clause.
Well, no sh*t Sherlock. Federal law can’t either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
NPR even specifically stated discriminating against LGBTs was legal in regards to federal law.
Yes, but it pointed out that it isn’t under many state laws.

Did you actually read my long post? Did you stop to consider that maybe you don’t know everything?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-05-2017, 08:47 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,422,102 times
Reputation: 4586
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
In fact, it does. That's why even NPR specifically states it's legal to discriminate against LGBT according to federal law.
Yes, but it’s still illegal in the states that have made it illegal, and the federal law doesn’t change that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2017, 08:48 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,155,092 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by katygirl68 View Post
The whole point of the gay couple targeting this Baker was to get it to court. Why else would they do so? I’m glad the guy is fighting back, but he’s going to probably lose his business because he won’t be able to afford this stuff. When these gay couples target Muslim bakeries, I wonder what would happen.
Or maybe the couple went to a bakery that offered wedding cakes to order a wedding cake. The couple went elsewhere and then reported the baker for violation of state laws to the state. The state won the first two cases and then the baker decided to appeal to the supreme court. The case is Masterpiece cakeshop v the Colorado civil rights commission.

He isn't paying a dime, he has a anti-gay legal group defending him for free. The other couple of bakers made bank on go fund me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2017, 08:48 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,729 posts, read 44,535,751 times
Reputation: 13600
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
And yet Scalia wrote the majority opinion in a case of religious freedom vs a state law.
Nope. That was a federal law: a federal law prohibiting bigamy. Hence, the case: Reynolds v US. As in the United States.

Is that clear?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2017, 08:49 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,422,102 times
Reputation: 4586
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
You're under-informed. Scalia stated that in Reynolds v. US, in which a federal law against bigamy was being challenged. The baker's case is in regards to a state law violating the baker's First Amendment Rights, which it cannot legally do. State and local laws are superceded by Constitutional Rights and/or federal law. That's exactly why state and local Jim Crow laws were struck down after the CRA was enacted; they violated the federal CRA.
Employment Division v. Smith was a state case. Please read it.

And the audacity of you to call others under-informed on this is simply incredible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2017, 08:50 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,422,102 times
Reputation: 4586
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Nope. That was a federal law: a federal law prohibiting bigamy. Hence, the case: Reynolds v US. As in the United States.

Is that clear?
State case:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2017, 08:51 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,155,092 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
You're under-informed. Scalia stated that in Reynolds v. US, in which a federal law against bigamy was being challenged. The baker's case is in regards to a state law violating the baker's First Amendment Rights, which it cannot legally do. State and local laws are superceded by Constitutional Rights and/or federal law. That's exactly why state and local Jim Crow laws were struck down after the CRA was enacted; they violated the federal CRA.
Quote:
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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872

Nope right there in the opinion from Employment div v Smith.

Who was uninformed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2017, 08:52 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,155,092 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Read the case: Reynolds v US. That was in regards to a federal law, not a state or local law. BIG difference due to the Supremacy Clause.
That is from Employment div of oregon v Smith.

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

STATE law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2017, 08:53 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,729 posts, read 44,535,751 times
Reputation: 13600
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
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).
Again, because you still fail to understand... State and local laws cannot usurp Constitutional Rights or federal law. That's exactly why state and local Jim Crow laws were struck down after the CRA was enacted; they violated the federal CRA.

Even NPR admits it's legal to discriminate against LGBTs according to federal law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2017, 08:53 PM
 
26,680 posts, read 28,616,278 times
Reputation: 7943
This is funny. The poster of this topic must have misread the headline. Sure, the Trump Justice Department sided with the baker - in September! The Supreme Court case just began today. Anyone who pays attention to the news headlines would have known this.

Derrrrrr..... Duh.......

As for LGBTQ rights, remember that it was only a few years ago that the anti-LGBTQ crowd truly believed that they were going to win the war against same-sex marriage and have it enshrined in the US Constitution. Ha! And now the best they can hope for is this silly wedding cake case to turn their way. Enjoy the crumbs, I guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top