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.
Doesn't matter. With no federal law providing protection for LGBTs, state laws cannot violate anyone's First Amendment Rights: US Constitution's Supremacy Clause. NPR even specifically stated discriminating against LGBTs was legal in regards to federal law.
However, the baker would be very wrong for refusing to make a custom wedding cake for a mixed race couple. Right? First Amendments rights can't be made to apply.
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.
Again Scalia and the supreme court opinion disagree.
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.
All this is correct.
But I actually understand, unlike you.
The difference is this law does not usurp federal law.
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 CRA is a federal law, not a state law. Is that clear? There are no legal federal protections for LGBTs.
Not for lack of trying... Several attempts have been made to legally enact LGBT as a protected class under the federal CRA. None have prevailed.
No one was asking the baker to engage in gay sex, just to make a cake.
I don't recall you defending the people the gay coffee shop owner kicked out in Seattle. But that's not surprising, liberals always have double standards.
The Supremacy Clause does mean the US Constitution and federal law preempt state law, but this would only apply in situations where there is a conflict (or in the case of field preemption, but that isn’t the case here either) between state and federal law. Just because the state law adds some protected classes doesn’t mean it conflicts with federal law.
If you are trying to argue that federal anti-discrimination laws protect the business owner’s religious beliefs, this isn’t the case. The law protects customers of the businesses, not the business owners. So there is no conflict.
Case law from the U.S. Supreme Court is also clear that a religious belief does not exempt you from compliance with a generally applicable state law. This law is applicable to everyone regardless of religious beliefs. They’re making an argument for this law not to be applicable here on the grounds of freedom of speech and expression, but not that the anti-discrimination law is unconstitutional because of the Supremacy Clause. If it was such a slam dunk, wouldn’t they be making that argument?
I know you’ll bring up RFRA. It’s irrelevant as the U.S. Supreme Court has already held it only applies to federal law.
For the record, I have mixed feelings about this. But I read some of the sheer absurdity you posted on the last thread about this, but didn’t really have the time then to get into posting on the thread, and I had to jump in on this one.
Oh, and you’re going to make a laughing stock of yourself if you try and debate this with me using a few things you picked up here and there from google searches. I can assure you you’re way out of your league.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 12-05-2017 at 09:52 PM..
Well that works both ways but I do agree that thes cases are a waste of money and Court time, there are many more serious issues.
This is not a major case like gerrymandering.
Actually it is a major case because it decides whether this is discrimination, thus prohibited, or within one's right to (presumably) free speech, possibly other constitutional rights, thus allowed. This case affects everyone's rights either way.
The CRA is a federal law, not a state law. Is that clear? There are no legal federal protections for LGBTs.
Not for lack of trying... Several attempts have been made to legally enact LGBT as a protected class under the federal CRA. None have prevailed.
And the Employment div case was a STATE law. Is that clear? The Supreme court ruled that the 1st amendment did not trump generally applicable law in that case.
All is not as you wish it to be.
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.
