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.
No, let's use the correct terminology. He's a bigot.
I kind of get the OP's point of wanting to see who the bigots are so he doesn't give them his money. The question is, what happens, OP, when the only place around that sells goods or provides services you need refuse you service? Will you be so compliant then?
This is a path you do not want us going down again.
Most states don't have anti-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation. Have you heard about problems gay people have in those states re buying wrenches, cakes, flowers, aspirin, condoms, clothes, food, medical care, etc..
I'm sure there might be inconvenience now and then if the location is jam-packed with anti-gay business owners, but I haven't heard of this as a big social problem.
Most states don't have anti-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation. Have you heard about problems gay people have in those states re buying wrenches, cakes, flowers, aspirin, condoms, clothes, food, medical care, etc..
I'm sure there might be inconvenience now and then if the location is jam-packed with anti-gay business owners, but I haven't heard of this as a big social problem.
So what's the threshold to determine if it's a problem? We're cool if 10% of the population has a right to discriminate but as soon as someone tries to discriminate against you we've reached the limit?
The Colorado baker court case came into play because the State of Colorado laws consider gay as a protected class. However, gay is not a protected class at the federal level and I doubt that Tennessee has a specific law that considers LGBT a protected class.
From a legal standpoint, this means, in TN, that gays can legally be discriminated against for being gay because they are not a protected class. This means the sign is legal.
Without getting into the value judgments on this, you are correct. I explained this very clearly in the other thread...
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Stop thinking about it emotionally, and think at a logical and hierarchical level. There actually is an authority rank when it comes to this country's Constitutional Rights and laws.
US Constitution
Federal Law
State Law
Local Law
Therefore, SCOTUS never had to go beyond the First Amendment. CO's laws are subordinate to Constitutional Rights. 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.
Earlier, I quoted Kennedy from the rulings in 2 different cases, 25 years apart. He's remarkably consistent, and correct.
1993:
"...religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection."
"[The Hialeah ordinances, he wrote,] "were enacted by officials who did not understand, failed to perceive, or chose to ignore the fact that their official actions violated the nation’s essential commitment to religious freedom.”
2018:
"The government, consistent with the Constitution's guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices"
The past 3 rulings on the First Amendment regarding Free Exercise have all ruled FOR First Amendment Rights over local, state, and federal laws:
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah (1993)
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014)
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado CRC (2018)
It's no different whatsoever. The OP is being disingenuous if he is pretending otherwise. As a gay man, he should know better.
But Jim Crow is exactly what the right is fighting to bring back. I hope you enjoy it, OP, when you are faced with signs outside of numerous businesses saying you are not welcomed there. Just remember that you asked for that.
The country continues to devolve in the age of Trump.
Yeah, he should know better than to have independent thoughts and opinions outside the lefts collective.
Shame on you OP. You must conform or you will be punished for individual thoughts and expressions.
Don't answer the next knock at your door it might be the reeducation camp director.
I'm not gay but I do share your opinion.
I don't want to do business with people who won't appreciate by patronage.
To be fair, the thought of inviting my baker to my wedding let alone asking them to participate in the ceremony never crossed my mind. And I'm straight.
That seems odd to me. Our Religious Officiant, Caterer, Baker, etc., along with their "plus 1" as they wished were all invited to our wedding, as they all played a HUGE part in pulling off what was a truly wonderful event.
That seems odd to me. Our Religious Officiant, Caterer, Baker, etc., along with their "plus 1" as they wished were all invited to our wedding, as they all played a HUGE part in pulling off what was a truly wonderful event.
Could you have a wedding without an officiate? You didn't have to have food but if you did a caterer makes sense. Invite the baker if you please, it's very generous of you, we had a small wedding.
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.