US supreme court strikes blow against LGBTQ+ rights with Colorado ruling

[Hammster]

You don't think equal protection under the law covers that? But, that aside, there are tons of anti-discrimination laws on the books all over the US. Are those now unconstitutional?

I'm not sure this ruling covers all of them.

But...since it is now an established ruling, I agree with the idea that those who wish to discriminate against certain segments of the population should openly advertise it. This way, there's no confusion and no one has to waste anyone's time asking if they're allowed to patronize a business that, ostensibly, is open to the public.

-- A2SG, seems only fair.....

Another in favor of the scarlet letter.

 

[A2SG]

Another in favor of the scarlet letter.

Sorry, but you seem to have misread Hawthorne.

See, Hester Prynne was forced to wear the scarlet letter as a punishment for committing adultery. There is no such punishment imposed on anyone here. A business owner who chooses, of their own free will, to discriminate should display that choice voluntarily. They made the choice, they should have the courage of their convictions and stand by it.

Come what may.

-- A2SG, though...do have to be honest and admit, The House of Seven Gables was a better story.....

 

[Hammster]

Sorry, but you seem to have misread Hawthorne.

See, Hester Prynne was forced to wear the scarlet letter as a punishment for committing adultery. There is no such punishment imposed on anyone here. A business owner who chooses, of their own free will, to discriminate should display that choice voluntarily. They made the choice, they should have the courage of their convictions and stand by it.

Come what may.

-- A2SG, though...do have to be honest and admit, The House of Seven Gables was a better story.....

So when you said “should”, you didn’t mean “must”. If that’s the case, then I retract my statement.

 

[Truth7t7]

You don't think equal protection under the law covers that? But, that aside, there are tons of anti-discrimination laws on the books all over the US. Are those now unconstitutional?

I'm not sure this ruling covers all of them.

But...since it is now an established ruling, I agree with the idea that those who wish to discriminate against certain segments of the population should openly advertise it. This way, there's no confusion and no one has to waste anyone's time asking if they're allowed to patronize a business that, ostensibly, is open to the public.

-- A2SG, seems only fair.....

It's apparent in this ruling that freedom of speech supercedes any law that would protect a person from discrimination based on homosexual orientation

 

[KCfromNC]

Pretend that the established law was slavery, and the Supreme Court overturned it. And now pretend a pro-slavery person said “I guess this is what we end up with when activists judges on a biased court start advertising which established law they're itching to overturn.”

Which rulings from this imagined court included a list of the next set of culture war issues that ideologically compromised court was looking to overturn next? Because that's what we're working with back here in reality.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's apparent in this ruling that freedom of speech supercedes any law that would protect a person from discrimination based on homosexual orientation

Given the whole equal proctection thing, it would apply equally to discrimination based on any sexual orientation.
Now we just get to see if it also applies to things like "being a conservative Christian". I can't wait to see the fun when someone is refused service because of that.

 

[Truth7t7]

Given the whole equal proctection thing, it would apply equally to discrimination based on any sexual orientation.
Now we just get to see if it also applies to things like "being a conservative Christian". I can't wait to see the fun when someone is refused service because of that.

Sarah Huckabbe Sanders a Christian and Trump spokes person was thrown out of a restraunt based on her associations as being a conservative, national headlines

 

[Truth7t7]

Which rulings from this imagined court included a list of the next set of culture war issues that ideologically compromised court was looking to overturn next? Because that's what we're working with back here in reality.

Your correct the overturning has just started, the conservative Supreme court is going to reverse (Obergefell V. Hodges) in (same sex marriage) "Next", can't wait

The evil liberal agenda that took decades to build, is being unraveled like a ball of yarn in a Tornado!

Thank you Jesus!

 

[Desk trauma]

Your correct the overturning has just started, the conservative Supreme court is going to reverse (Obergefell V. Hodges) in (same sex marriage) "Next", can't wait

That ruling going to strike down the federal legislation protecting SSM too?

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's apparent in this ruling that freedom of speech supercedes any law that would protect a person from discrimination based on homosexual orientation

There is nothing special about the protected class of sexual orientation. It's apparent to me that all protected classes are, um, unprotected in these situations involving 'expressive' products. Race, religion, gender... now all fair game for discrimination.

 

[Hank77]

I understand and the case was an important ruling but there’s no need to stir up controversy when it’s not necessary. Like you said no sign required

Maybe you wouldn't be embarrassed and your children wouldn't be hurt if you went into a store and were turned away because of who you are and who they are but most people would be.

I would have a sign to save people as much embarrassment as I could. Sit in the back of the bus and eat somewhere else behavior doesn't sit well with me.

My bakery sign - "I only make wedding cakes for one man/one woman marriages."

 

[BPPLEE]

Maybe you wouldn't be embarrassed and your children wouldn't be hurt if you went into a store and were turned away because of who you are and who they are but most people would be.

I would have a sign to save people as much embarrassment as I could. Sit in the back of the bus and eat somewhere else behavior doesn't sit well with me.

My bakery sign - "I only make wedding cakes for one man/one woman marriages."

Good sign.

 

[Hank77]

What is weird is that this situation never occurred in her business. She just wanted reassurance.

Not exactly the way I understand it. She sued the state of Colorado because of the public accommodation law.
Here are two informative articles from the state of Colorado's view and the 10th Circuit.

Colorado leaders cautious about altering anti-discrimination law following SCOTUS decision

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Christian website designer, along with businesses that create speech, do not have to serve LGBTQ customers if doing so violates their beliefs, policymakers in Colorado are considering whether legal changes and more careful enforcement of the state's...

www.coloradopolitics.com

Colorado's Timothy Tymkovich channeled in 303 Creative decision from SCOTUS

When Justice Neil M. Gorsuch authored the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 opinion opening the door for certain businesses to deny service for reasons related to sexual orientation, he repeatedly referenced the words of his friend and former colleague on the appellate bench, Timothy M. Tymkovich.

www.coloradopolitics.com

 

[Bradskii]

Pretend that the established law was slavery, and the Supreme Court overturned it. And now pretend a pro-slavery person said “I guess this is what we end up with when activists judges on a biased court start advertising which established law they're itching to overturn.”

No, the point was that you said it would be shaming her if she had to advertise what she was doing. And now, apparently, she is doing that voluntarily. Which leaves you kinda hanging...

Either you are right,but then she is shaming herself or she thinks you are wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

Another in favor of the scarlet letter.

Good grief...

The woman disagrees with you! She is going to openly advertise the fact. The woman thinks your argument is bunk. As most of us do.

 

[JSRG]

There’s nothing in that amendment that states businesses must serve everyone equally.

You don't think equal protection under the law covers that? But, that aside, there are tons of anti-discrimination laws on the books all over the US. Are those now unconstitutional?

The Equal Protection Clause most decidedly does not require businesses to serve everyone equally, as it applies specifically to government action. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states "No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This refers specifically to states, not businesses. That is, it refers to government action, not that of private individuals or private businesses. While there is of course debate on how exactly to interpret the phrase "equal protection of the laws", there is essentially no debate on the fact that it applies to government action, not private businesses. The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit discriminatory practices of business in any way. There are some laws that do that, but the Equal Protection Clause does not.

 

[Hammster]

Maybe you wouldn't be embarrassed and your children wouldn't be hurt if you went into a store and were turned away because of who you are and who they are but most people would be.

I would have a sign to save people as much embarrassment as I could. Sit in the back of the bus and eat somewhere else behavior doesn't sit well with me.

My bakery sign - "I only make wedding cakes for one man/one woman marriages."

Good for you. But not everyone needs to do it that way.

 

[Truth7t7]

That ruling going to strike down the federal legislation protecting SSM too?

Is that a trolley or a trolling?

 

[Pommer]

The Equal Protection Clause most decidedly does not require businesses to serve everyone equally, as it applies specifically to government action. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states "No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This refers specifically to states, not businesses. That is, it refers to government action, not that of private individuals or private businesses. While there is of course debate on how exactly to interpret the phrase "equal protection of the laws", there is essentially no debate on the fact that it applies to government action, not private businesses. The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit discriminatory practices of business in any way. There are some laws that do that, but the Equal Protection Clause does not.

Yes, one has an absolute right to offend as many customers as they desire.

 

[A2SG]

So when you said “should”, you didn’t mean “must”. If that’s the case, then I retract my statement.

As a general rule, if I say "should", you'd be safe to assume I meant "should" and not some other word.

-- A2SG, kinda how I roll.....