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

[Hammster]

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.....

must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency):

So I was right the first time.

-Hammster has a dictionary.

 

[Desk trauma]

Is that a trolley or a trolling?

No.

 

[A2SG]

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

I guess this is the part that confuses me about the ruling. The way I see it, performing a service for someone else doesn't reflect your own speech, nor is it generally interpreted as doing so. For example, I know a man who is Jewish and owns a print shop. He has been approached a few times from neo-nazi and even blatantly anti-semitic organizations asking him to print stuff for them. I don't know if they're itching for a fight, or trying to stir up controversy or even setting up a lawsuit....but the printer simply prints the material and says no more about it. According to him, his job is putting ink on paper, and his agreement isn't required for him to do his job.

His way of looking at it, he's more than happy to perform the work he set out to do, and take the money of anyone who asks him for the service to support his family. He sometimes may charge more to some groups due to rampant misspellings and other grammatical corrections he'd have to make, and he often makes generous donations to the ACLU and various Jewish anti-defamation groups, so he's grateful for the additional revenue that allows him to do that.

So, I guess I don't really see performing a service for someone else as an expression of your own free speech. My plumber's personal political views (whatever they may be) have nothing to do with his fixing my broken toilet, frankly.

But hey, the ruling is the ruling, and that's how things are. I guess another thing that confuses me is how some people can applaud and even celebrate being able to limit who they perform services for based on their personal disagreement with that customer's views or lifestyle, but at the same time, are unwilling to be up front about it.

Go figure.

-- A2SG, guess I'm confused by a lot of stuff here.....

 

[A2SG]

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.

The government actions I referred to are anti-discrimination laws.

Are they all now unconstitutional? Or do we need a further ruling on that?

-- A2SG, they door is open, gotta see what comes through.....

 

[A2SG]

must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency):

So I was right the first time.

-Hammster has a dictionary.

You're free to assume whatever you want, but I can only respond to what I specifically wrote....not what you assume it meant.

-- A2SG, congratulations on purchasing a dictionary....I have a couple myself.....

 

[Hammster]

You're free to assume whatever you want, but I can only respond to what I specifically wrote....not what you assume it meant.

-- A2SG, congratulations on purchasing a dictionary....I have a couple myself.....

I corrected myself. Then you mocked the response. So I am correcting myself again. If you aren’t clear, it’s irrelevant what you mean.

 

[A2SG]

I corrected myself. Then you mocked the response. So I am correcting myself again. If you aren’t clear, it’s irrelevant what you mean.

I wasn't trying to mock you. I merely wished to point out that I choose my words specifically, and generally prefer to respond based on what I said, not any assumptions about what others think I meant.

Like, for example, that my comments were intended to mock you.

-- A2SG, it seems to happen here every now and then. Just trying to stem the tide....

 

[JSRG]

The government actions I referred to are anti-discrimination laws.

The Equal Protection Clause is a requirement that the government not deny people equal protection of its laws, not a license to force non-governmental actors to comply with it; essentially, it's a restriction on government behavior, not an increase of the government's ability to pass laws. It's why when they passed the Civil Rights Act of 1962 to require places like restaurants, hotels, and movie theaters to not turn away customers on the sole basis of their race, they appealed to the Commerce Clause (allowing congress to regulate trade among the states) instead. So, for example, a restaurant was exempt if it refused to serve customers from out of state and used no ingredients that were from out of state. Though, admittedly, that was more due to factors that affect federal law, not state law. Regardless, the Equal Protection Clause is a restriction on the power of government to say what it cannot do, not an additional power that lets it pass laws preventing discrimination in the private sector (for any such laws, the government would have to rely on a different power it has).

Are they all now unconstitutional? Or do we need a further ruling on that?

-- A2SG, they door is open, gotta see what comes through.....

This question of whether certain laws are unconstitutional or not is a bit besides the main point I was trying to make regarding the Equal Protection Clause, but whether a particular law is unconstitutional or not would depend considerably on the law being discussed.

 

[Truth7t7]

The way I see it, performing a service for someone else doesn't reflect your own speech, nor is it generally interpreted as doing so.

It's apparent that 6 members of the US Supreme Court see it different

Do you hold a degree in constitutional law?

 

[A2SG]

It's apparent that 6 members of the US Supreme Court see it different

So it would seem.

Although....just out of curiosity....if you're a plumber, do you consider fixing someone's toilet a reflection of your personal views on your customer's lifestyle or their personal preferences?

Do you hold a degree in constitutional law?

Nope. Could be why I find the ruling confusing.

On the other hand, three justices disagreed with it, so perhaps I'm not the only one who disagrees with the logic behind it. Oh well, maybe this will be overturned in the future...seems to be the way SCOTUS is going these days, revisiting old rulings and revising them as the temper of the court changes.

-- A2SG, so much for stare decisis.....

 

[KCfromNC]

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

That's nice, but that's not a case of discriminating against someone because their membership in a protected class.

Wait for the "we can't endorse a conservative Christian message by artistically preparing food for them in our restaurant" or "our hotel rooms are artistically decorated, we can't endorse conservative Christian views by letting them sleep there" backlash, that'll make things more interesting.

 

[Hammster]

That's nice, but that's not a case of discriminating against someone because their membership in a protected class.

Wait for the "we can't endorse a conservative Christian message by artistically preparing food for them in our restaurant" or "our hotel rooms are artistically decorated, we can't endorse conservative Christian views by letting them sleep there" backlash, that'll make things more interesting.

Just because there is backlash doesn’t change anything. Private businesses should have the right to run things as they see fit.

 

[Truth7t7]

On the other hand, three justices disagreed with it, so perhaps I'm not the only one who disagrees with the logic behind it.

The three justices that opposed the ruling are known liberals (Fact) and it appears you're like minded with these liberals

Has it ever crossed your mind that you're a liberal, and you desire to see liberal outcomes in a pre-determined bias?

 

[KCfromNC]

Just because there is backlash doesn’t change anything. Private businesses should have the right to run things as they see fit.

Yep, it'll be instructive how popular conservative culture war issues actually are among the general US population.

 

[Truth7t7]

Yep, it'll be instructive how popular conservative culture war issues actually are among the general US population.

More like conservatives shutting down the liberal agenda, as leftist tears stream down their cheeks, as they watch their evil work that took decades to build disappear before their eyes

I thank God for a conservative US Supreme Court!

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[comana]

More like conservatives shutting down the liberal agenda, as leftist tears stream down their cheeks, as they watch their evil work that took decades to build disappear before their eyes

I thank God for a conservative US Supreme Court!

Jesus Is The Lord

The pendulum swings but it swings both ways.

 

[Truth7t7]

The pendulum swings but it swings both ways.

Will let it swing on the right for the next four decades, it's about time!

Ruth Ginsburg's death was perfectly timed to nominate and appoint another conservative in Justice Barrett, just Think in President Trumps 4 years he appointed 3 conservative justices, bringing the court to a 6/3 super majority

Thank you Jesus!

 

[comana]

Will let it swing on the right for the next four decades, it's about time!

Ruth Ginsburg's death was perfectly timed to nominate and appoint another conservative in Justice Barrett, just Think in President Trumps 4 years he appointed 3 conservative justices, bringing the court to a 6/3 super majority

Thank you Jesus!

Thanks to Congressional manipulation and obstruction of voting for nominees.

 

[Truth7t7]

J

Thanks to Congressional manipulation and obstruction of voting for nominees.

Smiles, shoes on the other foot now!

"End result" a 6/3 conservative super majority for decades, love it!

Next up (Obergefell V. Hodges) same sex marriage reversed, can't wait!

Thank You Jesus!

 

[Desk trauma]

J

Smiles, shoes on the other foot now!

"End result" a 6/3 conservative super majority for decades, love it!

Next up (Obergefell V. Hodges) same sex marriage reversed, can't wait!

Thank You Jesus!

Again, how’s that going to work with the respect for marriage act?