Couple fined for declining same-sex wedding on their farm

[bhsmte]

I was born and raised in America where the free exercise of religion is guaranteed as the law of the land

With limits.

 

[David Brider]

Religious preferences are protected nationwide

Businesses do not have religious preferences.

 

[MachZer0]

Correct.

Now, all you have to do, is provide that detailed legal argument, that the state law is unconstitutional.

Still waiting.

That's actually a no brainer. What needs to be done is to demonstrate the state's compelling interest in forcing persons to violate their religious beliefs

 

[NightHawkeye]

That's actually a no brainer. What needs to be done is to demonstrate the state's compelling interest in forcing persons to violate their religious beliefs

Indeed!

That is the standard of proof.

 

[bhsmte]

That's actually a no brainer. What needs to be done is to demonstrate the state's compelling interest in forcing persons to violate their religious beliefs

No brainer? Should be easy then for a legal challenge in court then.

Of course, what wouldn't go over well is if the plaintiff takes this course:

Judge, we are not going to provide a detailed legal argument as to why the law is unconstitutional. Instead, we insist the state must provide a detailed legal argument as to why the law is constitutional.

Would love to see the look on the judges face.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Indeed!

That is the standard of proof.

Are you actually arguing that the state has no interest in enforcing its own laws?

 

[NightHawkeye]

Are you actually arguing that the state has no interest in enforcing its own laws?

Noting that states have many laws which they choose not to enforce.

 

[bhsmte]

Noting that states have many laws which they choose not to enforce.

Irrelevant.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Noting that states have many laws which they choose not to enforce.

So how is it not in their interest to choose to enforce one?

 

[NightHawkeye]

So how is it not in their interest to choose to enforce one?

A law in violation of the constitution would be a good example.

 

[bhsmte]

A law in violation of the constitution would be a good example.

That would require a pleading be filed by the plaintiff challenging the constitutional legality of a law and the court ruling for the plaintiff.

 

[NightHawkeye]

That would require a pleading be filed by the plaintiff challenging the constitutional legality of a law and the court ruling for the plaintiff.

No. Police throughout the nation simply refuse to enforce any number of stupid and/or outdated laws.

 

[bhsmte]

No. Police throughout the nation simply refuse to enforce any number of stupid and/or outdated laws.

Correct.

I was referring to declaring a law unconstitutional, which some on this thread are claiming.

There is a legal process for determining a law is unconstitutional and contrary to what some may think, the pleading will require a detailed legal argument as to why the law is unconstitutional.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Correct.

I was referring to declaring a law unconstitutional, which some on this thread are claiming.

There is a legal process for determining a law is unconstitutional and contrary to what some may think, the pleading will require a detailed legal argument as to why the law is unconstitutional.

Often, there is no need to go to such lengths. The mere possibility of court action is sufficient to curtail enforcement of dubious statutes.

That happened recently in Idaho, for example, in a curiously similar case when the couple which was threatened with exorbitant fees and incarceration filed legal proceedings. Immediately, the municipality backed down.

 

[bhsmte]

Often, there is no need to go to such lengths. The mere possibility of court action is sufficient to curtail enforcement of dubious statutes.

That happened recently in Idaho, for example, in a curiously similar case when the couple which was threatened with exorbitant fees and incarceration filed legal proceedings. Immediately, the municipality backed down.

Why hold back court action, if some claim a law is unconstitutional? Wouldn't those claiming their constitutional rights are being violated, want to make every legal effort to correct the same?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Get the picture?

I've seen the signs before like the ones you posted, but that still begs the question of whether or not the government has the right to step in and make a private business open their doors to everyone, or allow that business to decide whom they want to give & refuse service to.

If it's a case of a public amenity, then everyone pays taxes, everyone should be allowed to use them... but if a person scrapes and saves and starts their own business with their own resources and doesn't take a dime of government money to operate that business, should the government have the right to tell them who they have to serve?

Really, the only person it's going to hurt is the store owner in the long run.

If a guy opens a hat store and sticks a sign up in the window that says "whites only", then a guy across the street opens up his own store and says "all are welcome", the guy who welcomes everyone is going to do better business and eventually run the racist out of business, correct?

I don't know about you, but if I were shopping for hats, I certainly wouldn't be walking into a store with the hate speech in the window, I'd be going to the other store across the street.

People are so quick to run to government to try to solve the ills of society...in this case, here in 2014, the free market can take care of these problems for us without government intervention.

 

[bhsmte]

I've seen the signs before like the ones you posted, but that still begs the question of whether or not the government has the right to step in and make a private business open their doors to everyone, or allow that business to decide whom they want to give & refuse service to.

If it's a case of a public amenity, then everyone pays taxes, everyone should be allowed to use them... but if a person scrapes and saves and starts their own business with their own resources and doesn't take a dime of government money to operate that business, should the government have the right to tell them who they have to serve?

Really, the only person it's going to hurt is the store owner in the long run.

If a guy opens a hat store and sticks a sign up in the window that says "whites only", then a guy across the street opens up his own store and says "all are welcome", the guy who welcomes everyone is going to do better business and eventually run the racist out of business, correct?

I don't know about you, but if I were shopping for hats, I certainly wouldn't be walking into a store with the hate speech in the window, I'd be going to the other store across the street.

People are so quick to run to government to try to solve the ills of society...in this case, here in 2014, the free market can take care of these problems for us without government intervention.

Is it your position then, that state laws that include protecting a class in regards to public accommodating businesses are unconstitutional?

 

[NightHawkeye]

Why hold back court action, if some claim a law is unconstitutional? Wouldn't those claiming their constitutional rights are being violated, want to make every legal effort to correct the same?

The court frowns on frivolous cases when no enforcement actions are being pursued.

 

[bhsmte]

The court frowns on frivolous cases when no enforcement actions are being pursued.

I agree the court frowns on frivolous cases, but if there was a legit claim and legal argument that a state law was unconstitutional, that would be far from frivolous.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

What does an Op Ed piece written by a gay guy have to do with anything?

Why is the homosexuality of the writer relevant when the knowledge he provided about the implications of the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS ruling on gay rights was sound? I had no idea he was gay, and if I had known that wouldn't have made any difference because the pertinent details of what we wrote is fact-based rather than driven by emotion or bias. It was extremely late and instead of explaining some of your misconceptions about the ruling and its implications in detail I provided a link for an article that gave insight.

You seem to believe that the owners of public accommodation businesses have the right to discriminate as they please, and that the SCOTUS HL ruling will reenforce that "right." Conceivably, but unlikely. In the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited private businesses like restaurants and hotels from discriminating against black people, numerous business owners challenged the new law as an infringement on their property rights and challenged the government’s ability to regulate how they run their businesses. They all lost. That included a man who ran a barbecue joint in Alabama who filed a lawsuit against the Civil Rights Act arguing that the law was unconstitutional as it applied to privately owned small businesses like his because his belief in segregation was a sincere religious conviction. He believed that the Bible called for it. SCOTUS held that the federal government had the power under the Commerce Clause to enforce integration in public accommodations, so he was a loser, too. The marrow of his suit wasn't about religious freedom, though, but the power of the federal government to make decisions for local businesses. Time will play out the HL ruling and its ramifications, but it's unlikely it will lead to wedding vendors who cite religious reasons for discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation in states where doing so is prohibited being legally permitted to do so. RFRA does not apply to the 22 state and 140 local anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBT as it did with Hobby Lobby.