Supreme Court rules businesses can refuse service to LGBTQ+ customers

Uncensored2008 said:
So, no you are not close enough to sentient to grasp any of this.

The ruling does not end or restrict public accommodation laws. Restaurants, food stores, gas stations, motels, etc. still must serve all customers. The court ruled on artistic representations and custom creations that offend the religious views of the artist.

Again, you are a mindless drone who cannot process concepts. This is for lurkers and those who have functional brains.
Click to expand...

In a way, it does.

A business does NOT have to accept any customer BECAUSE of their religion or be forced to provide any accommodation that is against their religion.

Public accommodation laws themselves HAVE been unconstitutional.

In other words, you don't have to bake a cake for a 'gay wedding' if you don't want to, nor do you have to create a website, or provide any special accommodation because people are shoving their sexual perversions in your face.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Well, this sort of business could have still taken care of this problem even if the Supreme Court ruled the other way. All they would have to do is contractually require the customer to display with the product a disclaimer stating that the business that produced it does not endorse and whatever the message the product conveys, such that that disclaimer is visible to those viewing the product in its intended use setting.

Thus, the whole exercise that the sexabet soup letter community is trying to pull is defeated in its entirety. They go into say a bakery that doesn't accept gay whatever and want a gay wedding cake. The bakery makes it, and then at the wedding there's a sign next to the cake that it doesn't reflect the bakery's views. The gay couple got their cake, the bakery made it clear to those viewing the cake that it doesn't represent their values necessarily, and the whole exercise was one of futility.
Click to expand...

That would violate the unconstitutional law that Colorado passed.
But...then...so what?
 
Flash said:
Not true. Read about the incorporation process that applied individual rights in the Bill of Rights over a period of years (1925-2010 so far). The court applied the rights on a selective basis on whether that right is "fundamental to liberty and justice."

For example, the federal government must use a grand jury because it is in the 5th amendment. But that right has never been applied to the states and only about half the states use grand juries.
Click to expand...

WRONG. The Supreme Court has NO AUTHORITY to change or modify the Constitution in any way.
The 5th amendment DOES apply to the States and has always done so.
 
Into the Night said:
WRONG. The Supreme Court has NO AUTHORITY to change or modify the Constitution in any way.
The 5th amendment DOES apply to the States and has always done so.
Click to expand...

blablabla

meanwhile in the land we call reality you will find exactly zero evidence of a State Government being constrained by the 5th prior to incorporation.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
I don't agree. Issues such as jury trial in civil cases is purely because the court has not heard a case pertaining to the issue.
Click to expand...
WRONG. Civil cases do NOT necessarily require a jury at all.
Uncensored2008 said:
Split decisions typically have more to do with ideological divisions than with issues of actual law.
Click to expand...
The Constitution is not subject to a vote of the Supreme Court nor of any court. See Article III.
Uncensored2008 said:
The third amendment is unlikely to be an issue in a state as all troops, including National Guard, are federal troops.
Click to expand...
WRONG. There is such a thing as a State militia. That is military.
Uncensored2008 said:
A state with an independent militia that attempted to house said militia in private homes would certainly run afoul of the third, but there would be far greater issues as to why a state would raise an army independent of the federal government to begin with.
Click to expand...
Yes. It will run afoul of the 3rd amendment, which DOES apply to the States and always has. As for why a State would organize a militia, see Article I, $10.
Several States have militias. Washington's State militia currently consists of 75 people, all administrative personnel at the moment. The State militia could be organized as fighting troops very quickly this way, should the need arise.

State military is not federal military.
The National Guard is a federal militia. It is NOT organized or controlled by any State.

Note: The right of self defense is inherent. That right applies to an individual as well as whole groups of people, such as a State. This right is also discussed in the 2nd amendment (which does apply to States as well as the federal government, and always has).
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Is there a ruling from the high court on the subject of grand juries?

In fact this is timely as the Court denied a writ of certiorari in February on this question. The 9th Circuit ruled that Idaho does not need to employ a grand jury, and it was appealed to the SCOTUS, but the court declined to hear the case.

The thing about our justice system, is that before the court can make a judgement on constitutional issues, a case must be presented to the courts.

My best Google skills show that no cases has been heard on the use of grand juries by the high court.
Click to expand...

No court has the authority to change any constitution.
 
zymurgy said:
blablabla

meanwhile in the land we call reality you will find exactly zero evidence of a State Government being constrained by the 5th prior to incorporation.
Click to expand...

Buzzword fallacy. The Constitution is what it is. You don't get to call it 'unreal'. There is no 'incorporation'. No court has authority to change any constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top