This is unconstitutional

Dreamsglore wrote:Discrimination is unconstitutional,dork.

2seaoat wrote:You need to understand that what you think is unconstitutional and what actually is unconstitutional are two different things.   Using your logic a person could refuse to serve a black person a meal because their religious beliefs is based on the bible which recognizes slaves, and this person believes that all black people should be slaves.   The interstate commerce clause gives the government a nexus with the 14th amendment.  Now in this case a state law which protects the class of people from discrimination is not going to be defeated because of that person's religious belief while participating in interstate commerce, or intrastate commerce.  You need to have a bit more tolerance, and certainly should not encourage discrimination.

2seaoat wrote:Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Constitution Mr. Markle......its called the 14th amendment, and it does not matter what I say, the Supreme Court has extended equal protection to sexual orientation........so Dreams was right......and sadly you were wrong......I thought you knew your basics.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:The baker does have the right to follow religious edicts even in the workplace.

2seaoat wrote:Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Constitution Mr. Markle......its called the 14th amendment, and it does not matter what I say, the Supreme Court has extended equal protection to sexual orientation........so Dreams was right......and sadly you were wrong......I thought you knew your basics.

Dreamsglore wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:The baker does have the right to follow religious edicts even in the workplace.

Wrong dumbass. Didn't you learn anything w/ the school prayer issue? How dense can you be?

2seaoat wrote:Private business establishments are not public places.


Please define private business establishment.....I doubt you even have a clue.


Sorry Pace once the bakers open their door to the public and sought business they provided a nexus with the 14th amendment and the interstate commerce clause.

Now if you had a private club with private membership, and as a christian you did not want to let a gay person into your private club.....you are going to be able to legally discriminate.   However, if your dining area publishes seeking weddings from the public.....even though your are a private club, you may be under the jurisdiction of the interstate commerce clause, and the discrimination may be determined to be unlawful.

Using ones religious belief as a get out of jail card for an armed robbery or refusal to serve someone in a public business does not work......but nice try.

Markle wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:The baker does have the right to follow religious edicts even in the workplace.

Wrong dumbass. Didn't you learn anything w/ the school prayer issue? How dense can you be?

Playing with a short deck once again.  You are typically confused and are confusing a private business with a government school.

2seaoat wrote:Oh good! Since I don't actively advertise I can discriminate.

So what you're saying is that a Muslim or Jewish restaurant advertises catering for weddings and I want pulled pork as the main dish I can sue if they refuse.

I hope you are simply feigning ignorance, because I thought you were smarter than this........a restaurant open to the public must follow all the laws protected by the 14th amendment with the nexus being the interstate commerce clause.   A private club like a country club, does not have to admit anybody they do not want to admit or serve.....it is for members only.  However, if that private club allows public weddings to balance their budget, there is a transmutation of their status from private to public.

These are elementary concepts that a ninth grade civics student understands....at least one who paid attention.

Markle wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Oh good! Since I don't actively advertise I can discriminate.

So what you're saying is that a Muslim or Jewish restaurant advertises catering for weddings and I want pulled pork as the main dish I can sue if they refuse.

I hope you are simply feigning ignorance, because I thought you were smarter than this........a restaurant open to the public must follow all the laws protected by the 14th amendment with the nexus being the interstate commerce clause.   A private club like a country club, does not have to admit anybody they do not want to admit or serve.....it is for members only.  However, if that private club allows public weddings to balance their budget, there is a transmutation of their status from private to public.


http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/26/politics/scotus-same-sex-doma/index.html

You really do not understand what Kennedy did in the majority opinion.....why am I not surprised. You would have to understand the constitution and the equal protection clause.......it is not easily cut and pasted.....it requires threshold knowledge and basic reasoning......apparently you need to stay in other areas where cutting and pasting inaccurate statistics will go unchallenged.....here....you do not even understand the basic concepts.

These are elementary concepts that a ninth grade civics student understands....at least one who paid attention.

You seem to have missed this somehow....  I am shocked...SHOCKED I SAY!

As you well know, the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with discrimination.  But, as usual cute try.  IF it did, it would apply to BOTH SIDES EQUALLY.

PLEASE, PLEASE cite for us the Supreme Court decision which made law from the bench and included sexual orientation as a protected class to the current seven Federal protected classes.  My guess is you can't even name them without trying to find them someplace on Bing or Google.