SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[Cow Poke]

Right, no man does have the right to your labor or service, but under the Constitution, the Congress does have the power, and therefore the right, to regulate your labor and service.

Care to attempt to back this up with an actual citation?

(I'm betting not)

[Cow Poke]

Horse hockey - there's NOTHING like that in law. Pull the case if you can back this up.

The boy has a habit of making very broad statements about "the law", none of which he actually backs up with case history or statutory citation. I think he just expects us to step back in awe and accept him at his word.

[Teallaura]

The boy has a habit of making very broad statements about "the law", none of which he actually backs up with case history or statutory citation. I think he just expects us to step back in awe and accept him at his word.

I don't agree - I think he is stating how he believes the law works - and frankly, unless it's clearly in error on a salient point, no one questions it, myself included - nor do we do so with anyone else. Even when it is, we usually trade arguments rather than citations. In that, he's not behaving differently from the rest of us.

Of course, once you (general) cross the line of demanding citation, you are now subject to the same demand (which is why it's a bad strategy unless you really think there's something wrong or you really need to read the case they read to make sense of the argument). I don't mind being asked for the citation - that's perfectly fine. It was the strong implication of lying that ticked me off - and yeah, now he can danged well back up his own assertions with the relevant case law (or try - I've no idea where one of those assertions came from).

[Tassman]

Kennedy stated that the cases were similar enough that finding differently in this case constituted a unequal and unfair handling of the case - then he went on to scold them for their very obvious bias.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/u...T.nav=top-news

[Tassman]

But a private business is not public. That is what the left did, they magically turned a private business into a public accommodation. Which was never the case in the history of his country.

"Public accommodations, in US law, are generally defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments, and service establishments as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities, and service centres." The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title II - Public Accommodation,

Really? Which article is that - can you point me to it?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.

[seer]

"Public accommodations, in US law, are generally defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments, and service establishments as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities, and service centres." The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title II - Public Accommodation,

Right, just as I said - the magically turned a private business into a public accommodation

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with whether the Public Accommodation portion is Constitutional or not - which it isn't. All laws must be applied equally, it does not tell us which laws are Constitutional or not. So again, which Article supports the Public Accommodation nonsense?

[JimL]

Right, just as I said - the magically turned a private business into a public accommodation



The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with whether the Public Accommodation portion is Constitutional or not - which it isn't. All laws must be applied equally, it does not tell us which laws are Constitutional or not. So again, which Article supports the Public Accommodation nonsense?

Like I said seer, the Commerse Clause gives Congress the right to regulate commerce and the fact that issue at hand is Constitutional has been determined by Constitutional scholars. You can call it a bastardization of the clause if you like, but it's been decided long ago by people a lot more knowledgeable than are you with respect to the Constitution.

[JimL]

Care to attempt to back this up with an actual citation?

(I'm betting not)

Already did. Commerce clause. SC decision.

[seer]

Like I said seer, the Commerce Clause gives Congress the right to regulate commerce and the fact that issue at hand is Constitutional has been determined by Constitutional scholars. You can call it a bastardization of the clause if you like, but it's been decided long ago by people a lot more knowledgeable than are you with respect to the Constitution.

The Commerce Clause is about regulating business with foreign nations and between states. Like I said a leftist court once again, made up a completely new and novel application. Their reasoning was that if a man traveled across state lines, that was interstate commerce and could be regulated - that was the basis for public accommodation. That is a total reach and never considered in the past. And by that logic if a business did not accept out of state travelers or customers then they should not fall under the Commerce Clause. Not only was it made up out of whole cloth, it legally can't apply to the example I gave.

[Tassman]

Right, just as I said - the magically turned a private business into a public accommodation

"Public Accommodation" covers ALL areas, public or private, that service the public.

The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with whether the Public Accommodation portion is Constitutional or not - which it isn't. All laws must be applied equally, it does not tell us which laws are Constitutional or not. So again, which Article supports the Public Accommodation nonsense?

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws.

[seer]

"Public Accommodation" covers ALL areas, public or private, that service the public.

Well yes, they made that up. Private businesses were never consider such in the past.

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws.

Did you completely miss what I said? The fact that all laws must be applied equally, it does not tell us which laws are Constitutional or not. Get it?

[Cow Poke]

Already did. Commerce clause. SC decision.

Obviously, you are clueless regarding "actual citation".

[JimL]

The Commerce Clause is about regulating business with foreign nations and between states. Like I said a leftist court once again, made up a completely new and novel application. Their reasoning was that if a man traveled across state lines, that was interstate commerce and could be regulated - that was the basis for public accommodation. That is a total reach and never considered in the past. And by that logic if a business did not accept out of state travelers or customers then they should not fall under the Commerce Clause. Not only was it made up out of whole cloth, it legally can't apply to the example I gave.

Well, you happen to be a strict constructionist, which, being a conservative, isn't surprising. You probably believe that the Commerce Clause should have been amended rather than just interpreted more broadly. Personally I don't give a damn so long as what is in the best interests of the country results, and that is what the more broad interpretation brought about.

[seer]

Well, you happen to be a strict constructionist, which, being a conservative, isn't surprising. You probably believe that the Commerce Clause should have been amended rather than just interpreted more broadly. Personally I don't give a damn so long as what is in the best interests of the country results, and that is what the more broad interpretation brought about.

What you think is in the best interest, I don't. And in this case my point comes from the Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States decision. The only way the Commerce Clause could be used was to call out state travelers interstate commerce, which is silly, and that would mean if a hotel or restaurant did not serve out of state travelers they would be free to discriminate. As far as broad interpretations, you are correct, I don't think the courts get to make up new law, that is what the amendment process is for.

[Terraceth]

The Commerce Clause is about regulating business with foreign nations and between states. Like I said a leftist court once again, made up a completely new and novel application.

So leftist that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Robert, and Kennedy, have never (to my knowledge) shown any indication that Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States was wrongly decided, and if all five of those are "leftists" then everyone who's ever served on the court probably is. I know some have explicitly cited it as precedent.

EDIT: Add Rehnquist to that list.

Their reasoning was that if a man traveled across state lines, that was interstate commerce and could be regulated - that was the basis for public accommodation. That is a total reach and never considered in the past.

In what way? It cites previous cases in the decision, including the 1824 Gibbons v Ogden decision.

And by that logic if a business did not accept out of state travelers or customers then they should not fall under the Commerce Clause.

Well, did any business refuse to accept out of state travelers/customers and try to get out of it that way?