SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[seer]

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.

Are you kidding, I doubt if any one would touch it. And besides Rehnquist, I'm not sure if any such case challenging the ruling came up before the others. Do we really know what they believed?

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

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

I doubt if any one would want to lose the business, but I am not wrong in the logic.

[Terraceth]

Are you kidding, I doubt if any one would touch it. And besides Rehnquist, I'm not sure if any such case challenging the ruling came up before the others. Do we really know what they believed?

Clarence Thomas has never been shy about writing separate opinions declaring his preference for overturning past decisions.

I doubt if any one would want to lose the business, but I am not wrong in the logic.

You mean the logic that a business that didn't deal at all with out-of-state customers could be exempt? I'd actually tend to agree with that, but as your statement goes, doing so would generally be commercially untenable, not to mention irritating to implement. But using the commerce clause against businesses that do deal with out-of-state customers seems quite reasonable.

[seer]

Clarence Thomas has never been shy about writing separate opinions declaring his preference for overturning past decisions.

But did any case concerning this come up before him? Do we know what any of them think?

You mean the logic that a business that didn't deal at all with out-of-state customers could be exempt? I'd actually tend to agree with that, but as your statement goes, doing so would generally be commercially untenable, not to mention irritating to implement. But using the commerce clause against businesses that do deal with out-of-state customers seems quite reasonable.

My main problem is turning private businesses into public accommodations which has opened up a can a worms.

[JimL]

What you think is in the best interest, I don't.

I know, you believe that discrimination in the public square would be in the countries best interests. I think the great majority of people would disagree with you, and so has the Supreme Court.

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.

It is not silly to include out of state consumers as interstate commerce because that is exactly what it is, interstate commerce. And the court is not making new law, the two sides argue their case and your side lost. Had your side won, then it would have been up to Congress to do something if they saw fit, and I think you can bet that we wouldn't be allowing discrimination against people today in either case.

[JimL]

But did any case concerning this come up before him? Do we know what any of them think?



My main problem is turning private businesses into public accommodations which has opened up a can a worms.

Wrong, the so called can of worms was the business discrimination taking place prior to the the court decision.

[seer]

I know, you believe that discrimination in the public square would be in the countries best interests. I think the great majority of people would disagree with you, and so has the Supreme Court.

That is because I see personal freedom as the greater, more important good. As long as you don't physically harm another man's person, or take/harm his property. You like the government controlling more and more of our lives

[JimL]

That is because I see personal freedom as the greater, more important good.

If you were the black person being discriminated against in the early 1900's who were fighting this issue, you'd be making the same argument about your personal freedom trumping that of the many who discriminate against you.

As long as you don't physically harm another man's person, or take/harm his property. You like the government controlling more and more of our lives

You're just being silly. Has the government really made your life so miserable by curbing your freedoms a bit in order that you don't discriminate against others for no good reason other than your own bigotry. I mean you are still free to be a bigot, you are still free to think that your race, your religion or that only what you believe matters. You just can't run your business like a bigot.

[seer]

If you were the black person being discriminated against in the early 1900's who were fighting this issue, you'd be making the same argument about your personal freedom trumping that of the many who discriminate against you.

And I'm not sure what you mean, but it is enough to say I don't believe any man has a right to my labor. Whether forced by law or not.

You're just being silly. Has the government really made your life so miserable by curbing your freedoms a bit in order that you don't discriminate against others for no good reason other than your own bigotry. I mean you are still free to be a bigot, you are still free to think that your race, your religion or that only what you believe matters. You just can't run your business like a bigot.

Like I said you brown shirts like to use the law to force the rest of us into your totalitarian mold.

[JimL]

And I'm not sure what you mean, but it is enough to say I don't believe any man has a right to my labor. Whether forced by law or not.




Like I said you brown shirts like to use the law to force the rest of us into your totalitarian mold.

And yet it is you who supports Trump. The irony is hysterical.

[Tassman]

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

They weren't defined in the past but public accommodations in the US are now defined in the Civil Rights Act as all facilities, both public and private, used by the public including privately owned retail stores.

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?

The fourteenth Amendment defines national citizenship and forbids the states to restrict the basic rights of citizens. Get it?

[Tassman]

That is because I see personal freedom as the greater, more important good. As long as you don't physically harm another man's person, or take/harm his property. You like the government controlling more and more of our lives

[seer]

And yet it is you who supports Trump. The irony is hysterical.

What is Trump trying to force you to do?

[seer]

I never said it would be right or wrong, I would not discriminate against a mixed race couple (there is NO BIBLICAL justification for that). And, again the gay couple's personal freedom has nothing to do with forcing me to bake a cake for them. That is just silly. They have the freedom to find another baker, or like my son did, make their own wedding cake. Remember which side is forcing which side here.

[seer]

They weren't defined in the past but public accommodations in the US are now defined in the Civil Rights Act as all facilities, both public and private, used by the public including privately owned retail stores.

Right, like I said they magically turned private businesses into public accommodations, which as far as I know was never done in case law in the past. It was an invented idea.

The fourteenth Amendment defines national citizenship and forbids the states to restrict the basic rights of citizens. Get it? Get it?

Right, but again, it does not define what those LAWS are or should be. Only that they be applied equally, which I have no problem with.

[Terraceth]

Right, like I said they magically turned private businesses into public accommodations, which as far as I know was never done in case law in the past. It was an invented idea.

The "turning" of private businesses into public accommodations (well, more accurately, "places of public accommodation") is simply that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 happened to choose the term "public accommodation" as the descriptor for what it was affecting. It's far less of a mouthful than "establishments described in Section 201b of Title II of the Civil Rights Act". I'm unclear what the issue is in coming up with a term of convenience for the businesses that are affected by a particular law. It's no more of an invented idea than anytime a law or contract opts to define a term. It might not have even been a new term, I know that various states already had laws in place that did the same thing as Title II of the Civil Rights Act, but I'm not sure if they explicitly used the term "public accommodation".