He doesn't need to, he only needs to not post to you.
Supreme Court rules businesses can refuse service to LGBTQ+ customers
- Thread starter volsrock
- Start date
He doesn't need to, he only needs to not post to you.
How would anyone know who is gay and who isn't?
And of course, that ISN'T what the SCOTUS ruled.
If you came into a McDonalds, I'd have no idea that you suck cocks. But if you demand I make a website with an animated gif of you sucking a cock, that is an affirmative act and violation of the creator of the website's freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
Are you close enough to sentient to grasp the distinction?
Can you tell the difference between talk and listen?
Do you think God knows the difference?
Why would anyone that comes into the McDonalds that you work at expect you to be able to make a website? Do your customers normally ask you to do that or do they just ask for the fries you forgot to include in their order?
This is not correct.
The 14th extends all rights to citizens of the United States - across all 50 states. (or 57 in Obama's case.) Colorado is absolutely bound by the 1st, as is California, which seeks to end all civil rights.
No one wants details of your sexual proclivities, Damsel.
prepare for the half wit to reply with his normal idiocy about some made up fallacies
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.
The 14th never extended all constitutional rights to the states. Most of them now apply to the states, but some still do not. The 2nd was only made applicable in 2010. Some that do not apply include the 3rd Amendment, grand jury indictment, jury trial in civil cases.
False.
The 14th CLEARLY conveys the protections of the Bill of Rights to all citizens.
Start with the restraint clause,
[FONT="]“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”[/FONT]
Then add the equal protection clause.
[FONT="]“nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”
All 50 states are bound by the Bill of Rights.[/FONT]
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
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.
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.
Flash is right.
Most 5-4 decisions are because the brightest legal minds can't actually agree in how to incorporate the bill of rights
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.
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. Split decisions typically have more to do with ideological divisions than with issues of actual law.
The third amendment is unlikely to be an issue in a state as all troops, including National Guard, are federal troops. 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.
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.
Into the Night
Verified User
The 14th amendment does not modify or repeal the 1st amendment. No State is bound by the 1st amendment. That amendment only applies to the federal government.
1st Amendment said:
14 Amendment said:
Nothing in the 14th amendment extends or modifies the 1st amendment in any way.
What is being violated is the Constitution of the State of Colorado:
Article II said:
Article II said:
Article II said:
There are currently only 48 States left in the Union, considering that California has now become a dictatorship, and New York has become an oligarchy. Neither of these two States recognize the Constitution of the United States nor their own State constitutions.
Into the Night
Verified User
WRONG. The 2nd amendment has always applied to the States. So has the 3rd amendment.
They don't ask for fries when you forget to include them in the order?
Into the Night
Verified User
It does no such thing. The Constitution is not 'protections' nor does it convey or originate any 'right'. That is not the purpose of a constitution.
The purpose of a constitution is to define and declare a government and to give it certain powers and authorities. It has NONE outside what that constitution specifically gives it.
This statement is wrong by several points:
1) There are currently only 48 States in the Union, since California and New York have abandoned a republic as a form of government. California is currently a dictatorship, while New York is currently an oligarchy.
2) The Bill of Rights (the 1st ten amendments of the Constitution of the United States) have always applied to the States EXCEPT the 1st amendment, which applies only to the federal government.
Nothing in the 14th amendment changes, nullifies, or modifies any of these 1st ten amendments.