View Single Post
Old 02-13-2018, 03:01 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,228
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post

"All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever." Unruh Civil Rights Act in California

I am pretty sure the baker and the couple suing are both in California and thus subject to California's laws which make homosexuals a protected class in that state.

I am pretty sure that state law can never trump the first amendment.

But you wanted a SCOTUS decision and I am sure it is no surprise to you that they have never explicitly held homosexuals to be a protected class. That said they are tiptoeing mighty close to that:

And of course when you look at the reasoning the SCOTUS uses to determine a protected class you are pretty much forced to conclude that homosexuals meet the requirements since sexuality is an immutable characteristic (which is one reason conservatives cling so zealously to the notion that being gay is a choice when it manifestly is not).
We are pretty close to the day when we might conflate sexual orientation with sex. You sure sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic? There is no fluidity to sexual orientation?