And you what?
If you’re talking about your ability to say anything you want on this message board, I’m quite confident that the first amendment protects you from government interference with your posting.
Any other interference you’re concerned about probably should be asked about in a different forum.
The Colorado courts have diddly squat to do with the California courts. No Colorado court has any authority in this case.
You’re still not grasping the 1st Amendment argument in this. Freedom of expression, includes the right to “not express” too. Mandating an individual’s artistic expression is Constitutionally suspect.
Either respond to my emails or respond here to my content or respond in ABTMB if it comes to that.
A burn notice quote comes to mind.
Gawd what shitty modding.
In this instance…overall modding around here mostly rocks.
It crosses my mind here that it matters that flag-burners are not, generally speaking, a protected class, or even a quasi-protected class.
It’s fairly standard to see signs or hear the phrase “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” However, after that Jim Crow business, the government got annoyed and said, “You know what? You’re wrong. You have the right to refuse service to anyone UNLESS you’re refusing them because they’re black, or female, or any of these other specific protected classes.”
But aside from those rules, stores can still deny business. So unless the reason for denying them the flag sale can be tied to a protected class, then the store can totally refuse to sell.
…or perhaps merely disagrees?
.
You say it could be argued. Make the argument.
Are you denying the constitutionality of all class protections? Given a sufficiently broad interpretation, cake selling, yelling, stalking, punching, and hanging a person could all be classified as speech.
In fact I’d say that lynching somebody is very clearly speech.
I’d like to know why someone disagreed other than “wedding cake divas think they are artists, pfttttt”
-constitutionality of all class protections
-cake selling
-punching
-hanging a person
---------could all be classified as speech
-lynching somebody is very clearly speech
Was this from 1st semester or 2nd semester ConLaw?
I think they can be artists but they are making a cake to order. They are told the color,shape and flavor by the customer. If they were hired and merely told “make me a fancy cake that celebrates our love” you might have a point. As it stands, you don’t. They are simply skilled craftsman producing a fairly standard product.
And when the Supreme Court decidez on the Colorado case it will effect future California decisions. Could you explain why you disagree with that?
Nice ad hominem. I notice that you didn’t actually make any argument.
By that I take it you understand that the position that “every possible action is speech and all speech overrides other laws” is moronic bullshit, despite your defense of it.
Clearly the laws CAN be made abridging the freedom of speech, when you define is as “whatever the hell I want to call free speech”. Which is the position the judge in question is taking.
There are laws against being a bigot in business. If you can use the first amendment to do an end run around them, then the right thing to do is challenge the anti-discrimination laws directly and have them struck down as unconstitutional. Not whatever idiotic bullshit this judge is trying to pull.
And then of course the next thing to do is go after the laws against murder. Stupid liberals have messed with our lynching parties long enough!
It may or it may not. What if the upcoming ruling addresses the underlying Colorado statutes and whether they are constitutional as applied? Do you think such a ruling would change California law any at all?
It’s a balance. The rights of LGBT individuals in the marketplace vs the rights of an artist to * not express *him/herself due to religious beliefs.
If your arguments ever focus on the issues here, we’ll continue. Otherwise, have a nice day.
As concessions go a pretty graceless one, but I’ll take it. I honestly don’t think anyone here’s going to buy that I’m off-topic here, after all.
Very likely. Regardless, this goofball judge’s decision won’t survive above his county court. I can’t imagine you think many California judges are gonna agree with your silly position.
There was a thread somewhere around here where a lot of people went into some detail why they opposed this ruling. Let me see if I can dig it up for you.
Ah, yeah, here it is. Maybe you can find your answer in there?
For what it’s worth, it’s the baker who’s being silly. The legal issue is less clear-cut.
It’s not a county court. It was the Superior Court of California. Albeit it in the county. The court above the Superior court is the CA Court of Appeal, and above that is the SCOC. It’s not like this was some justice of the peace in Mayberry.
This case is probably dead. Respondent’s attorney is motioning for a dismissal of the underlying case based on the strength of the judges order. This isn’t the case to carry forward the underlying equality fight.
What court is below it? Because I read somewhere that “The superior courts are the lowest level of state courts in California holding general jurisdiction on civil and criminal matters.”
Also, there’s 58 “Superior” courts.