The supreme court struck down public accomodation laws?
I did not realize that their decision was so far reaching. I, in fact, thought the ruling was narrow in scope.
As I’ve said in this and similar threads, the entire point of this is to give bigots an excuse to discriminate. They don’t care about religion or sincerely held beliefs, except as how they can use those them as a cynical form of cover to justify their hatred.
If I were a religious person, I would be pushing strongly in favor of public accommodation laws winning out over religious preferences, as I wouldn’t want to see others use me and my beliefs as a cover to harm others.
I’m intrigued by all the other speculative commentary about how SCOTUS’ newly-declared concern over hostility to religion will be reflected in their ruling on Trump’s Muslim ban. Obviously they can find a way to finesse or avoid it, of course.
Why would Due Process apply to aliens seeking to enter the US?
Did you see the part about hostility to religion?
Yes. It resulted in the claimant not receiving Due Process. Something aliens applying to the US don’t get. In fact, no alien is an actual claimant against Trump’s travel restrictions, so it’s even more removed than just that.
Nobody has an “individual right” to enter into mercantile exchanges with another private individual who refuses for whatever reason. Any such privilege is derived from statutes which were enacted starting mainly in the 1960s to stop the things you mentioned like sundown towns.
If there was the same pressing issue for same sex couples, that they had to drive hundreds of miles to get a wedding cake, then I might see a need for such laws. Without this showing, however, it seems to be as another poster said just a jab to the eyeball of people who don’t have their heads right about SSM.
If there are laws protecting a right, how can it be that there is no such right? You might want to check up on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which shows you to have been wrong since that date.
So your argument is that there must be a demonstrable material harm already happening - with you specifically being the arbiter of whether that harm has occurred - before a law can be made? We cannot extrapolate from similar situations and laws in advance to prevent such harms before they happen? LGBT people must first suffer (more) before they deserve to have equal treatment? Yes, that makes sense.
Perhaps you’d like to answer these questions I previously posed:
*- Where do you draw the boundary that says “Past this point - but no closer - your rights have been violated”?
- Should we have a government-approved list of essentials that store owners are required to sell to everyone, and anything else is discretionary?*
Because those follow directly from your argument.
Meanwhile, post #1196 demonstrates exactly why this is really fucking important.
I’ll repeat my earlier question, which you are clearly dodging:
Why would Due Process apply to aliens seeking to enter the US? And remind us again which aliens are plaintiffs in this case anyway?
If you have a cite where the SCOTUS said otherwise, I’d be happy to see it and change my position if appropriate. As it is, the two situations are not analogous.
Aliens do indeed have due process rights. See Zadvydas v. Davis or Clark v. Martinez. If aliens did not have due process rights, they could not challenge their unlawful detentions, which is not the case.
“Aliens seeking to enter the US”. Those guys were already in the US. Big difference. Anyone in the US has Due Process rights. An non-resident alien in Country X applying to enter the US? I don’t thinks so. But like I said, I’m open to being proven wrong.
No, dismissing as irrelevant. Do please review the existing rulings on the various versions of Trump’s Muslim ban. No one is here to spoonfeed you.
If in your opinion your free exercise of your religion entails denying someone else the free exercise of theirs, then - in the context of the United States - this means that you have an invalid religion. You might get to choose by which means your beliefs will be compromised, but you don’t get to choose whether they will. You’re the one at fault, not the guy who wants a cake.
If you want a country where your religion is enforced on others, you sure as hell picked the wrong place to live.
Like I said. Dodging the question. But it’s really a hijack of this thread anyway, so feel free to open a thread on that particular subject if you want me to discuss it further.
It’s discouraging enough sometimes that I start to think Lenin had the correct approach to religion. He didn’t, but some days it feels like a better solution than what’s happening.
“Imagine there’s no heaven. It’s easy if you try. No hell below us. Above us only sky”?
Of course there must be demonstrable harm before the government takes any action. In a free society, it is a pretty powerful government instruction to tell Citizen A that he must conduct business with Citizen B, even if Citizen A does not want to do so, whatever the reason.
It would be nice if everyone felt welcome everywhere they go, but a person’s right to be bigoted is also a protected political belief. There has, before this opinion, never been a right to be treated courteously.
Where I, and where I believe legislatures should draw the line, are in situations comparable to what blacks faced in 1964. When you have to drive hundreds of miles to get access to things like restaurants and hotels, basic essentials when traveling, when separate guides have to be published to tell members of the disfavored group where they can get X, Y, Z, then that is certainly a social ill for lawmakers to consider correcting.
But I do not feel that it is a legitimate function of government to force a person to conduct business with another person when the sole purpose of doing so is that the second person’s feelings don’t get hurt. The burden is not justified. Especially when more than twenty states do not have laws protecting gays at all, the evidence shows that in these states there is not a spate of cakeless same sex weddings to the point where there is a real issue.
Further, this cake situation is not like a black person trying to rent a hotel room. This law as applied hits at viewpoint discrimination. If I, as a heterosexual, was going to buy a same sex wedding cake for my two co-workers, he would refuse me service as well. If a homosexual wanted to buy a dozen cookies, he would serve them. So, to say that this is discrimination against gay people is stretching that definition at bit.
You accuse me of arbitrary line drawing, but this law does that on its face. Only these select groups get special treatment; other groups can pound sand.
How is one man refusing to bake a cake for another man enforcing his religion on him? If I don’t bake a same sex wedding cake, I’m not forcing the guy to turn straight am I? Will he attend my church this Sunday against his will? All he has to do is go to my competitor and the problem is solved.
But you’re okay with *some *amount of bigotry, even knowing where it leads. Right.
It’s a bit more than that, isn’t it?
The equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment apply nationwide, whether or not states or smaller jurisdictions have their own identical provisions. You can say it’s wrong, if you like, but you can’t say it’s not reality nonetheless.
Equal protection is not special treatment.