US Supreme Court backs business that refused service to same-sex couple

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: tgidkp
It is and it is used by lawyers in these cases.

Yes, like most absurd 'laws' that have zero Const5itutional basis, these 'protected classes' were made up by lawyers, and have been a massively huge cash cow for them.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CoyoteAngels
I guess if they had a doctor's note that said their fear of gay people was a disability that needed to be accommodated under the Disabilities Act, it would fly.

This response is the perfect example of why the entire concept of 'special rights' for 'special people; (protected classes) is absurd on its face.

All laws of this nature should be declared Unconstitutional and abolished once and for all, and we should go back to true freedom.

If a business owner wants to put up a sign and refuse service to people of color - or #e people - they should be free to do so. The free market will sort this # out in short order.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: Sookiechacha
The States can do as they please.

Some, to one extent or another, maybe.... They are all very limited per their own State Constitutions.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CoyoteAngels
A person can refuse service or employment to anyone for any reason, except illegal reasons, like reasons based on race, skin color, religion, disability and sex.

Please show me, in the Constitution, where it delegates such an authority to create such an sbsurdity as a 'protected class' of people. , or anything even remotely like that.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CoyoteAngels
A person can refuse service or employment to anyone for any reason, except illegal reasons, like reasons based on race, skin color, religion, disability and sex.

Please show me, in the Constitution, where it delegates such an authority to create such an sbsurdity as a 'protected class' of people. , or anything even remotely like that.

Oh dear! It seems you don't know what a "protected class" is or why it exists.

First, there's 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection Clause". No, it's not a "Special Rights Clause". Then the government also has the constitutional right to regulate commerce, both nationally and locally., through the Commerce Clause. So, what we are talking about are laws, both national and local, that protect equal access to commerce through public accommodations, from personal and business interests that may seek to limit access to people based on their race, the color of their skin, their religion, a disability or their sex. These are your "protected classes" of individuals.

Right?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: Sookiechacha
Homosexuality is a sin in all Abrahamic religions regardless of who is participating. It will be absurd by your logic to condemn male homosexuality and allow female homosexuality.

Sookie actually posted a citation to support her claims, and in fact I have never seen a biblical passage that can be read as to support your claim, so, by all means, cie the biblical passage that supports it...

I ve already done if you take a look my posts. I know well the position of all three major religions on homosexuality. It doesn't mean I accept them but I don't think this is a secret.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: Sookiechacha
The States can do as they please.

Some, to one extent or another, maybe.... They are all very limited per their own State Constitutions.

As said earlier, sexual orientation isn't a protected characteristic in federal law. But states can do as they please. Some states regard sexual orientation as a protected characteristic/class.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: tgidkp
It is and it is used by lawyers in these cases.

Yes, like most absurd 'laws' that have zero Const5itutional basis, these 'protected classes' were made up by lawyers, and have been a massively huge cash cow for them.

They may have no constitutional basis but the states don't care about this. They have their laws and know most people will not challenge them in the supreme court. It takes effort, time, and money to do so.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CoyoteAngels
A person can refuse service or employment to anyone for any reason, except illegal reasons, like reasons based on race, skin color, religion, disability and sex.

Please show me, in the Constitution, where it delegates such an authority to create such an sbsurdity as a 'protected class' of people. , or anything even remotely like that.

Oh dear! It seems you don't know what a "protected class" is or why it exists.

First, there's 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection Clause". No, it's not a "Special Rights Clause". Then the government also has the constitutional right to regulate commerce, both nationally and locally., through the Commerce Clause. So, what we are talking about are laws, both national and local, that protect equal access to commerce through public accommodations, from personal and business interests that may seek to limit access to people based on their race, the color of their skin, their religion, a disability or their sex. These are your "protected classes" of individuals.

Right?

You are right in a way. There is no "protected class".

The government appears to have developed a "privileged class" though.

These privileged class don't get punished when they violate laws and can obligate people to do and say what they demand they say, regardless of the Constitution.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The government appears to have developed a "privileged class" though.

They certainly did. That would be the powerful rich elite class, who have more rights and privileges, because money is speech, and speech is power. The rich elites are the reason we need a constitution to delineate and protect individual rights in the first place.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

How odd of you to post.

I've never seen you advocate for free speech.

But the 1st Amendment is the first for a reason. We should have the right to say what we want to say.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DBCowboy

The government appears to have developed a "privileged class" though.

They certainly did. That would be the powerful rich elite class, who have more rights and privileges, because money is speech, and speech is power. The rich elites are the reason we need a constitution to delineate and protect individual rights in the first place.

You want a government body, to regulate people... instead of a body of people, regulating the government...

Pass..

a reply to: AlienBorg

Oh, sadly, there will always be control freaks. The Spanish Inquisition ring a bell?

It's the same beast. Control. And they are HELL in their personal lives as well.

We have all known one. There may be many among us here! Doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum a person is on.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DBCowboy

The government appears to have developed a "privileged class" though.

They certainly did. That would be the powerful rich elite class, who have more rights and privileges, because money is speech, and speech is power. The rich elites are the reason we need a constitution to delineate and protect individual rights in the first place.

You want a government body, to regulate people... instead of a body of people, regulating the government...

Pass..

I don't know how you get to that from my post, but whatever.

The PEOPLE are the government. It just depends on which PEOPLE and who they represent.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

The thing with the State of Colorado is these activist groups going around and suing Christian organizations or individuals with the hope of getting a legal precedence. It's well known to everyone and I was surprised the ruling came with a 6-3 majority. It should have been 9-0

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
Oh dear! It seems you don't know what a "protected class" is or why it exists.

First, there's 14th Amendment's "Equal Protection Clause". No, it's not a "Special Rights Clause".

Thank you for stating the obvious, very helpful.

Then the government also has the constitutional right

The federal government doesn't have rights, but it does exercise powers, sometimes in accordance with the Constitution, but often, in direct violation of it.

to regulate commerce, both nationally and locally.

Ummm... no, the federal government certainly does not have the power to regulate local commerce, only 'among the States', aka 'Inter-State commerce'.

But, this power is intentionally distorted so as to purport to give far more power than was ever intended. The word 'regulate' as it was used in the Constitution meant only to 'make regular', meaning, to keep things flowing freely - ie, no State tariffs or other impediments.

So, what we are talking about are laws, both national and local, that protect equal access to commerce through public accommodations, from personal and business interests that may seek to limit access to people based on their race, the color of their skin, their religion, a disability or their sex. These are your "protected classes" of individuals. Right?

Yes... those are the so-called laws that are not laws because they are totally unconstitutional and repugnant to a free society.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: tanstaafl
I ve already done if you take a look my posts.

No, you actually haven't that is why I asked for a citation.

The only citation you posted was the one about a man lying with a man as with a woman. That one does not apply to women.

I know well the position of all three major religions on homosexuality. It doesn't mean I accept them but I don't think this is a secret.

Sookie's comment was about what the Abrahamic texts said about it, not the official positions of some men in robes who enjoy lording it over their 'sheep'.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: tanstaafl
But states can do as they please.

Only within the bounds of their own Constitutions, which, like the federal Constitution, are actually quite limiting in the powers delegated.

For example, none of them have the lawful power to do what they did during the plan/scamdemic.

Some states regard sexual orientation as a protected characteristic/class.

Yes, some States have overstepped their authority. No big surprise, seeing as how 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: tanstaafl
I ve already done if you take a look my posts.

No, you actually haven't that is why I asked for a citation.

The only citation you posted was the one about a man lying with a man as with a woman. That one does not apply to women.

I know well the position of all three major religions on homosexuality. It doesn't mean I accept them but I don't think this is a secret.

Sookie's comment was about what the Abrahamic texts said about it, not the official positions of some men in robes who enjoy lording it over their 'sheep'.

I posted a few not just one. In all of them it talks about men. But again will you conclude male homosexuality is not acceptable in the Abrahamic religions and female homosexuality acceptable? I don't think this is correct.

As per my links it seems homosexuality is condemned. Some of the passages take it to the extreme if you have read them.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: tanstaafl
But states can do as they please.

Only within the bounds of their own Constitutions, which, like the federal Constitution, are actually quite limiting in the powers delegated.

For example, none of them have the lawful power to do what they did during the plan/scamdemic.

Some states regard sexual orientation as a protected characteristic/class.

Yes, some States have overstepped their authority. No big surprise, seeing as how 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

This is what I meant. They do as they please according to their laws no matter if these laws are often fluid or don't even have the constitutional back up.

It's difficult for most to go against the state. When sexual orientation is seen as a protected class/characteristic is up to a small minority to challenge this random law. The majority is useless.