- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Mississippi gov. signs law allowing service denial to gays
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:50 pm to UpToPar
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:50 pm to UpToPar
quote:
A private business owner should be able to deny service to whoever they want for whatever reason they want. Mississippi shouldn't have to pass a law to ensure this.
And Katzenbach v. McClung holds that discrimination of this type burdens interstate commerce and is within the purview of the federal government's regulation.
ETA: I should add that this case specifically ruled on the issue of racial discrimination. Though sexual-orientation doesn't fall into the same class as race, it is a quasi-protected class and likely will be on par with gender and race in the next few years.
However, the Katzenbach, the diner owners had no leg to stand on for their discrimination, there is no federally protected right to deny service to people. However, in the case of Mississippi (or Colorado bakeries), the first amendment might give the homophobes a shot at keeping the law in effect--I.e. Their first amendment rights will have to be weighed against the equal protection or privilege and immunities rights of the same sex couples they discriminate against.
This post was edited on 4/5/16 at 4:03 pm
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:54 pm to MoonrakerElite
quote:
MooncricketElite
So you think Aunt Sally's bakery not baking a cake for a BTLG wedding hurts interstate commerce?
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:56 pm to MoonrakerElite
quote:
And Katzenbach v. McClung holds that discrimination of this type burdens interstate commerce and is within the purview of the federal government's regulation.
Discrimination of what type? All I said is a business owner. I didn't specify the business or the relation that business has to interstate commerce.
Not to mention, the civil rights act does not say anything about sexual orientation, so even if a business was related to interstate commerce, there are to my knowledge, no laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:56 pm to MoonrakerElite
quote:
Katzenbach v. McClung
I remembered that to be a Mississippi case but the restaurant was in B'ham. Oh well.
quote:
So you think Aunt Sally's bakery not baking a cake for a BTLG wedding hurts interstate commerce?
Why is it when you limited-gubment conservative types discuss stupid, discriminatory laws like this you all always make it a cake bakery?
This post was edited on 4/5/16 at 3:59 pm
Posted on 4/5/16 at 7:47 pm to MoonrakerElite
quote:
However, the Katzenbach, the diner owners had no leg to stand on for their discrimination, there is no federally protected right to deny service to people.
Does one have a federally protected right to a good or service in commerce? Seems like we discriminate in such a fashion all the time.
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News