- 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
4
Posted on 4/5/16 at 3:53 pm to TechDawg2007
quote:
Thoughts?
Take this shite to the poliboard.
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 4:02 pm to TechDawg2007
It is legal. The popular opinion that homosexuality is biological and not a psychological/sociological disorder is still heavily debated. The fact that social acceptance of it should have no bearing on the legality of ptoviding or denying service until someone proves this is a genetic normality. Gay rights are not and should not be synonymous with racial equality.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 4:02 pm to TechDawg2007
Congrats Mississippi, you've out trashed yourselves.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 4:04 pm to GaryMyMan
I summer because it's one of the few business transactions that sexual orientation is brought up.
Not many guys go into a car dealership and ask which car has the best backseat for buttfricking.
Not many guys go into a car dealership and ask which car has the best backseat for buttfricking.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 4:04 pm to shawnlsu
quote:
So you think Aunt Sally's bakery not baking a cake for a BTLG wedding hurts interstate commerce?
Personally? No, but that doesn't mean the government can't regulate. McClung dealt with a lunch counter in Alabama, if I remember correctly.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 4:05 pm to TechDawg2007
It is legal. The popular opinion that homosexuality is biological and not a psychological/sociological disorder is still heavily debated. The fact that social acceptance of it is growing should have no bearing on the legality of providing or denying service until someone proves this is a genetic normality. Gay rights are not and should not be synonymous with racial equality.
This post was edited on 4/5/16 at 4:06 pm
Posted on 4/5/16 at 4:08 pm to UpToPar
quote:
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.
See my edit. The commerce clause gives the government almost unfettered regulatory power if they want it. Very few actions have been held to not affect interstate commerce.
Also, discrimination against anyone is an abridge meant of the Privileges or Immunities clause and equal protection--arguably.
Tl;dr it's not cut and dry, black and white.
This post was edited on 4/5/16 at 4:13 pm
Posted on 4/5/16 at 4:11 pm to MoonrakerElite
quote:
Personally? No, but that doesn't mean the government can't regulate. McClung dealt with a lunch counter in Alabama, if I remember correctly.
The proximity to interstate and the fact that Ollie's BBQ was often patronized by travelers is what lead the court to find that the business was sufficiently related to interstate commerce such that the federal law could be applied.
You understand that this doesn't apply to all businesses, right? Not to mention that the current court would be hesitant to apply the commerce clause so loosely.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 4:14 pm to Gradual_Stroke
quote:
unconstitutional
Have you read the Constitution at all? This country was founded on freedom to do whatever the hell you feel like doing as long as it doesn't hut anyone/break any laws.
A bunch of pussies then came along and started getting offended every time something they didn't agree with happened and started changing stuff. As a heterosexual male, if Splash Gay Bar refuses to serve me, then that is fine. Ill bring my business else where.
This would be a great time to be a gay business owner in Ms.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 4:15 pm to UpToPar
quote:
You understand that this doesn't apply to all businesses, right? Not to mention that the current court would be hesitant to apply the commerce clause so loosely.
The opinion essentially stated hat Ollie's diner had zero effect in interstate commerce. It was the fact that allowing discrimination to happen everywhere effected interstate commerce negatively.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 4:20 pm to TaderSalad
That's the new age definition of social acceptance. Force everyone to adhere to your principles at the expense of your own principles. Sorry, our point of view is a dying one unfortunately.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 4:24 pm to TechDawg2007
Everyone should be allowed to discriminate against anyone, for any reason.
It's the only fair way.
It's the only fair way.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 4:26 pm to MoonrakerElite
quote:
The opinion essentially stated hat Ollie's diner had zero effect in interstate commerce. It was the fact that allowing discrimination to happen everywhere effected interstate commerce negatively.
No, the court said that discrimination in restaurants has a negative impact on interstate commerce.
Again, even if, as you say, discrimination by ANY business can be regulated by the federal government, which federal law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. There may be one out there, but I'm not aware of it. And if there is one out there, doesn't that have to be balanced against the business owner's right to freely exercise his religious beliefs?
Posted on 4/5/16 at 4:27 pm to fr33manator
I think this is correct except the business cannot accept federal or state money and it should be clearly stated. Let the market work out what it will support.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 4:30 pm to bountyhunter
quote:
That's the new age definition of social acceptance. Force everyone to adhere to your principles at the expense of your own principles. Sorry, our point of view is a dying one unfortunately.
Not that I disagree with your view on the strong arm tactics of the acceptance culture today, but.....
This isn't about just gay couples being denied service. The constitution affords EVERYONE the same rights--the equal protection of a states' laws and that a state cannot deny the privileges or immunities of the United States. This is about the state acting and passing a law which potentially abridges the rights of Us citizens.
Are the store owner's rights more important than the same sex couple's? I don't know--but I do know it's not as simple as
quote:
This country was founded on freedom to do whatever the hell you feel like doing as long as it doesn't hut anyone/break any laws.
Posted on 4/5/16 at 4:31 pm to MoonrakerElite
nvm
This post was edited on 4/5/16 at 4:52 pm
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News