You said that rights are restricted when the law is written, and I argued that rights are not restricted until the courts rule an interpretation on the law. So by you saying laws written are what restricts the right, then every law on the books of every municipality are limiting rights. So this law that restaurants have to give out free water and pickles is actually restricting rights according to your argument. I disagree. Now you say this has nothing to do with the point, yet it perfectly illustrates why you are wrong.
First we have to note that because a law restrictions a right, it doesn't mean it properly does so, or maybe better to say that the restriction is a legitimate restriction.
As an example of a legitimate restriction let's look at property right. I have the basic overall right to do anything I want with my property, and in this case I am talking real estate. Now if there is something that I would do that causes harm to another's property, such as chemicals I use on my lawn could leach onto a neighbor's property, then my right to use those chemicals can legitimately be restricted.
If a right is restricted, but it is not a legitimate restriction, say a law that prevents one from writting science fiction stories, while the law does violate a right, it is still enforceable until either the legislature repeals the law, or the law is challanged by someone to whom the law has been enforced against.
The courts can not rule for or against a law unless and until that law is brought before them. Which means that every law that does restrict a right is enforceable until such a time.
This is why the law that states that a business owner cannot discriminate against, in this specific case, homosexuals, is still enforceable. The law itself did not come up before SCOTUS.
I agree that a private business owner should be allowed to decide whom they will and will not do business with for any reason, no matter how asinine that reason. To do otherwise is a violation of private property rights and freedom of association rights.
The point that you keep moving off of is that the law has to be challanged in court before the court can rule on it. Whether or not said law actually restricts, legitimately or illegitimately, a right is irrelevant as to the conditions by which the courts are allowed to rule on the law.
This baker, for which the thread is focused upon, did not appeal the case upon the premise of the law being an illegitimate restriction of his rights, but on the premise of the commission violating a different set of rights in rendering their judgement. That is why the SCOTUS decision does not affect any discrimination laws.
Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
