Last June, the justices decided that a Catholic foster-services agency receiving city funding was entitled to turn away same-sex couples, despite local laws prohibiting such discrimination. The decision was based, however, on the court’s own reading of Philadelphia’s Fair Practices Ordinance and its contract with Catholic Social Services rather than broad constitutional principles... The Colorado case granted Tuesday, to be argued in the court’s next term and likely decided by June 2023, suggests the justices may be ready to address that issue.Tuesday’s order phrased the question before the court as “whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”
That last bit sort of signals the bar that the State will have to clear.
Color me hopeful, but cautious.
Weirdly, conservatives aren't falling over themselves to try and overturn public accommodation laws that protect race or gender.I hope the SCOTUS rules in favor of the website designer.
In the first place, it is a private business, and no one is entitled to the labor or services of anyone absent an agreed upon contract. If someone does not wish to work for you, how can you compel them without creating an issue of servitude?
There already exists contract law that can punish someone financially for violation of a contract.
There already exists criminal law that can punish someone for fraud, embezzlement, and other financial crimes of contract violation.
But there should be no law that compels someone to work for another, because that is bondage, servitude, slavery.
Meanwhile, why not seek other "open-minded" providers of such services? There are many people who would have no problem doing the job.
So what is the REAL issue here that would compel someone to serve another?
I hope the SCOTUS rules in favor of the website designer.
In the first place, it is a private business, and no one is entitled to the labor or services of anyone absent an agreed upon contract. If someone does not wish to work for you, how can you compel them without creating an issue of servitude?
There already exists contract law that can punish someone financially for violation of a contract.
There already exists criminal law that can punish someone for fraud, embezzlement, and other financial crimes of contract violation.
But there should be no law that compels someone to work for another, because that is bondage, servitude, slavery.
Meanwhile, why not seek other "open-minded" providers of such services? There are many people who would have no problem doing the job.
So what is the REAL issue here that would compel someone to serve another?
The supreme court previously stated the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. So I wouldn't think that a person can be denied goods and services for their sexual orientation anymore than they can for their sex or raceI hope the SCOTUS rules in favor of the website designer.
In the first place, it is a private business, and no one is entitled to the labor or services of anyone absent an agreed upon contract. If someone does not wish to work for you, how can you compel them without creating an issue of servitude?
There already exists contract law that can punish someone financially for violation of a contract.
There already exists criminal law that can punish someone for fraud, embezzlement, and other financial crimes of contract violation.
But there should be no law that compels someone to work for another, because that is bondage, servitude, slavery.
Meanwhile, why not seek other "open-minded" providers of such services? There are many people who would have no problem doing the job.
So what is the REAL issue here that would compel someone to serve another?
This is insanity. A corporation is a legal fiction created to limit liability. It can no more have a religion that it can fall in love. It is an absurdity.
Masterpiece Cakeshop, LTD v Colorado Civil Rights Commission;
303 Creative LLC v Elenis; that "LTD" and "LLC" actually mean something.
As Scalia his Ownself said in Domino's Pizza, Inc. v McDonald: "... it is fundamental corporation and agency law—indeed, it can be said to be the whole purpose of corporation and agency law—that the shareholder and contracting officer of a corporation has no rights and is exposed to no liability under the corporation’s contracts."
Last year the Supreme Court ruled that gay and transgender people cannot be discriminated in the workplace under the civil rights act. The civil rights act also protects against the denial of goods and services based on sex and race. It's a safe bet that also applies here.
This ruling upheld the right of the cakeshop to refuse service on the basis of religious belief. That was ruled on June 4, 2018. Justice Scalia died on February 3, 2016.
That case is the OP's case pending SCOTUS review.
That has to do with contract law and not "free speech."
That is factually NOT what SCOTUS ruled
This ruling upheld the right of the cakeshop to refuse service on the basis of religious belief. That was ruled on June 4, 2018. Justice Scalia died on February 3, 2016.
That case is the OP's case pending SCOTUS review.
That has to do with contract law and not "free speech."
Perhaps you might take some time to review the cases before asserting an understanding of them?
This ruling upheld the right of the cakeshop to refuse service on the basis of religious belief. That was ruled on June 4, 2018. Justice Scalia died on February 3, 2016.
That case is the OP's case pending SCOTUS review.
That has to do with contract law and not "free speech," nor "freedom of religion."
Perhaps you might take some time to review the cases before asserting an understanding of them?
not familiar with this case and the link is pay so my comments might not applyLast June, the justices decided that a Catholic foster-services agency receiving city funding was entitled to turn away same-sex couples, despite local laws prohibiting such discrimination. The decision was based, however, on the court’s own reading of Philadelphia’s Fair Practices Ordinance and its contract with Catholic Social Services rather than broad constitutional principles... The Colorado case granted Tuesday, to be argued in the court’s next term and likely decided by June 2023, suggests the justices may be ready to address that issue.Tuesday’s order phrased the question before the court as “whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”
That last bit sort of signals the bar that the State will have to clear.
Color me hopeful, but cautious.
I am familiar with the cases, Hobby Lobby as well, and the inconsistency is breathtaking. I understand the capricious nature of our Court and know “rights” are wholly dependent on their whims but I am not required to agree with their decisions nor do they care if I do.
Race, not sex.The civil rights act also protects against the denial of goods and services based on sex and race.
And then proceeded to do the exact opposite in Trump v Hawaii.the ruling in that case was that the STATE (commission) did not follow proper legal procedure in its case against the baker and they rightfully so got their hand smacked, the commission's treatment of Phillips’ case was found to be hostile and not follow due diligence and due process.
that ruling was VERY specific to that only and it is still 100% illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation in colorado and no laws were struck down. Im glad you included the link that further explains this fact and if you need more you can try this one also
Not a Masterpiece: The Supreme Court’s Decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
The recent decision in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case allowed a business to discriminate based on its owner’s beliefs, which goes against many established federal, state, and local civil rights laws.www.americanbar.org
That reply contains both a non sequitur, and an attempt at deflection
No one said anything about you needing to "agree" with anything. Simply that your prior case citations either had nothing to do with the issue being discussed or did not support your position.
And sexRace, not sex.
By a vote of 6-3, the court said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal for employers to discriminate because of a person's sex, among other factors, also covers sexual orientation and transgender status. It upheld rulings from lower courts that said sexual orientation discrimination was a form of sex discrimination.
You're confusing employment discrimination with public accommodations. The two are not the same. There are no federal public accommodations protections that prohibit sex discrimination. The web developer is challenging a state law.And
And sex
Civil Rights Law Protects Gay and Transgender Workers, Supreme Court Rules (Published 2020)
The court said the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.www.nytimes.com
I misunderstood you response. I thought you were making the point it doesn’t matter what I thought, SCOTUS does as it chooses.
If you are saying Scalia was wrong about corporations and you believe legal fictions are sentient beings well, okay.
You're confusing employment discrimination with public accommodations. The two are not the same. There are no federal public accommodations protections that prohibit sex discrimination. The web developer is challenging a state law.
The CRA of 1964, prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin by federal and state governments§2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
No, I was not making that "point." I repeat, the cases you cited were not in support of your "point."
Again, I never made any such points. The underlined is a non-sequitur (A non sequitur is a conclusion or reply that doesn’t follow logically from the previous statement.), AND the bolded is an appeal to the absurd.
If you cannot argue reasonably, then there is no point in arguing with you.
Tagline time.
Not for public accommodations. You posted the correct info, but didn't read it: "race, color, religion, or national origin." That's it. No sex. No sexual orientation.The CRA of 1964, prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin by federal and state governments
"Sex" was added as an amendment in title VII.Not for public accommodations. You posted the correct info, but didn't read it: "race, color, religion, or national origin." That's it. No sex. No sexual orientation.
Furthermore, a website developer isn't even considered a "place of public accommodation" under federal law. Federal public accommodations laws are very limited in scope. Hotels, restaurants, theatres, and gas stations, more or
Title VII pertains to employment discrimination. Title II has not been amended."Sex" was added as an amendment in title VII.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?