Reply With Quote
Where will blacks go to use their food stamps or medicare if Walmart etc and doctors deny them service?
What government agency makes food and drugs?Pretty sure the government isn't going to Target or K-Mart for its supplies now.
If the fundamental question is the same (and I have not read the dockets/law, but from a cursory look it appears to be), then the way this normally works is the SCOTUS makes a decision, sets a certain test to answer these questions, and that serves both as precedent and guidance to lower courts on how to deal with this cons utional question. From there, other courts must then use that test going forward to address that. So, it's not really automatic, and it obviously depends on what the SCOTUS decides this "test" is, and also the particular of the cases and how they apply to this "test", but it pretty much will remove the ambiguity that made the cases reach the higher court in the first place. At least for a while.
I would actually hazard that if the Oregon case triggers such review from the SCOTUS, it's inevitable that whatever the ruling is will be brought up in Missouri, be it for or against the proposed law, because the cons utional ambiguity that the court has to deal with will be resolved by then (or the law will be re-written looking for a loophole around the "test", in which case it will trigger another review).
Where will blacks go to use their food stamps or medicare if Walmart etc and doctors deny them service?
What government agency makes food and drugs?Pretty sure the government isn't going to Target or K-Mart for its supplies now.
I expect the SCOTUS won't have to tackle much if Congress amends the CRA of 64......which I'm guessing will happen sooner than later
I'm not so sure about that with the current political climate. Perhaps if Shillary wins, but even then, the current Congressional makeup would have to change.
First, we're not talking food stamps here. We're talking actual money that people have but can't use because the store refuse them service. Second, I don't see why food stamps wouldn't work at a government store. Third, there are such things are public hospitals, you know. In fact, I assume more are public.
You realize that Walmart is usually not actual manufacturer of their own goods, right? And they certainly aren't the ones growing the food.What government agency makes food and drugs?
You still need the court to uphold that individuals are bound by it. They usually aren't, and Congress' ability to use the Commerce Clause to extend into local businesses has actually been reduced recently. A place like Walmart would be subject, but a person having a side business photographing weddings is a different story.
Let's say there is a small town in the south that has a Walmart and local hardware store. The local hardware store explicitly discriminates against blacks. There is a subset of the population that doesn't care that the hardware store discriminates against blacks which allows it to remain profitable and stay in business.
Since the local black population can shop at Walmart to get everything they could potentially buy at the hardware store, is it your position that the state should not compell the hardware store not to discriminate against blacks?
Yep. And I don't think the state would have to lift a finger. Public pressure is real, and even though that store may get customers, it would probably lose vendors, especially if the vendors aren't local. Look what happened to the cake place. They were ruined long before the Oregon court got to them.
The Court has already upheld the CRA as cons utional under the commerce clause. Extending the same protection to gays would no doubt be upheld just the same.
What government store are you referring to exactly?
This is an overstep, in my opinion. I'm not comfortable with the idea that a person working for a business should be compelled to appear in a setting that violates their beliefs. It's one thing to close your doors to people based on their sexual orientation, but this ruling goes too far.
If I was having strippers at my wedding reception, for example, I wouldn't expect a devout Mormon photographer to be at my wedding to do ent the event even though strippers at a private function are perfectly legal. On the other hand, I would expect that photographer to not close his/her doors to me and my wife if we came in for studio shots that didn't involve strippers.
I would say the same thing for an atheist photographer who felt uncomfortable in a church.
You can't choose the color of your skin or other traits but you do choose what behavior patterns you do in life. And that's why they get discriminated, because of their behavior, not because of anything else. Why do you think child molesters, pedophiles, rapists, necrophiliacs, sexual deviants,etc have been discriminated throughout human history? Do you think all those people were "born that way"? To genetic predispositions for abnormal behavior that is not conducive for normal healthy human living that propagates life. I used to believe it was purely genetic when I was a young liberal, but as I got older and experienced the real world I changed my stand on it. Go visit Jails/prisons, shelters, AA groups, Narcotics A groups, to get a closer look of what that lifestyle is really like.
This is a great point, because on the other hand history has no examples of people being discriminated upon based on their race or other "born" traits.
Again, the Commerce Clause is actually being rolled back a little by the SCOTUS. The ACA was limited by the Court declaring that the federal government couldn't force people to buy health insurance.
So yeah, we don't know where it's going to go, and Court didn't extend the Civil Rights Act completely. Both major court cases about this passed because the Court felt both businesses did enough trade with out-of-state consumers to be considered interstate. As far as I know, a local bakery or a side photography business are not in the same category.While the health care legislation itself survived, the limitation of Congressional power under the commerce clause is likely to have far-reaching consequences, and the decision may prove a Pyrrhic victory for liberal supporters of Congress’s expansive power. Some Libertarians, while disappointed that the law was not struck down, were celebrating the stake the court drove into the heart of the commerce clause.
“We finally won a three-decades-long battle over the commerce clause,” said John Eastman, a conservative and a professor at Chapman University.
The Supreme Court nonetheless upheld the act under Congress’s taxing power, but a strong libertarian argument runs through that part of the opinion, too. Chief Justice Roberts made clear that the health care act survived because the “penalty” for not buying health insurance functioned as a tax, and is sufficiently modest that individuals remain free to opt out of the mandate if they wish by simply paying a tax.
In this case, if you don't want to photograph a wedding because strippers are present, you don't have to.....the same way you can turn them down at your studio.
You just can't say you don't want to do it because the couple is gay. That's pretty much as far as it goes.
The alternative one that would likely spring up if there is a vacuum in the market. In reality, SOMEONE would build a store at a place where there's a large number of people who need to spend money. But if there isn't such a store, then the government would provide one. That's what it's there for.
What's the difference? Stripping and gay marriage are equally legal.
Lol imaginary alternate universe government store for blacks
In reality, it's like you have no clue what happened during the era of the Civil Rights movement.In reality, SOMEONE would build a store at a place where there's a large number of people who need to spend money. But if there isn't such a store, then the government would provide one. That's what it's there for.
Seriously?
Do you not realize the issue with this line of reasoning? You're masquerading a subjective viewpoint as some objective judgment. Some people consider gay weddings to be sinful, unnatural and disgusting. It literally goes against their morals. And some people consider strippers at a party to be sinful, unnatural and disgusting. It literally goes against their morals.
You're telling one group that their disgust is fine and another that their disgust is not fine. But you don't want to state a basis for why we should go along with that. The best you have is relying on what the law says, but that makes no sense for reasons I've already stated.
What does that directly have to do with Civil Rights Act?
The answer is nothing and I'm not gonna get off on a worthless tangent.
The store wouldn't be for black people. It would be integrated.
It's like YOU don't know what happened during the Civil Rights Movement. The law didn't force the integration of businesses, socioeconomic pressure did. The boycotts made it unprofitable to segregate or discriminate. The law, especially at the beginning, was to prevent local governments from segregating.You just can't say you don't want to do it because the couple is gay. That's pretty much as far as it goes.
No.
Do you think none of "those people" are "born that way"?
The second one was saying that you don't know what the courts have done to extend the Civil Rights Act. Their current test as Nono put it is that the business has to do 75 percent of its business interstate to fall under the commerce clause. Not likely that small businesses like a photographer are doing that, either buying or selling.
The first one is to counter your assumption that the Court is going to keep rolling out the Commerce Clause. The most recent time it was brought up, the Court rejected it.
Right, I'm sure there'd be tons of white people willingly shopping in a place where black people are forced to shop.
Riots are just a part of doing business in a free market!It's like YOU don't know what happened during the Civil Rights Movement. The law didn't force the integration of businesses, socioeconomic pressure did. The boycotts made it unprofitable to segregate or discriminate. The law, especially at the beginning, was to prevent local governments from segregating.
I know you didn't know about the Civil Rights Movement but what am I
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions