Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ColdOne; All
Thank you for referencing that article ColdOne. As usual, please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

If I understand this issue correctly, it is not a 14th Amendment issue imo.

More specifically, patriots are reminded that Supreme Court had clarified in United States v. Cruikshank that enumerated constitutional rights protect citizens only from actions of state and federal governments, not private entities.

And since this issue concerns a private school, the school has as much right to “reasonably” disagree with a student over religious issues as Christian-owned businesses have the right to diplomatically refuse service to LGBT people (ahem).

Corrections, insights welcome.

13 posted on 03/29/2017 1:22:23 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Amendment10; ColdOne; All

>
And since this issue concerns a private school, the school has as much right to “reasonably” disagree with a student over religious issues as Christian-owned businesses have the right to diplomatically refuse service to LGBT people (ahem).

Corrections, insights welcome.
>

And, as a ‘public accommodation’, like the college, how well did that work out for the baker(s) that refused to do biz w/ the gays (IIRC, $$$ in ‘fines’)??

The Socialists LOVE to have it both ways, since the Right usually bends over meekly to comply and has the ‘damn’est’ time arguing\debating vs. Constitution.


17 posted on 03/29/2017 2:43:35 PM PDT by i_robot73 ("A man chooses. A slave obeys." - Andrew Ryan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson