Posted on 03/27/2013 9:25:03 PM PDT by caldera599
I've been doing some thinking in light of recent events where homosexuals have brought suits against Christian-owned businesses because they wouldn't cater to their "weddings". It seems to me that the laws in place violate, at least, the First Amendment protections for freedom of religion. Anyone else get this feeling?
From my understanding of con law thus far, the 14th Amendment only applies to state actors. Therefore, since business owners are private actors, they shouldn’t be able to be sued for refusal to comply with same sex marriage.
Only the 13th Amendment applies to private actors, so unless the courts are arguing that same sex marriage is a “shackle of slavery” then these lawsuits should be thrown out.
Maybe someone further along in their law career can weigh in on the matter.
The problem is laws are being written at the state level that protect “sexual orientation” and increasingly “gender identity”.
It’s an interesting topic to probe, and one that would make progressives go schizophrenic if libertarians ever talked about their dislike of them.
Is there a difference between race, gender, and disability in this regard? Clearly, the supposed ‘discrimination’ against homosexuals is bunk, because it’s not an immediately obvious trait, as with any other sexual deviancy.
State law can’t force you to violate your freedom of religion, though, right, especially if it’s not recognized on a federal level?
I would hope that these business owners have some protections. However, from my study of con law thus far, liberal judges will reinterpret any constitution, to justify their agenda.
I felt the same way as a child watching the feds crushing the nation.
I think a lot of them are. I don’t government should be allowed to discriminate though. :p
DISCRIMINATE. WE ALL DO FOR MANY REASONS.
As well as any act or law that favors one American over another based on race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, marital status, disability, affiliation, age, sex, or any other factor not directly related to their status as an American citizen (e.g., felon, illegal alien).
Absolutely violates 1A.
Next up, the government will need to save money and establish their citizen force.
Buh bye 3A.
I am slightly further along so I will assist. Look into the 14th Amendment’s Substantive Due Process Clause. During the Lochner era the Court agreed with you finding the clause covered economic liberty rights and found that private actors could not be subject to governmental regulation in that sphere. But after Lochner, the Court applied the same theory to Individual Rights (see Griswold, Roe, Brown). Now look at the Commerce Clause and its application and what you find is a shift wherein the Court found governmental regulation of private actors constitutional on the basis that there is a compelling state interest to protect citizens’ 14th Am Substantive Due Process rights. There you see the line of cases dealing with public accomodation. So a motel (Heart of Atlanta) cannot discriminate on the basis of any suspect class.
And that is today’s moment of Con Law.
What is this constitution everyone keeps referring to?
What difference does it make?
I’m going to guesstamate here, but if I’m wrong in my guess, I think it would be to the low side...80% of all laws, state or federal are unconstitutional.
In the words of our probable next president Hitlery...”what difference does it make”!
Religious arguments were ruled useless with the passage of the original Civil Rights Act. This was predictable, and was predicted.
Look, when the law was passed there was a serious purpose to it - how would you feel if there were a whole section of the country where the McDonalds, the Burger King, etc - and all the fancy restaurants as well - would not take your order and would not accept your money for a meal? That’s what was going on against “negroes” - that was the polite term at the time - in the South at the time, and had been ever since the Civil War - that is, since actual slavery of “negroes” was abolished.
So ultimately Congress - more Republicans that Democrats in Congress - cut the Gordian Knot by limiting freedom of association in order to assure that the people then called “negroes” were not shunned on prejudicial grounds. Those negro - er, “black” - er, is it “African-American" this week? - people immediately became the base of the party which didn’t have a majority in favor of the Civil Rights Act - and they flatly reject the party which was founded against slavery and which provided the majority of the votes for the Civil Rights act. File that under the heading, “No good deed goes unpunished.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.