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.
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.
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.
What is this constitution everyone keeps referring to?
What difference does it make?
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.”