"More evidence Ann Coulter is right and this guy should never have been nominated!"
This is more evidence that Roberts is a good choice for the seat on SCOTUS. The Colorado law was wrong and unconstitutional. The fact that 'they' are part of the dung punchers and strap-a-dick-to-me crowd should not mean that it is legal to discriminate against 'them' regarding housing or employment.
Would you agree that discrimination against a person regarding housing or employment because 'they' are Christian should be tolerated and legal? I don't think so. What is the difference between that and this gay issue that Roberts worked on?
I am probably to outspoken on the issue of gays - I am intolerant of their lifestyle. That does not give us the right to discriminate on issues that are the rights of all. Do I believe that we should have non-discrimanatory laws protecting gays - absolutely not - they should be protected by the same law that protects us who are not gay - the US Constitution.
Cite the provision in the Constitution that it violates.
Would you agree that discrimination against a person regarding housing or employment because 'they' are Christian should be tolerated and legal?
If it's your own private property, then as far as I'm concerned you should be able to discriminate however you like. There's certainly nothing in the Constitution prohibiting it.
Absolutely. If I were to use the power of government (i.e., men with guns) to force a property or business owner to associate with me even though he does not wish to house or employ Christians, then I would be an evil, abusive person.
Where is the part of the Constitution that prohibits discrimination by private landowners and employers?
It is not my "right" to live in your property or work in your business, regardless of the grounds on which you choose to reject me. The right to private property has always included the right to exclude whomever you wish. Freedom of association includes the right not to associate.
If I choose to rent out a floor of my home I damn well have a right to say no fags allowed.
Further there are jobs where being gay could affect the job performance, and employers should have discretion.
Further, as always has been, gays who keep their perverted sex in the closet don't run into problems it the 'openly gay' crowed. Yes you have a right to be openly perverted but you do not have the right to foist that into everyone's face and expect them to treat you indiscriminatly. Once the cat is out of the bag, the public get's to decide what to do when it craps on the carpet.
If John Roberts is against that discretion he's anti business, anti Christian, and anti-constitution, and should go home.
If the private property owner doesn't want to rent to a Christian, then they shouldn't have to. That's what private property means.
What is the difference between that and this gay issue that Roberts worked on?
When it comes to private property, no one should have to do with it what they do not wish to do. I see no discrimination about it. Employment is different, up to a point. If you have a business or non-profit where values is a primary consideration (like a Christian school), then they should not have to hire a person who violates said values. Employment by a public entity should not take sexual orientation or religion into account.
"Would you agree that discrimination against a person regarding housing or employment because 'they' are Christian should be tolerated and legal? I don't think so. What is the difference between that and this gay issue that Roberts worked on?"
--You're kidding, right? First, the expression of one's faith is core First Amendment protected activity. Homosexuality is not a religion, and it is only the conduct that is being proscribed or regulated by the state.
The fact that one is vexed by homosexual temptations does not make that person any less than anyone else; everyone has his Achilles heal. For others, it's theft, hatred, greed, gluttony, lust, or jealousy, etc. But when one acts on that weakness through conduct, the state has a right to sanction the conduct.
Your question supposes that law has no moral foundation. Most conservatives take the position that it absolutely does -- that there is a higher moral law. Otherwise, the law becomes only a jumble of statutes and regulations with no basis other than the current fashion or rage. Recall that the Nazis promulgated a whole system of law in 1930's Germany that ultimately let to concentration camps. The people who implemented those laws probably believed they were being good Germans and were pursuing lofty civic goals at the time. But from the viewpoint of Judeo-Christian morality, it was sheer madness.
We, too, will get there at the present rate. In Canada already Christians have been jailed for speaking out against homosexual conduct. This is just the beginning.
This statement assumes your conclusion. Why was the Referendum in Romer unconsitutional? Your answer to that question determines whether you are an originalist or whether you think the Supremes should make up rights and put them in the Constitution regardless of what is actually in the Constitution.
Your opinion that it was wrong should be addressed to the legislature--not to the supreme court.
Gonna be a bit of a ramble as I sort out some of what I think I'm thinking.... This is an interesting question and has me thinking about my own philosophy. I think if I'm the business owner or home owner I should be able to hire or rent to whomever I choose. If I choose to be discriminatory I may miss out on a good thing, but if I don't want to rent to a family a family with children, - or in your example a Christian - well it's my property, I should be able to make that decision.
Maybe I'm coming around to the position that there should be no anti-descrimination laws should be on the books. OTOH, I think (hope)it's better now, but there was a time when based on race or gender you couldn't even get a chance without the anti-discrimation laws.
But it seems that like 'em or not, that's water under the bridge and the discrimination laws are on the books. IANAL, and there are too many in the 'nots' and 'prohibits' and 'struck downs' and 'don't allows' in the description of what this legal scenario implies for me to even want to try and keep track of it, but could Roberts position be that he was just supporting the precedent (case law or whatever the right term is) as it stands. (Is that the concept of stare decsis (sp?) I keep reading about on other blogs?) If that's the case then isn't wouldn't that be his job on the SCOTUS - not to make new law but to rule on laws constitutionality (and to lesser extent previous precedents)?
Or does this come down to we say we want a constitutionalist or originalist but we really want a conservative activist and just don't want to be so politically incorrect as to admit that?
I understand this doesn't address the issue of choosing ones pro bono cases. I'm working my way through other philosophical issues first.
The law in Colorado was perfectly Constitutional and the originalists on the court -- Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist -- ruled to uphold the law.