The Supreme Court doesn't declare laws unconstitutional just because they don't do anything or are unnecessary. They declared this law unconstitutional, though, so they obviously don't agree with your conclusion that businesses have the absolute right to discriminate against gays in hiring and renting.
I never claimed that the amendment didn't do anything. In fact I specifically said that the amendment forbid sexual-orientation anti-discrimination laws.
so they obviously don't agree with your conclusion that businesses have the absolute right to discriminate against gays in hiring and renting.
Conclusion? I'm not making conclusions. I'm explaining the amendment to you. I'm *not* explaining (nor making conclusions about) the case to you. If you had answered the question that I asked you earlier, you would have understood my point (I think).
Here, let's recap and start over, leaving out the fluff:
You: It was a law that AUTHORIZED discrimination. It said that you CAN discriminate against gays.
Me: That's not exactly correct . . . The people of Colorado were "authorized" to discriminate both before and after that amendment was passed.
You: Just because you say so doesn't make it so.
Me: My state doesn't have sexual-orientation anti-discrimination laws. Am I therefore "authorized" to do something that is normally forbidden?