Posted on 03/18/2019 10:29:39 AM PDT by Simon Green
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to a lower court ruling that found that the owner of a Hawaii bed and breakfast violated a state anti-discrimination law by turning away a lesbian couple, citing Christian beliefs.
The justices refused to hear an appeal by Phyllis Young, who runs the three-room Aloha Bed & Breakfast in Honolulu, of the ruling that she ran afoul of Hawaii’s public accommodation law by refusing to rent a room to Diane Cervilli and Taeko Bufford in 2007. Litigation will now continue that will determine what penalty Young might face.
The case was appealed to the nine justices in the wake of the high court’s narrow 2018 decision siding with a baker from Colorado who refused based on his Christian faith to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
That decision did not resolve the question of whether business owners can claim religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws. Young said her decision to turn away the same-sex couple was protected by her right to free exercise of her religious beliefs under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
The Supreme Court in the baker case also did not address important claims including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee, a question not raised in the Hawaii case.
The conservative-majority court could yet weigh in soon on both issues as it has a separate appeal pending involving a different bakery in Oregon that refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
So race is not a social construct? /Sarc
You'd be wrong to think the lack of distinction is proof enough for protected class status.
It's no wonder Biden loves stare decisis.
“Guests at a motel wouldn’t have to have any contact with the fruits,”
What about in common areas such as a swimming pool?
Maybe not the same thing, but our last cruise was crawling with homosexuals and they loved playing in the pools and hot tubs. Normal people avoided those areas because of it.
I hate what has become of our country.
(I’d never get in to a public hot tub, gays or no gays.)
Probably grey territory here, but Christian belief is to love the sinner, hate the sin, or better words to that effect. So I can sort of see the argument that one should not be denied refuge (so long as you can pay for your room), that’s a little bit different that telling me I have to bake a gay celebration cake. However I also believe a private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and let good judgement on the owners part be to the businesses profit or downfall.
I’m not sure from where comes the notion that Christians aren’t supposed to business with people who don’t share their faith. Has this B&B never rented rooms to unmarried people of opposite sexes? There’s no mention of any such policy, and you can’t exactly spring that on people when they arrive, thousands of miles from home, that you won’t honor their reservations.
You are absolutely right that Wickard vs. Filburn was wrongly decided. It pretty much gave the federal government unlimited power under the commerce clause. Would love to see a constitutional amendment limiting the federal government’s power to only interstate commerce again.
Equating titles of nobility and a protected class might be a stretch I think. I’ll have to do some research, and thinking, on that one.
I’m torn about the public accommodations laws. I went to a photo exhibit at a local museum about the Nazi olympics. In the exhibit that had a section on racism in America at that time. They had pictures of the no black signs in the south of course. What really shook me the pictures of hotels in New York at the time that had signs saying “No Jews”. Had never heard of that before. Unlike race people sometimes do choose their religion.
Personally,, I think we should have had a constitutional amendment stating if you were going to have a business you must provide service to all people. With, of course, some religious exceptions. Instead we have these patchwork rulings that a lot of time don’t make sense.
I was not alive during that time, born in the 70s. I think America has always had faults, no country is perfect. I think one thing that hasn’t changed is we were and are the best country around.
Big man on the internet. Would love to have you say it to my face. I would show you some of the things I picked up in the Marines and Army.
The very idea of a "protected class" is repugnant to a free society. Where in the Constitution is any form of US government authorized to grant special "protection" to any group of citizens?
Perhaps it needs to be undermined.
Freedom is great that way. Too bad we don't have freedom any more.
“The very idea of a “protected class” is repugnant to a free society. “
Agree,it’s insanity.
.
We still have freedom. What freedom have we lost? The freedom to open up a business and just serve the people we want to serve? Not much of a freedom in my book. In fact some segments of our society have more freedom than they ever had in our society. All societies balance the rights of the individual with the needs of society.
Hell, here’s freedom for you. When I went to Lincoln’s boyhood home the tour guide was telling us that Lincoln was exposed to slavery at a really young age because instead of paying property taxes back then, you had to spend two weeks working on your local road. So he would be with his father working on the roads during this time. But people in the area would send their slaves to work the two weeks instead of them doing it themselves. Lincoln’s father didn’t own slaves so he had to do it himself. I asked the guide what would happen if someone didn’t work on the road. He said they’d be thrown in jail for the two weeks and pay a fine.
Now I hate property taxes as much as the next guy, but I’d much rather pay taxes then be forced to work on a road.
I didn’t say anything about being a big man.
You want to talk about your wife. I just thought I’d join in the conversation.
Make up your mind, silly!
We have lost the freedom associate with those with whom we wish to associate, and not associate with those with whom we do not wish to associate.
Unless, of course, we’re members of a “protected class”. Then, we have some freedom of association.
“Really? In a free society like ours you want to give the government the power to regulate sexual activity between adults?”
Until 1963....the entire US had laws prohibiting same sex intercourse. It was during the long slow gradual social decay thru 2003 that such laws disappeared. In fact a flip flop SCOTUS was the last gasp for morality.
“The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986. However, in 2003, the Supreme Court reversed the decision with Lawrence v. Texas, invalidating sodomy laws in the remaining 14 states.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States
Morality laws were so because the Declaration of Independence, the cornerstone and only source of legitimacy for the Federal or any level of government declared us a protestant Christian nation under he laws of Nature and Nature’s God. God appears five times (some argue 6) in the Declaration. Read it.
Deviant sexuality is abhorrent to Nature as it does not replenish the species....and to Nature’s God as detailed in numerous locations of His revealed Laws in Scripture.
The stripping of these morality laws and the conjuring of “no fault divorce” along with the conditioning of the general public to accept it all has driven the collapse of the family unit and with it most of our societal ills.
The family is God’s first commandment and basis of all governance. Read Genesis. Man+woman=children=family. Several families are a clan; several clans are a tribe; several tribes are a nation. Read more of Genesis and then Judges.
Children in single-parent homes at rates of 3 to 11 times experience the following:
lower live birth-rates
higher death rates
higher out of wedlock rate
higher early pregnancy rate
higher abortion rate
higher diagnosed depression,
higher diagnosed emotional stress
greater difficulties in school.
higher absenteeism
higher drop out rate
lower college entrance rates
greater arrest and conviction rate
greater death by violent means
greater death or impairment due to drugs
greater rape perps and victimization
far lower income
Lots more, but I tire of typing…..
It is just an ugly, ugly outcome.
https://nydivorcefirm.com/single-parent-households-does-affect-children/
Rates in homo households is even worse. (no cite but true from memory, look it up)
So, if making people keep their pants zipped outside of marriage and discourage acts inside marriage whose primary purpose is other than procreation of healthy, happy children can reverse these civilization ending trends...then do it as it was done before.
I am tired of seeing the widespread breeding of feral animals whose sole contribution to society is to eat me out of my wealth and property…...before the dying young or killing decent people before killing themselves.
All for “Free Love”. Really?
Western Civilization has Sharia Law of sorts…...only it is called VIRTUE.
And right is right and wrong remains wrong even if only God is against it.
Was the couple hot or not?
And another thing....
Why does the government have the right to compel me to sell to people I do not wish to whether fat, bald, ugly, short, green, or frog worshiper?
They do not. They have a law, guns, and the numbers, but not the right.
But I don’t feel strongly about any of it.
And I agree with you 100%. But that’s not the reality of our legal system since 1964 for color, creed, and religion and 2015 for gays.
The problem is that they pass laws compelling people to violate religious beliefs. You have to make a decision as to whether you want to serve God, or ceasar.
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.