"protected class"
Interesting choice of words.
Noting that I don't know the specifics of this case, it's déjà vu of the 3th Amendment (3A) imo which prohibits the feds from quartering soldiers in private homes, the incident certainly running against the grain of that amendment, 3A applied to the states by the 14th Amendment.
"3rd Amendment: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner [emphasis added], nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
In fact, consider Justice Joseph Story's insight to 3A.
"§ 1893. This provision speaks for itself. Its plain object is to secure the perfect enjoyment of that great right of the common law, that a man's house shall be his own castle, privileged against all civil and military intrusion [!!! emphasis added]. The billetting of soldiers in time of peace upon the people has been a common resort of arbitrary princes, and is full of inconvenience and peril. In the petition of right (3 Charles I.), it was declared by parliament to be a great grievance." — Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§ 1893
Note common law mentioned above is a constitutional term. So I question the constitutional integrity of the Court's response to this Hawaii case. The common law “castle” would support the 2nd Amendment and other enumerated protections too.
Insights welcome.
Sometimes I think that you could ask even conservative, post-FDR era Supreme Court justices what year the Constitution was ratified and hear them say in 1942 when the Supremes wrongly decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress’s favor. /sarc
Also, since you mentioned protected classes, note that the Founding States made the following constitutional clauses to prohibit the feds and the states establishing privileged / protected classes which HI's law, along with the Court’s response, effectively does for LGBT people imo.
"Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States [emphasis added]: And no person holding any office or profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."
"Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility [emphasis added]."
In fact, since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called LGBT agenda “rights,” we’re seeing politically correct state rights trump constitutionally enumerated rights.
Again, insights welcome.
I'm convinced that possibly many FReepers are constitutionally savvy to the extent that they can decide Supreme Court cases with more constitutional integrity than the Supremes can.
"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition [emphasis added].” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
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.