• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Arizona bill: gay discrimination or religious rights?

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
brycejones said:
I agree. If they really feel that strongly about it put up a sign so we all know in advance. if you want to be able to claim a religious objection to serving a group of people then you should be required to post that objection where it is visible to the the public.

Or are they afraid they might be called out for being the bigoted fools they are?
Click to expand...

Private property rights. It's private property and they can do what they want.
 
Daverino said:
Eh? I'm not a Constitutional lawyer and this isn't a Constitutional law thread. But I do have a couple of books by Eric Foner on my bookshelf and took a few classes from him. He's a historian, not a lawyer.

The fourteenth amendment introduced the concept of equality to the Constitution. Do you feel that the application of equality to public accommodations in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is solely based on Congress' desire to better regulate interstate commerce?
Click to expand...

You've repeatedly misquoted and misinterpreted Supreme Court rulings. How is it not a Constitutional law thread?

Congress obviously desired to enforce the Equal Protection Clause against businesses and even attempted to do so in 1875. The Supreme Court overturned that law because the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow anti-discrimination legislation to target private entities.

90 years later, Congress passed an expanded variation of the same law, arguing this time that anti-discrimination laws are a valid exercise of its power to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court agreed. The Court also maintains to this day that the Fourteenth Amendment only applies to state actors.
 
Incorruptible said:
Private property rights. It's private property and they can do what they want.
Click to expand...

Didn't work back then either...
300px-Rodney_Powell_Nashville_sit-ins_1960.jpg
 
Incorruptible said:
STFU You lowlife troll. You're assuming again, That was government forcing segregation. WTF does that have to do with my post? Use your head you scumbag moron.
Click to expand...

haha you mad bro.

1964 civil rights act included public accommodations. As so as SCOTUS includes gay people and it will happen soon, you can leave the country.
 
HomerJS said:
haha you mad bro.

1964 civil rights act included public accommodations. As so as SCOTUS includes gay people and it will happen soon, you can leave the country.
Click to expand...

Not mad, Really it's the only way to deal with trolls like you. It violates private property rights. You can leave the country since you're a pathetic lowlife who doesn't respect the Constitution.
 
Incorruptible said:
Not mad, Really it's the only way to deal with trolls like you. It violates private property rights. You can leave the country since you're a pathetic lowlife who doesn't respect the Constitution.
Click to expand...

So you're just trolling? He says something you disagree with so you want him to leave the country? That's a really great example of you supporting the Constitution right there....
 
Venix said:
90 years later, Congress passed an expanded variation of the same law, arguing this time that anti-discrimination laws are a valid exercise of its power to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court agreed. The Court also maintains to this day that the Fourteenth Amendment only applies to state actors.
Click to expand...

So public accommodations could exist as law without the equal protection clause?
 
brycejones said:
No you both are wrong for trying to tell each other to leave the country. You really have no room to talk about someone else being a troll.

Is teaparty.org a tea party website or not?
Click to expand...

He wants me to leave the country because he is an intolerant extremist then he doesn't deserve a proper response.
 
Daverino said:
Stormfront is calling you Incorruptible. Bigots are welcomed with hugs and kisses there.

In a totally non-gay way, of course.
Click to expand...

stormfront? You're a lowlife scumbag who can't debate and pulls the race card. You're full of shit and should join your buddies on stormfront or whatever site that your ilk prefer.
 
I love how this attempt at codifying discrimination started on a false premise.

There was a claim Christian bakers were being forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

There was no wedding. It was a commitment ceremony. Marriage is only legal in Arizona between a man and a woman.

So the GOP in Arizona ginned this bill up to fix a problem that didn't exist.
 
Daverino said:
So public accommodations could exist as law without the equal protection clause?
Click to expand...

Obviously. I reiterate:

The state action doctrine flatly prohibits enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment against private entities. That's why the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was overturned, and why Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US focused on the Commerce Clause. The Fourteenth Amendment applies only to state actors.

I'd suggest that you read Heart of Atlanta Motel or Katzenbach and note how the Act is upheld solely on Commerce Clause grounds, but after the Lombard debacle I hesitate to give you more material to misinterpret. Let's stick with the summaries.
 
Last edited:
Just make the god damn cake.
After all, it's just eggs, milk, sugar and frosting.
If you're going to be in the bakery business, just fucking bake and leave
your attitude at home.
 
Veto.

Now the good old boys can go back to the drawing table and cook up some other plan to pretend they are being oppressed by not being allowed to oppress others.
 
Venix said:
Obviously. I reiterate:

The state action doctrine flatly prohibits enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment against private entities. That's why the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was overturned, and why Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US focused on the Commerce Clause. The Fourteenth Amendment applies only to state actors.

I'd suggest that you read Heart of Atlanta Motel or Katzenbach and note how the Act is upheld solely on Commerce Clause grounds, but after the Lombard debacle I hesitate to give you more material to misinterpret. Let's stick with the summaries.
Click to expand...

I did read it. And here's the paragraph that gets me:

"The sole question posed is, therefore, the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as applied to these facts. The legislative history of the Act indicates that Congress based the Act on § 5 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as its power to regulate interstate commerce under Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, of the Constitution. "

Now you're correct that the court only ruled that the act was legal under Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The court didn't rule on Congress' assertion that it was supported by the EPC. But historically speaking the Civil Rights Act of 1964 seeks to enforce the EPC of the 14th Amendment. I don't think there were any Congressman who were interested in revitalizing the interstate economy when they passed the law. The cases that I looked at in the run up to the 1964 law were focused on 'ways to figure out how a private business could be considered a state actor.' thus getting around the state action doctrine. In my mind, regulating all public accommodations under interstate commerce laws is effectively making them state actors as well. You are correct that the courts never ruled on that explicitly.

But using the Commerce Clause to enforce desegregation doesn't really make sense to me without the context of the 14th Amendment. It feels to me as enforcement of the 14th Amendment by other means. The 14th Amendment introduced the concept of equality to the Constitution. That is why when I see legislation that encourages segregation of discrimination, I look at the 14th Amendment as the part of the Constitution it contradicts, not the Commerce Clause.

Oh an also. . . don't be a douche about things. If you know more than me, I'm happy to learn. If I ignored all your snide remarks, I found I learned a lot more of the details of the history of the court running up to and after 1964. But I'm not sitting in a law library. I just have my browser, spare time, and a desire to know more.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top