Arizona bill: gay discrimination or religious rights?

[Venix]

The concept of public accommodations is defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the ADA. I thought that the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th amendment is the Constitutional foundation for those laws. I think someone (in other thread, long ago) said that public accommodations are also supported by the Commerce Clause. The only relevant discrimination here would be in a public accommodation and I used the 14th amendment as justification. If the 14th amendment does not support the public accommodations defined in 1964, can explain to me what does?

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 Hotel v. US focused on the Commerce Clause. The Fourteenth Amendment applies only to state actors.

 

[Hugo Drax]

No, federal law trumps this.

federal law trumps marijuana laws. yet it is legal in some states with open sales.

So if Arizona opens up Jim Crow laws again are the feds going to swoop in and crash in on Jimmies Whites only restaurant now that it is open due to that bill?

 

[Engineer]

This will end up in Veto. Even many of those AZ state reps that voted for it are now telling the governor to VETO it. I guess they jumped the gun and found out just how unpopular this was going to be. Couldn't risk getting voted out of office over this.

 

[Daverino]

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 Hotel v. US focused on the Commerce Clause. The Fourteenth Amendment applies only to state actors.

Well yes and no. The court got very very good in the 1960s in making private institutions state actors. Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority and Turner v. City of Memphis ruled that a private restaurant in property owned by a city could not discriminate. In Peterson v. City of Greenville and Robinson v. Florida, a private restaurant was ruled against because a city ordnance in favor of segregation applied to the restaurant, making them a state actor. Lombard v. Louisiana (1963) was even more broad ruling that because a restaurant was licensed by a state it became a state actor:

"State licensing and surveillance of a business serving the public also brings its service into the public domain. This restaurant needs a permit from Louisiana to operate;and during the existence of the license the State has broad powers of visitation and control. This restaurant is thus an instrumentality of the State since the State charges it with duties to the public and supervises its performance. The State's interest in and activity with regard to its restaurants extends far beyond any mere income-producing licensing requirement.

There is no constitutional way, as I see it, in which a State can license and supervise a business serving the public and endow it with the authority to manage that business on the basis of apartheid, which is foreign to our Constitution."

The way I understand it now, tying all public accommodations to interstate commerce removed the question of whether public accommodations were state actors. Thus the equal protection clause would apply to all public businesses. But it still gets back to the 14th amendment, in my mind, as the real support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Man, have I read a lot of Supreme Court decisions in the past few days. This is fun!

 

[HomerJS]

Why don't businesses who hate gay people and who are gay unfriendly just put those signs in their store front?

They can do so under 1st amendment free speech (the same reason we have Klan marches)

Gays would not frequent their stores so they would get their wish.

Stop hiding behind the phony religious freedom argument.

 

[brycejones]

Why don't businesses who hate gay people and who are gay unfriendly just put those signs in their store front?

They can do so under 1st amendment free speech (the same reason we have Klan marches)

Gays would not frequent their stores so they would get their wish.

Stop hiding behind the phony religious freedom argument.

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?

 

[SlickSnake]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...boycott_n_4846812.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

http://www.allegiancemusical.com/blog-entry/razing-arizona

 

[JEDIYoda]

As long as they don't legislate their morality on others, knock on doors trying to convert people, and don't refuse to serve other people when running a business, who cares. That is the difference between christians and atheists.

no thatb is the difference between SOME Christians and Atheists!

 

[Venix]

Well yes and no. The court got very very good in the 1960s in making private institutions state actors. Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority and Turner v. City of Memphis ruled that a private restaurant in property owned by a city could not discriminate. In Peterson v. City of Greenville and Robinson v. Florida, a private restaurant was ruled against because a city ordnance in favor of segregation applied to the restaurant, making them a state actor. Lombard v. Louisiana (1963) was even more broad ruling that because a restaurant was licensed by a state it became a state actor:

"State licensing and surveillance of a business serving the public also brings its service into the public domain. This restaurant needs a permit from Louisiana to operate;and during the existence of the license the State has broad powers of visitation and control. This restaurant is thus an instrumentality of the State since the State charges it with duties to the public and supervises its performance. The State's interest in and activity with regard to its restaurants extends far beyond any mere income-producing licensing requirement.

There is no constitutional way, as I see it, in which a State can license and supervise a business serving the public and endow it with the authority to manage that business on the basis of apartheid, which is foreign to our Constitution."

The way I understand it now, tying all public accommodations to interstate commerce removed the question of whether public accommodations were state actors. Thus the equal protection clause would apply to all public businesses. But it still gets back to the 14th amendment, in my mind, as the real support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Man, have I read a lot of Supreme Court decisions in the past few days. This is fun!

You don't know what the state action doctrine is, but you're qualified to lecture about Constitutional law because you just did a Google search. Right.

Case in point: The quote that you claim is the Lombard v. Louisiana ruling is merely a concurring opinion. The Court's actual ruling was simply that the restaurant's segregation policy was directed by the city and consequently was a state action.

Not a mistake someone with real knowledge of Constitutional law could make.

 

[sportage]

Sorry I can't resist. Have to chime on on the Faux News coverage.
Surprisingly, Faux also felt the bill went too far.
Faux not really concerned about the gay part, but more so this bills ability to discriminate against almost anyone, possibly everyone to some point.
Faux is just fine with the anti gay part, naturally.
But possibly using this bill against, oh I don't know, say, Faux News Employees as well?
Hell no! MUST VETO!

Every other news media is calling this for what it is, discriminating against gay people.
Faux News however, BIG government vs religious freedoms.
That Obama attack against religion thing, all over again.
Where Faux totally left out the personal aspect, the human aspect of discrimination against a people.
The Faux re-write? BIG gov vs religion.
Yes.... I needed a laugh. The only reason to tune into Faux, ever.

Then we have CNN.
Tuesday AM an interview with one of those that drafted the AZ bill.
This person claiming this bill does nothing to discriminate against gays.
Quoting, "if two straight men wanted to order a cake, the baker could refuse to serve the two straight guys as well".
WFT?
Two straight guys ordering a cake?
Now what is it, anti-NFL the BIG game cake day discrimination?
I know that every NFL game gathering I ever attended, the first thing we wanted was that NFL cake.
So off to the local bakery we ran. Burley macho men, hairy men, on the quest for a cake.
Pleaseeeeeee....

Don't know which was worse, this jerk on CNN that crafted this bill, or smirk on his puss while pretending this bill had nothing to do with gay discrimination.

ANywho...
Its good to see the gay community fInAlLy standing up for itself fighting against this crap.
That voice from the street has been long overdue.
And that makes the difference, and gets the attention.
More so, brings out everyone both gay and straight with one voice decrying any and every effort to impose discrimination. Especially when disguised under religion.

Ps. For anyone interested.
Why does the United states of America exist in the first place?
Why did we break away from Britain and want our freedom?
And why then did immigrants from all over the world desire to come to America?
Religious freedom.
Freedom "against" religious dominion, not freedom "ruled" by religion.
And if AZ legislators find that lesson hard to swallow, move to Iraq.
Or try another of several third world countries where religion dominates over law. You'd fit right in.

And whats this with Jan Brewer taking time or needing time to decide this?
Any child could decide this within 5 minutes, not 5 days.
Thats the loony side of Jan to worry about.....
.
.

 

[Pacemaker]

I can't believe that anyone is okay with this. If you are fine with refusing service based on religious reasons, then would you be okay with a Muslim owned business requiring women to wear a Hijab?

 

[HomerJS]

I can't believe that anyone is okay with this. If you are fine with refusing service based on religious reasons, then would you be okay with a Muslim owned business requiring women to wear a Hijab?

If this was out of character for the GOP I would agree with you.

 

[Daverino]

You don't know what the state action doctrine is, but you're qualified to lecture about Constitutional law because you just did a Google search. Right.

Case in point: The quote that you claim is the Lombard v. Louisiana ruling is merely a concurring opinion. The Court's actual ruling was simply that the restaurant's segregation policy was directed by the city and consequently was a state action.

Not a mistake someone with real knowledge of Constitutional law could make.

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?

 

[werepossum]

This site is going to draw some flak, but I'll leave it to whomever is interested to refute the information in it.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/i...-license-to-discriminate-against-gays-115093/

There is much more in the article that should be read.

In theory I completely agree with the individual's right to follow his or her conscience. However, in practice people's consciences tend to cluster, so the effect is to create a second class of citizenry. The only way to have Americans to all be Americans, the classless society we supposedly stand for, is to enforce uniform standards for everyone serving the public, whether they are devout evangelical Christians or devout Muslims.

I don't support gay marriage personally, but with that being said, under constitutional law I do believe it is a protected right. I do think this is going to be a messy situation for years to come. The SC will punt this to the states in the end I bet. As for this bill, if they serve the general public, then they must serve ALL of the general public. I don't believe this would violate a christian persons relationship with God, because the bible tells us to render what is Caesar's unto Caesar and render unto God what is God's. Paul instructs us to obey the laws of the land. Laws like this will open up all kinds of discrimination. We do need laws that protects religious groups from being forced to honor homosexuality like in their private places of worship though. But if its public then you have to respect all of the public.

Well said.

Why don't businesses who hate gay people and who are gay unfriendly just put those signs in their store front?

They can do so under 1st amendment free speech (the same reason we have Klan marches)

Gays would not frequent their stores so they would get their wish.

Stop hiding behind the phony religious freedom argument.

Or they could just put up a sign that said please try to destroy me and my business. Same effect.

 

[rudder]

No, federal law trumps this.

Yes, this one from 1993 which was approved by Democrats and signed into law by Bill Clinton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

Arizona passed their own version of the bill in 1998 after the supreme court said the RFRA could not apply to state laws.

Did you know that in Arizona there is no law on the books now preventing someone from discriminating against gays?

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, this one from 1993 which was approved by Democrats and signed into law by Bill Clinton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

Arizona passed their own version of the bill in 1998 after the supreme court said the RFRA could not apply to state laws.

Did you know that in Arizona there is no law on the books now preventing someone from discriminating against gays?

Right, and someone citing their religious freedom to deny entry to their business to black people will have a tough hurdle to overcome.

I was in fact aware that in Arizona there is no law on the books preventing someone from discriminating against gays. In fact I've mentioned that several times already in this very thread.

 

[HomerJS]

I find it ironic there are more negative things said about rich people in the bible then gay people.

 

[smackababy]

I find it ironic there are more negative things said about rich people in the bible then gay people.

It is clear Jesus was only talking about rich people that don't hate gays when he was talking bad about rich people.

Right, and someone citing their religious freedom to deny entry to their business to black people will have a tough hurdle to overcome.

I was in fact aware that in Arizona there is no law on the books preventing someone from discriminating against gays. In fact I've mentioned that several times already in this very thread.

Arizona isn't the only state. And, since this law won't overwrite the federal law on protected classes, it is aimed almost entirely at gays.

 

[fskimospy]

Arizona isn't the only state. And, since this law won't overwrite the federal law on protected classes, it is aimed almost entirely at gays.

I wouldn't say it is aimed almost entirely at gays, I would say it is aimed 100% entirely at gays.

Really though, as mentioned before this law has no practical impact other than to use the power of government to express disapproval of gay people. It's disgusting and deeply immoral, but in day to day life it means little.

 

[rudder]

Right, and someone citing their religious freedom to deny entry to their business to black people will have a tough hurdle to overcome.

I was in fact aware that in Arizona there is no law on the books preventing someone from discriminating against gays. In fact I've mentioned that several times already in this very thread.

I apologize I missed that. I do not use the ignore function and simply self-ignore 99% of the moronic dribble from some users.

Actually yes, if someone tried to block a black person from a business on those grounds would face some serious problems.

 

[werepossum]

I apologize I missed that. I do not use the ignore function and simply self-ignore 99% of the moronic dribble from some users.

Actually yes, if someone tried to block a black person from a business on those grounds would face some serious problems.

Therein lies the opposition to this law. Why should some Americans be protected from discrimination due to accident of birth (skin color) whereas other Americans be without protection from the exact same discrimination due to what is arguably also an accident of birth? Shouldn't all Americans have the exact same protections absent some compelling societal need to discriminate?

At one point in our history we considered keeping gay people away from normal people to be such a compelling societal need. Now however we have tons of openly gay people and the only directly attributable societal ill is that we have tons of openly gay people. This is in the same category as demanding that whites and blacks have segregated dining facilities because otherwise we would have whites and blacks eating together, where the only objections can be "I don't like gays/blacks" or "it's always been like that."

If something is discriminatory without valid and necessary cause, a long history of existence is reason to change it more quickly, not less quickly. If one just doesn't like a group of people, that's not really something that in my opinion deserves legal justification; something like "time to pull on your big girl panties, paste on a fake smile, and do your freakin' job" would be more appropriate.

 

[Ryan]

Vetoed. Just announced.

 

[JManInPhoenix]

Vetoed. Just announced.

:thumbsup:

 

[Engineer]

Vetoed. Just announced.

People that voted for this ran into a political shit-storm and were backpedaling as fast as they could spit the words out on the interviews.

:thumbsup:

 

[HomerJS]

Just like former Gov Ultrasound. Shine a light on social conservative policies and roaches scatter