decision is in, Gay marriage now legal

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,633
34,723
362
Mountainous Northern California
this was covered in pretty good depth when the bakery story originally broke.

how would their non-discrimination law violate the constitution?


here is an overview of the law from the oregon bar
Incorporation clause of the 14th Amendment.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
i am aware of oregon's constitution.
"No law...in any case" seems to provide fairly comprehensive protection for the rights of conscience.

I assume you agree that a constitution takes precedence over a law. Has there been a court ruling that reconciles how the non-discrimination law is or is not in conflict with the state's constitution?
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,146
44,863
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
"No law...in any case" seems to provide fairly comprehensive protection for the rights of conscience.

I assume you agree that a constitution takes precedence over a law. Has there been a court ruling that reconciles how the non-discrimination law is or is not in conflict with the state's constitution?
the bakery owners are free to believe what they want, but if they want to run a business that serves the public, they have to accommodate the public.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,146
44,863
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
Well duh. I'm referring to your apparent suggestion that the gag order does not violate their constitutional rights.
well, i am not a lawyer, but gag orders in legal cases seem to be a fairly common thing.

i have not actually seen the text of the gag order and have only seen breathless reports that the evil government officials in oregon are persecuting christians, so i am guessing based on past experience, that this is a normal occurrence in the legal realm that is being taken out of context and blown out of proportion to generate more outrage about conservative christian persecution.

but i may be wrong
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
Wrong. Oregon is violating the 1st Amendment. There is no Amendment overriding it or allowing Congress or the states to make law to do so. And its just plain wrong. It violates freedom of speech, religion, and conscience. I might make a different choice, but we shouldn't force others to do our bidding or financially destroy them and deny them the right to speak about it because it hurts our feelings.
I think people fail to realize that US citizens have the right to free speech but not free speech without consequence. Also the government can take away free speech as well. Just look at when Adams and Wilson did it when people were opposing the wars of their administration.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,146
44,863
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
Reading comprehension disagrees with you.
no, you disagree with me. the concept of public accommodation is pretty well established.

good news for you, you can stop just complaining and actually take action. the huckster seems to be ready to stamp out tyranny and protect religious liberty on day 1

link

America didn’t fight a revolution against the tyranny of one unelected monarch so we could surrender our religious liberty to the tyranny of five unelected lawyers. The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being, and the Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature's God on marriage than they can the laws of gravity. Last Friday’s same-sex marriage decision by the Court, which rejected the will of people in over 30 states, is an out-of-control act of unconstitutional judicial tyranny.
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,633
34,723
362
Mountainous Northern California
I think people fail to realize that US citizens have the right to free speech but not free speech without consequence. Also the government can take away free speech as well. Just look at when Adams and Wilson did it when people were opposing the wars of their administration.
This isn't a war (cultural "war" notwithstanding), so under most circumstances no, they can't. And since the Oregon law this ruling is based on is unconstitutional then the gag order is illegal as well and in general flies in the face of the constitution. Free speech without consequence from government means exactly that, actually. You'd have an argument if the free market were forcing this on them; but it is the very government the constitution addresses when limiting powers as incorporated against the states. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus but do you expect a peacetime government to do that? Ludicrous. Bottom line: The Constitution protects free exercise of religion from state interference. Sexual orientation is not included in the 14th Amendment, which does incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states (along with other rights). There is a conflict and the states will lose to the feds every time. Congress has also carved no niche for sexual orientation and even if they did without a new Amendment it probably would not fly - and "probably" only because I don't expect the Constitution to always be followed even if it should.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,146
44,863
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
This isn't a war (cultural "war" notwithstanding), so under most circumstances no, they can't. And since the Oregon law this ruling is based on is unconstitutional then the gag order is illegal as well and in general flies in the face of the constitution. Free speech without consequence from government means exactly that, actually. You'd have an argument if the free market were forcing this on them; but it is the very government the constitution addresses when limiting powers as incorporated against the states. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus but do you expect a peacetime government to do that? Ludicrous. Bottom line: The Constitution protects free exercise of religion from state interference. Sexual orientation is not included in the 14th Amendment, which does incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states (along with other rights). There is a conflict and the states will lose to the feds every time. Congress has also carved no niche for sexual orientation and even if they did without a new Amendment it probably would not fly - and "probably" only because I don't expect the Constitution to always be followed even if it should.
when was the oregon law declared unconstitutional?
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,633
34,723
362
Mountainous Northern California
when was the oregon law declared unconstitutional?
This is called an opinion. It's not a court of law, and even in court you can argue a law is unconstitutional. Since we aren't in court and the high standards of that venue do not have to be met I just assume that anyone with a brain understands that I am giving my opinion. But, by the same token, when was it ruled to be constitutional?
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,146
44,863
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
This is called an opinion. It's not a court of law, and even in court you can argue a law is unconstitutional. Since we aren't in court and the high standards of that venue do not have to be met I just assume that anyone with a brain understands that I am giving my opinion. But, by the same token, when was it ruled to be constitutional?
the law cannot be ruled constitutional until it is challenged as being unconstitutional. as far as i can tell, no one has challenged the constitutionality. a constitutional challenge to this law would be a long shot at best.

if someone wants to run a business in a state, they have to follow the laws in that state. the laws in oregon state that a business that serves the public cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, among other things.
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
when was the oregon law declared unconstitutional?
When was the Oregon constitution amended to define all businesses (regardless of legal construct) as public accomodations and therefore not subject to the protections of Article I, Section 3, stating that no law in any case whatsoever can violate the right of conscience?
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,633
34,723
362
Mountainous Northern California
the law cannot be ruled constitutional until it is challenged as being unconstitutional. as far as i can tell, no one has challenged the constitutionality. a constitutional challenge to this law would be a long shot at best.

if someone wants to run a business in a state, they have to follow the laws in that state. the laws in oregon state that a business that serves the public cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, among other things.
And that law at the state level conflicts with the federal constitution which is also binding on states. State law winning over federal law is the longer shot. What made desegregation of businesses (public establishments) lawful was the civil rights act which was enacted under the power given congress by the 14th Amendment. Without that clearly enumerated power it fails miserably, whatever its merit.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.