Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 08:50:06 PMThe Constitution and Laws are not the same thing.

They are actually. Laws cannot override the constitution. The state cannot write laws giving it powers the constitution doesnt. The constitution allows for the state to make laws regarding murder being bad.

It does not grant the state powers to write laws discriminating for no reason. Nor does it allow the state to write laws infringing on religious freedoms or normalizing mental disorders and deviant sexual behavior.

Quote from: T Hunt on September 23, 2021, 08:52:23 PMThey are actually. Laws cannot override the constitution. The state cannot write laws giving it powers the constitution doesnt. The constitution allows for the state to make laws regarding murder being bad.

It does not grant the state powers to write laws discriminating for no reason. Nor does it allow the state to write laws infringing on religious freedoms or normalizing mental disorders and deviant sexual behavior.

Laws and the Constitution are not the same thing.  You cannot tell your boss to "Fuck off" and claim first amendment protection.

Where is sexual behavior mentioned in the Constitution?

Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 08:54:20 PMLaws and the Constitution are not the same thing.  You cannot tell your boss to "Fuck off" and claim first amendment protection.

Where is sexual behavior mentioned in the Constitution?

Yes they are, the constitution is the supreme law of the land. As I said, laws cannot override the constitution nor can they give powers to the state that the constitution doesnt.

Sexual behavior is not in there, thats the point. Religion is. There can be no protections based on sexual class that usurp freedom of religion.

Quote from: p1tchblack on September 23, 2021, 05:36:04 PMNo  the courts didn't rule on the legality or whether it was discrimination.  The court kicked the can down the road.

So  amI right that gay and straight needing cakes have the same ingredients?  There's no gay flour or gay eggs, right?

An ID card isn't a medical record.  You are implying that there would be a HIPAA violation and I don't see any basis for that.

Kicked the can down the road???? It was a 7-2 decision.        The baker did not refuse to sell them what was up for sale, that would be discrimination, he told them he would not use his talents to create them a special cake, a kind he does not make. The court ruling was it was his right to refuse to use his talents on something he sees as wrong.
The Florida ruling is correct, nobody has any right to know what kind of medical care/treatment/ etc another individual has taken. Ex. can a landlord who only wants adults. no kids, ask a potential tenant if they are taking birth control. Of course not, none of his business.
 Again, there are rules to follow when you go into business that is open to the public. You do not agree with this one, fine. That is one opinion, it did not change the rules. 

Quote from: Possum on September 24, 2021, 04:02:50 AMKicked the can down the road???? It was a 7-2 decision.        The baker did not refuse to sell them what was up for sale, that would be discrimination, he told them he would not use his talents to create them a special cake, a kind he does not make. The court ruling was it was his right to refuse to use his talents on something he sees as wrong.
The Florida ruling is correct, nobody has any right to know what kind of medical care/treatment/ etc another individual has taken. Ex. can a landlord who only wants adults. no kids, ask a potential tenant if they are taking birth control. Of course not, none of his business.
 Again, there are rules to follow when you go into business that is open to the public. You do not agree with this one, fine. That is one opinion, it did not change the rules.

You clearly didn't read the court's decision.  They did not rule on anything regarding cakes, weddings, religious rights or anything that mattered in the case.  They ruled, basically, that the Colorado Commission behaved badly:

Instead, the Court decided the case, but on the narrowest grounds imaginable—that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission during its consideration of the case had shown anti-religious bias. The result was a decision that provides almost no guidance for lower courts facing similar cases. "In this case," Kennedy wrote, "the adjudication concerned a context that may well be different going forward." Thus, "the outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/the-court-slices-a-narrow-ruling-out-of-masterpiece-cakeshop/561986/

As far as requiring medical records - kids have to provide immunization records to go to school. People traveling to specific countries have to, I believe, get specific vaccines and employers are already requiring vaccines for employees. Florida may make laws, but the concept that it's inherently illegal to require proof of vaccination is incorrect.

Quote from: p1tchblack on September 24, 2021, 05:56:27 AMYou clearly didn't read the court's decision.  They did not rule on anything regarding cakes, weddings, religious rights or anything that mattered in the case.  They ruled, basically, that the Colorado Commission behaved badly:

Instead, the Court decided the case, but on the narrowest grounds imaginable—that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission during its consideration of the case had shown anti-religious bias. The result was a decision that provides almost no guidance for lower courts facing similar cases. "In this case," Kennedy wrote, "the adjudication concerned a context that may well be different going forward." Thus, "the outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/the-court-slices-a-narrow-ruling-out-of-masterpiece-cakeshop/561986/

As far as requiring medical records - kids have to provide immunization records to go to school. People traveling to specific countries have to, I believe, get specific vaccines and employers are already requiring vaccines for employees. Florida may make laws, but the concept that it's inherently illegal to require proof of vaccination is incorrect.

One of us did not read it, the lower court found the baker guilty of violating Colorado's anti discrimination law, seven supreme court judges voted to overturn that. Did either side get all it wanted in that ruling, some say no. BUT, where as the court leaned toward that you can not refuse sale, which is the part that would apply to the landlord, they also ruled that you can not make someone apply their talents toward something they do not believe in. Had the tenant wanted a "special" room to rent, the landowner can refuse. That is not the case here, the landlord is discriminating because a tenant is not getting medical care HE feels they should be. Again, there are rules to follow when you open yourself to doing business with the public, you may not like the law as you don't in this case, but it is still the law.