• Re: equal protection used to be the law, does refusing to deliver goods

    From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 22 22:22:19 2024
    According to micky <[email protected]>:
    If you purport to run a business open to the public, you can't
    discriminate against people on the basis of sex, which has been
    interpreted to include sexual orientation.

    Unless such a ban would conflict with the First Amendment, which takes >precedence over statutes.

    Equal protection is the 14th Amendment. The usual rule when two laws
    conflict is that the more recent one takes precedence. There were some
    1961 SCOTUS cases someone else mentioned that upheld Sunday closing
    blue laws, Braunfeld v. Brown and McGowan v. Maryland. The court
    dodged the issue by assuming that the laws had a secular as well as
    religious purpose, but there were some pretty tart dissents.

    It's the same reason you can't refuse to serve Blacks.
    It's the same reason but the conflic is not present, since there is no >religious distinction between Blacks and non-Blacks.

    Oh, my. The world in general and the US in particular has a very long
    and unpleasant history of religiously sanctioned racism. The split
    between the Northern and Southern Baptists was because the northerners
    didn't approve of slavery, and the Southern Baptists found a Biblical justification for it. The LDS (Mormon) church did not allow Blacks in
    their leadership until 1978 and many of their conservative offshoots
    still do not. This was all too typical.

    Since the 1960s overt racism has become a lot less socially and
    legally acceptable, but it seems just a matter of time until the
    Alito-Thomas court takes a challenge from someone who has a sincere
    religious belief that Blacks are the spawn of Ham and refuses to
    deal with them.

    My example was not chosen to find another protected class, but was meant
    to illustrate that being forced to write something one seriously
    disagrees with is an infringement on one's freedom. You do agree, do
    you not, that in both cases, the gay wedding and the nazi, it's an >infringement on the baker's freedom.

    We're talking about expression on the order of "Congratulations Betsy
    and Sally" written on the cake. That is not significant expression
    other than under the most strained and motivated interpretation, so
    no, I do not.

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)