Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Business Owners To Refuse Service To Gays

[paperview]

It appears the protectionist has applied Strict Scrutiny in the opposite direction from what it actually is...

From last months ruling --

Lately, it seems like every day brings another falling domino in the fight for marriage freedom. Today's victory comes from Virginia, where a federal judge declared the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The case, Bostic v. Rainey, looks a lot like every other marriage case -- loving and committed same-sex couples want nothing more than to have their love recognized by the state.

Judge Arenda Wright Allen, a former Judge Advocate General in the Navy and public defender and an Obama appointee to the federal bench, declared Virginia's ban unconstitutional, but took a different path than some other judges who have recently come to similar conclusions. The decision concludes that marriage is a fundamental right and, as such, any ban on fundamental rights has to be evaluated under strict scrutiny.

But Judge Wright Allen notes that she does not have to go the far: the ban fails very easily under equal protection, and under the lowest form of scrutiny. But, as you will see from our discussion below, this decision feeds off recent decisions elsewhere on marriage equality, proving that a victory in one case does indeed make it easier to win the next case.

Regular Towleroad readers should be familiar with this argument. It does not break any new ground and will probably stand up at the appellate level. And although the Fourth Circuit has for years been a deeply conservative court, President Obama's recent appointees have tipped the balance. Even if they had not, we have seen many Republican appointees honestly apply the law and find these bans unconstitutional.

States cannot restrict fundamental rights, which are rights so important to what it means to be an American, unless they provide a "compelling interest" and "narrowly tailor" their actions to result in the least restriction possible. That is strict scrutiny, and Virginia's arguments could not even come close.

Virginia's Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down: Analysis of the Ruling| Gay News | Towleroad

 

[kaz]

1. For his whole 8 years of presidency, the top bracket tax was never less than 91%. This supported the FBI, the CIA, INS, DEA, all the military, etc. Reagan lowered this tax to 28%.

2. Eisenhower created the US interstate highway system, while under Reagan's admin, infrastructure was largely ignored.

3. Eisenhower chased huge numbers of illegal aliens back to Mexico, with his Operation Wetback in 1954. 32 years later, Reagan gave them amnesty.

4. Eisenhower did and said nothing to support homosexuals. Reagan condemned the Briggs initiative in California, helping to prevent the law which would have kept queers out of schools.

5. Lastly, while Ike, as Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe in World War II, was grinding his way across Germany, and on his way to victory in Berlin, in 1945, Reagan was in Hollywood making movies about it.

I think Reagan's actual policies were more libertarian that conservative. He paid lip service to socons, but he did nothing for them. Obviously he did things that were not libertarian, like Lebanon. But attacking Libya in response to their terrorist attacks targeting Americans, recognizing what a threat a communist government off our shores and dealing with those were good things. And he wrecked the Soviet Union financially with military spending rather than through actual military engagement. Tax simplification was as big or bigger impact than the cuts.

The problem is he took one step back from big government, and his predecessors and successors were all going forward, so it was a blip.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yeah ? And after 50 years of NOT RULING THAT, what gives you the notion that suddenly they will ?

Actually that is the gist of the Loving decision in 1967. That states can regulate Civil Marriage until such time as they violate rights.

EARTH TO JS: The SCOTUS has already ruled that they CAN discriminate. Are you reading the thread ? Try to keep up.

Which case was that?

United States vs. Carolene Products Co., and Korematsu v. United States

Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to weigh the government's interest against a constitutional right or principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny. These standards are used to test statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States.

The notion of "levels of judicial scrutiny", including strict scrutiny, was introduced in Footnote 4 of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), one of a series of decisions testing the constitutionality of New Deal legislation. The first and most notable case in which the Supreme Court applied the strict scrutiny standard and found the government's actions valid was Korematsu v. United States (1944), in which the Court upheld the exclusion of Japanese Americans from designated areas during World War II.

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment.

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must be justified by acompelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred.

The United States vs. Carolene Products Co., and Korematsu v. United States were just the earliest of the cases of strict scrutiny requiring compelling interest. Over the years, there have been hundreds of cases involving this principle such as the Supreme Court under Earl Warren adopted an expansive view of the Free Exercise Clause. The Court required that states have a "compelling interest" in refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct as it decided Sherbert v. Verner (1963).

The "compelling interest" doctrine became much narrower in 1990, when the Supreme Court held in Employment Division v. Smith that, as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.

in 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which sought to restore the "compelling interest" standard. In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) the Court struck down the provisions of the Act that forced state and local governments to provide protections exceeding those required by the First Amendment, which the courts enjoy sole power to interpret. According to the court's ruling in Gonzales v. UDV (2006), RFRA remains applicable to federal statutes, which must therefore still meet the "compelling interest" standard in free exercise cases.

Here's a few more examples (quoted right off the Supreme Court bench) >>>

“It [the university] must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” (Widmar v. Vincent, 454 US 263, 270, 1981)

“For the state to enforce a content-based exclusion it must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” (Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Ed. Assn., 460 US 37, 45, 1983)

“The Court of Appeals found the injunction to be content based and neither necessary to serve a compelling interest nor narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” (Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, 512 US __, __, 1994)

“Requiring a State to demonstrate a compelling interest and show that it has adopted the least restrictive means of achieving that interest is the most demanding test known to constitutional law.” (City of Boerne v. Flores, 1997 US Lexis 4035, 46)

OK, I may have misunderstood. Of course the government can discriminate if their is a compelling government interest. But of course there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against gays as a function of government. Hell, not only does it not have a compelling government interest, it doesn't even rise to the rational basis test standard.

Take for example Colorado's Amendment 2 which attempted to strip equality from homosexuals and leave them with no legal recourse to challenge discrimination, not only at the State level is voided even local laws that attempted to provide legal recourse. In Romer v. Evans the court stated:

"The Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws must co-exist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons. Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 271- 272 (1979); F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920). We have attempted to reconcile the principle with the reality by stating that, if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end. See, e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. ___, ___ (1993) (slip op., at 6).

Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment has the peculiar property of imposing a broad and undifferentiated disability on a single named group, an exceptional and, as we shall explain, invalid form of legislation. Second, its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests."​

Just to reiterate, the court said the the desire to discriminate against homosexuals lacked a rational basis.



>>>>

 

[kaz]

You realize "Neocon" has an actual definition. How does it make sense more than tangentially to Reagan?

Did you type "Reagan wasn't a big government spender" with a straight face?

Reagan wasn't a big government spender. What are you, 12? If you don't remember the Reagan administration, you should at least learn history, and if you don't, then don't just flaunt your ignorance.

Neocons WANT to spend money. Reagan viewed the Soviet Union as the biggest threat to humanity and agreed with Tip to trade military for social spending. Tip also agreed to cut spending three to one for tax increases and just flat out lied to him.

Again, neocon is a word with a definition, It's not random ideas to word splice. Libertarians and conservatives can reasonably criticize him for agreeing to domestic spending in exchange for his priority, but that doesn't make him a neocon. Regarding military, countering the Soviet Union and attacking Libya aren't neocon acts. What do you have, Granada and Lebanon? Lebanon he didn't even topple, he just supported the UN in peace keeping. Grenada was a pimple and clearly motivated by the threat of a communist government off our shores and not nation building. You're fail, fail if you're arguing Reagan was a neocon.

Now who is a neocon is Obama. And a classic one. A big government liberal who fell in love with using military power to install governments he favors. And no word twisting involved.

 

[kaz]

What a load of shit - and really Dawg, if you are agreeing with Saul Goodman (Clayton,) you KNOW you're dead wrong on the issue, regardless of what that issue is.

I'm walking down a crowded street - quick, who are the queers? You can't tell, because homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, not a race. Unless a dude drops in the middle of the street and starts sucking some guys cock, there is nothing to identify homosexuals - it's a behavior.

The ONLY way someone can discriminate against homosexuals is based on what they do, not color of skin.

Saul wants to make behavior equivalent to race, but then the closest Saul gets to logic, is logical fallacy.

It's how they define discrimination. Gays have the negative right now to be left alone. That isn't good enough. The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.

Translated: Gays are fine as long as they are quiet and in the closet...as soon as they demand rights equal to Kaz's...oooh, bad, bad gheys.

From the liberal dictionary: Translate: Making a snarky, politically motivated statement which demonstrates no grasp of the actual point made and just has some tertiary connection to a few of the words used in the statement.

Thanks for translating that for me.

 

[kaz]

It's how they define discrimination. Gays have the negative right now to be left alone. That isn't good enough. The left demands they get positive rights, the right to be belligerent about being gay and infringe on other's rights.

Translated: Gays are fine as long as they are quiet and in the closet...as soon as they demand rights equal to Kaz's...oooh, bad, bad gheys.

"the right to be belligerent about being gay"

Well, don't equal rights demand that gays should have the same right as heteros who seem to give themselves the right to be belligerent about gay people?

I don't know what that means, but I advocate the same rules for both.

1) I oppose all government marriage.

2) I oppose the death tax for all.

3) I don't think sex, sex acts, lewd art, ... of any kind should be forced on the public but should be a choice people chose in private.

4) I think taxes should be flat, or better yet go to the Fair Tax.

5) I think our laws on paternity and rights like life decisions need to be rethought to eliminate the need for marriage.

6) I think insurance should be between employers and employees or medical carriers and insureds and not government and anyone.

7) I think government should treat all it's citizens equally and who you sleep with shouldn't affect your relationship with government.

 

[kaz]

Translated: Gays are fine as long as they are quiet and in the closet...as soon as they demand rights equal to Kaz's...oooh, bad, bad gheys.

"the right to be belligerent about being gay"

Well, don't equal rights demand that gays should have the same right as heteros who seem to give themselves the right to be belligerent about gay people?

Yes, standing up for your rights is called "belligerent" by those that don't want them to have those rights. Uppity has been popular too.

You like to make sweeping statements, which nullifies any point you think you're making. I referred to positive and negative rights. You're begging the question and not addressing my actual point of the difference.

 

[elektra]

And to add to your comment, if a man does not have the common sense and intelligence not to put his stick in the mud, does that homosexual man have the common sense and intelligence not to tell Children he is a homosexual.

The answer was given to me when my daughter was 10, in school, when her Homosexual teacher told the whole class that he was breaking up with his "life partner".

What right do Homosexuals have to tell 10 year old children that are not theirs about Homosexuality?

Well, this is the beginning of a terrible story that I will end here.

anyone who does not have the intelligence to control their sexual proclivities has not the intelligence to be around children.

So if a straight teacher told their class they were getting married, having a baby, getting a divorce, etc...no biggie

but if one of "the gheys" does it...the world just ends for you?

How old are you?

I shared something that happened in my life, I am not sorry that it offends you.

The teacher I speak of told the ten year old children in the San Juan Capistrano School District that he was a homosexual.

Instead of addressing the point I make and joining me in a discussion, you ask a hypothetical question about Hetrosexuals as if that justifies the actions of Homosexual Teachers coming out as homosexuals in a class with ten year old children?

I disagree with you, Children should not be taught homosexuality.

I was not disparaging with you, seems a little illogical to respond as such, sort of like homosexuality is illogical as is the unprofessionalism of this Homosexual Teacher discussing the details of his Homosexual life with children.

And seeing how you seem to lack logic and reason I must tell you that last remark above this one is me insulting you, I am suggesting you may be a homosexual, one who lacks logic and reason.

 

[kaz]

Of course the government can discriminate if their is a compelling government interest. But of course there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against gays as a function of government. Hell, not only does it not have a compelling government interest, it doesn't even rise to the rational basis test standard.

I always find that standard amazing. I care about what's in the people's interest, not what's in government's interest. Why should government subsidize gay relationships with tax breaks?

 

[GibsonSG]

Of course the government can discriminate if their is a compelling government interest. But of course there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against gays as a function of government. Hell, not only does it not have a compelling government interest, it doesn't even rise to the rational basis test standard.

I always find that standard amazing. I care about what's in the people's interest, not what's in government's interest. Why should government subsidize gay relationships with tax breaks?

So couples you don't like shouldn't be treated as other couples are? Is that the American Way?

 

[kaz]

Of course the government can discriminate if their is a compelling government interest. But of course there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against gays as a function of government. Hell, not only does it not have a compelling government interest, it doesn't even rise to the rational basis test standard.

I always find that standard amazing. I care about what's in the people's interest, not what's in government's interest. Why should government subsidize gay relationships with tax breaks?

So couples you don't like shouldn't be treated as other couples are? Is that the American Way?

Actually, I oppose straight government marriage also, but thanks for playing and have a nice day. Take some parting loser gifts...

 

[bodecea]

I always find that standard amazing. I care about what's in the people's interest, not what's in government's interest. Why should government subsidize gay relationships with tax breaks?

So couples you don't like shouldn't be treated as other couples are? Is that the American Way?

Actually, I oppose straight government marriage also, but thanks for playing and have a nice day. Take some parting loser gifts...

What have you actively done in that regard?

 

[bodecea]

Of course the government can discriminate if their is a compelling government interest. But of course there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against gays as a function of government. Hell, not only does it not have a compelling government interest, it doesn't even rise to the rational basis test standard.

I always find that standard amazing. I care about what's in the people's interest, not what's in government's interest. Why should government subsidize gay relationships with tax breaks?

So couples you don't like shouldn't be treated as other couples are? Is that the American Way?

Their American Way. We saw what that has been like in the "good ole' days" they talk about.

 

[kaz]

So couples you don't like shouldn't be treated as other couples are? Is that the American Way?

Actually, I oppose straight government marriage also, but thanks for playing and have a nice day. Take some parting loser gifts...

What have you actively done in that regard?

What have you actively done to make gay marriage legal?

 

[bodecea]

And to add to your comment, if a man does not have the common sense and intelligence not to put his stick in the mud, does that homosexual man have the common sense and intelligence not to tell Children he is a homosexual.

The answer was given to me when my daughter was 10, in school, when her Homosexual teacher told the whole class that he was breaking up with his "life partner".

What right do Homosexuals have to tell 10 year old children that are not theirs about Homosexuality?

Well, this is the beginning of a terrible story that I will end here.

anyone who does not have the intelligence to control their sexual proclivities has not the intelligence to be around children.

So if a straight teacher told their class they were getting married, having a baby, getting a divorce, etc...no biggie

but if one of "the gheys" does it...the world just ends for you?

How old are you?

I shared something that happened in my life, I am not sorry that it offends you.

The teacher I speak of told the ten year old children in the San Juan Capistrano School District that he was a homosexual.

Instead of addressing the point I make and joining me in a discussion, you ask a hypothetical question about Hetrosexuals as if that justifies the actions of Homosexual Teachers coming out as homosexuals in a class with ten year old children?

I disagree with you, Children should not be taught homosexuality.

I was not disparaging with you, seems a little illogical to respond as such, sort of like homosexuality is illogical as is the unprofessionalism of this Homosexual Teacher discussing the details of his Homosexual life with children.

And seeing how you seem to lack logic and reason I must tell you that last remark above this one is me insulting you, I am suggesting you may be a homosexual, one who lacks logic and reason.

So...a teacher talking about their divorce to someone (straight marriage) is teaching heterosexuality. That is what you are saying.

 

[dblack]

Of course the government can discriminate if their is a compelling government interest. But of course there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against gays as a function of government. Hell, not only does it not have a compelling government interest, it doesn't even rise to the rational basis test standard.

I always find that standard amazing. I care about what's in the people's interest, not what's in government's interest. Why should government subsidize gay relationships with tax breaks?

So couples you don't like shouldn't be treated as other couples are? Is that the American Way?

No couples, no people, have a right to be "treated" in any particular way by others.

 

[Valiant]

I can't wait until it goes to court

Why would it go to court?

you have to ask why?.....

Harry, SHAZAM! Captain Marvel and Billy Batson have been my hero(s) all my life.

Just wanted to say that.

 

[Seawytch]

So couples you don't like shouldn't be treated as other couples are? Is that the American Way?

Actually, I oppose straight government marriage also, but thanks for playing and have a nice day. Take some parting loser gifts...

What have you actively done in that regard?

Nobody that claims they are against "gubmint marriage" has done diddly (except maybe get legally married themselves).

 

[Seawytch]

And to add to your comment, if a man does not have the common sense and intelligence not to put his stick in the mud, does that homosexual man have the common sense and intelligence not to tell Children he is a homosexual.



The answer was given to me when my daughter was 10, in school, when her Homosexual teacher told the whole class that he was breaking up with his "life partner".



What right do Homosexuals have to tell 10 year old children that are not theirs about Homosexuality?



Well, this is the beginning of a terrible story that I will end here.



anyone who does not have the intelligence to control their sexual proclivities has not the intelligence to be around children.

So if a straight teacher told their class they were getting married, having a baby, getting a divorce, etc...no biggie



but if one of "the gheys" does it...the world just ends for you?



How old are you?

I shared something that happened in my life, I am not sorry that it offends you.



The teacher I speak of told the ten year old children in the San Juan Capistrano School District that he was a homosexual.



Instead of addressing the point I make and joining me in a discussion, you ask a hypothetical question about Hetrosexuals as if that justifies the actions of Homosexual Teachers coming out as homosexuals in a class with ten year old children?



I disagree with you, Children should not be taught homosexuality.



I was not disparaging with you, seems a little illogical to respond as such, sort of like homosexuality is illogical as is the unprofessionalism of this Homosexual Teacher discussing the details of his Homosexual life with children.



And seeing how you seem to lack logic and reason I must tell you that last remark above this one is me insulting you, I am suggesting you may be a homosexual, one who lacks logic and reason.

It is not anymore "inappropriate" for ten year olds to know their teacher is gay than it is to know their teacher is straight.

I'm suggesting you may be a bigot, one who has never let actual logic get in the way of your emotional response to gay people.

 

[kaz]

Actually, I oppose straight government marriage also, but thanks for playing and have a nice day. Take some parting loser gifts...

What have you actively done in that regard?

Nobody that claims they are against "gubmint marriage" has done diddly (except maybe get legally married themselves).

That wasn't the question. What have you actively done to further gay marriage?