Refusal over personal beliefs

[eagle1462010]

"We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service" rule does not apply anymore???? Hmmmm...I see them all the time in various businesses....so what gives? I guess I better find one of those businesses, act like an asshole and when they refuse to sell me their goods and/or services? I will simply get some ambulance chasing barrister to hammer out an of court settlement that works on a contingency bases......

That sign does not reflect compliance with the law. No such comprehensive right exists.

LOL

No shirts No Service sign at door, and you walk in practically naked and see where it gets you.

No Guns allowed in store..............Now you would be cheering that one saying how great it is.

You are a HYPOCRITE.....plain and simple.........either the dangs rules apply uniform or you can pound sand.

Look up the word 'comprehensive' and get back to me.

I don't think so..............BAKE THE REBEL FLAG CAKE NOW OR I'LL SUE YOUR ASS...........................What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

You can't enforce your will on others with having to eat the cake in return................Mr. HYPOCRITE.

There's a difference between discriminating against a product and discriminating against a person.

Get off of your high horse and bake the dang Rebel Cake.

 

[Iceweasel]

Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy

Bakeries, Florists and Photographers are businesses and therefor public accommodations.

A performer is not a public accommodation.

I'm happy to have cleared that up for you, you seem a bit dopey. Probably all that racist inbreeding.

"We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service" rule does not apply anymore???? Hmmmm...I see them all the time in various businesses....so what gives? I guess I better find one of those businesses, act like an asshole and when they refuse to sell me their goods and/or services? I will simply get some ambulance chasing barrister to hammer out an of court settlement that works on a contingency bases......

Acting like an asshole is not protected under Title II of the Civil Rights Act nor any state Public Accommodation laws. If you're considering owning a business, learn the laws.

The Right to Refuse Service
What Does It Mean to Discriminate Against Someone?

If there’s an anti-discrimination law, does that mean that a business can never refuse service to a member of a group that is protected from discrimination?

The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.

To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress.

Second, you must apply your policy to everyone. For example, you can’t turn away a black person who’s not wearing a tie and then let in a tieless white man. You also can’t have a policy that sounds like it applies to everyone but really just excludes one particular group of people. So, for example, a policy against wearing headscarves in a restaurant would probably be discriminatory against Muslims.

YOU learn the law. Sexual preference isn't Constitutionally protected. and I've told you many times so you're just a propagandizer disinterested in truth.

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone?
What Do the Anti-Discrimination Laws Say?

At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability.

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can’t discriminate based on someone’s unconventional dress. In some states, like Arizona, there’s no state law banning discrimination against gays, but there are local laws in some cities that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.

 

[Seawytch]

Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy

Bakeries, Florists and Photographers are businesses and therefor public accommodations.

A performer is not a public accommodation.

I'm happy to have cleared that up for you, you seem a bit dopey. Probably all that racist inbreeding.

"We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service" rule does not apply anymore???? Hmmmm...I see them all the time in various businesses....so what gives? I guess I better find one of those businesses, act like an asshole and when they refuse to sell me their goods and/or services? I will simply get some ambulance chasing barrister to hammer out an of court settlement that works on a contingency bases......

Acting like an asshole is not protected under Title II of the Civil Rights Act nor any state Public Accommodation laws. If you're considering owning a business, learn the laws.

The Right to Refuse Service
What Does It Mean to Discriminate Against Someone?

If there’s an anti-discrimination law, does that mean that a business can never refuse service to a member of a group that is protected from discrimination?

The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.

To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress.

Second, you must apply your policy to everyone. For example, you can’t turn away a black person who’s not wearing a tie and then let in a tieless white man. You also can’t have a policy that sounds like it applies to everyone but really just excludes one particular group of people. So, for example, a policy against wearing headscarves in a restaurant would probably be discriminatory against Muslims.

YOU learn the law. Sexual preference isn't Constitutionally protected. and I've told you many times so you're just a propagandizer disinterested in truth.

Sexual orientation is protected in about 20 states and a number of localities. You do not have the right to refuse service to people based on sexual orientation in those places just like I don't have the right to discriminate against Christians in any of the states.

You do not have a right to refuse service to just anyone for any reason, as I pointed out quite clearly.

 

[Iceweasel]

Sexual orientation is protected in about 20 states and a number of localities. You do not have the right to refuse service to people based on sexual orientation in those places just like I don't have the right to discriminate against Christians in any of the states.

You do not have a right to refuse service to just anyone for any reason, as I pointed out quite clearly.

You pointed out that you are a brain dead propagandist. I said it wasn't constitutionally protected and you just backed it up. Again. You're just a lying asshole on the internet, nothing more.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That sign does not reflect compliance with the law. No such comprehensive right exists.

LOL

No shirts No Service sign at door, and you walk in practically naked and see where it gets you.

No Guns allowed in store..............Now you would be cheering that one saying how great it is.

You are a HYPOCRITE.....plain and simple.........either the dangs rules apply uniform or you can pound sand.

Look up the word 'comprehensive' and get back to me.

I don't think so..............BAKE THE REBEL FLAG CAKE NOW OR I'LL SUE YOUR ASS...........................What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

You can't enforce your will on others with having to eat the cake in return................Mr. HYPOCRITE.

There's a difference between discriminating against a product and discriminating against a person.

Get off of your high horse and bake the dang Rebel Cake.

If they don't bake confederate flag cakes for anybody, they don't have to start baking confederate flag cakes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sexual orientation is protected in about 20 states and a number of localities. You do not have the right to refuse service to people based on sexual orientation in those places just like I don't have the right to discriminate against Christians in any of the states.

You do not have a right to refuse service to just anyone for any reason, as I pointed out quite clearly.

You pointed out that you are a brain dead propagandist. I said it wasn't constitutionally protected and you just backed it up. Again. You're just a lying asshole on the internet, nothing more.

The right of states to include gays in their anti-discrimination laws is constitutionally protected.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Belive me the libtards will find a way to justify their hypocrisy

Bakeries, Florists and Photographers are businesses and therefor public accommodations.

A performer is not a public accommodation.

I'm happy to have cleared that up for you, you seem a bit dopey. Probably all that racist inbreeding.

"We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service" rule does not apply anymore???? Hmmmm...I see them all the time in various businesses....so what gives? I guess I better find one of those businesses, act like an asshole and when they refuse to sell me their goods and/or services? I will simply get some ambulance chasing barrister to hammer out an of court settlement that works on a contingency bases......

That sign does not reflect compliance with the law. No such comprehensive right exists.

Wrong. The right exists except where progressive PA laws were imposed.

Where in the US can a business, open to the public, refuse service to a black man, only because of his race?

Apples and oranges.

In one instance, you are refusing service to somebody because of what they are. In the other, you are refusing to participate in a ritual that offends your religious beliefs.

Nobody was refused services because they were gay. They were refused services because they didn't want to be part of a gay wedding.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bakeries, Florists and Photographers are businesses and therefor public accommodations.

A performer is not a public accommodation.

I'm happy to have cleared that up for you, you seem a bit dopey. Probably all that racist inbreeding.

"We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service" rule does not apply anymore???? Hmmmm...I see them all the time in various businesses....so what gives? I guess I better find one of those businesses, act like an asshole and when they refuse to sell me their goods and/or services? I will simply get some ambulance chasing barrister to hammer out an of court settlement that works on a contingency bases......

That sign does not reflect compliance with the law. No such comprehensive right exists.

Wrong. The right exists except where progressive PA laws were imposed.

Where in the US can a business, open to the public, refuse service to a black man, only because of his race?

Apples and oranges.

In one instance, you are refusing service to somebody because of what they are. In the other, you are refusing to participate in a ritual that offends your religious beliefs.

Nobody was refused services because they were gay. They were refused services because they didn't want to be part of a gay wedding.

But they are willing to part of a non-gay wedding which by definition makes them discriminators against gays.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That sign does not reflect compliance with the law. No such comprehensive right exists.

Wrong. The right exists except where progressive PA laws were imposed.

Where in the US can a business, open to the public, refuse service to a black man, only because of his race?

There is a hell of a lot more to someone walking in to a bakery to buy a cake........and another making them deliver and set up for a Wedding that is against there personal beliefs..................

No there isn't. If you can't run your business without discriminating against certain people, in violation of the law,

then get out of the business.

Show me the law UNDER THE CONSTITUTION that ALLOWS YOU to FORCE ME TO SERVE SOMETHING against my beliefs...........

Now with that said...................Those that refuse to serve in a time of War have no rights anymore to REFUSE to go to War.......because their Religious beliefs no longer apply.....

BTW...........There are other bakers......and caterers...........Why the hell didn't they just go to one that didn't care...........

I'll tell you why..............IT WASN'T ABOUT A DANG CAKE.................It was about FORCING people to ACCEPT THEM...........and done to sue the living shit out of Christians who are OFFENDED........

If they are offended .........you liberals don't care. If you get offended then KATIE BAR THE DOOR.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Employment Division v. Smith

The Constitution has never acknowledged or accepted the notion that religious or personal beliefs are ‘justification’ for not following or obeying a just and proper law, such as public accommodations laws.

 

[eagle1462010]

Wrong. The right exists except where progressive PA laws were imposed.

Where in the US can a business, open to the public, refuse service to a black man, only because of his race?

There is a hell of a lot more to someone walking in to a bakery to buy a cake........and another making them deliver and set up for a Wedding that is against there personal beliefs..................

No there isn't. If you can't run your business without discriminating against certain people, in violation of the law,

then get out of the business.

Show me the law UNDER THE CONSTITUTION that ALLOWS YOU to FORCE ME TO SERVE SOMETHING against my beliefs...........

Now with that said...................Those that refuse to serve in a time of War have no rights anymore to REFUSE to go to War.......because their Religious beliefs no longer apply.....

BTW...........There are other bakers......and caterers...........Why the hell didn't they just go to one that didn't care...........

I'll tell you why..............IT WASN'T ABOUT A DANG CAKE.................It was about FORCING people to ACCEPT THEM...........and done to sue the living shit out of Christians who are OFFENDED........

If they are offended .........you liberals don't care. If you get offended then KATIE BAR THE DOOR.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Employment Division v. Smith

The Constitution has never acknowledged or accepted the notion that religious or personal beliefs are ‘justification’ for not following or obeying a just and proper law, such as public accommodations laws.

These cases have those who disagree in the court.........especially the ones that are like this one.............

Change the court and OH MY GOD the Constitution SUDDENLY IS DIFFERENT..............

Shows how screwed up this country is...............

Try the same case after 3 appointments from a GOP President.

Then try it again on Gun Control with 3 appointments by a DEM President.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Bakeries, Florists and Photographers are businesses and therefor public accommodations.

A performer is not a public accommodation.

I'm happy to have cleared that up for you, you seem a bit dopey. Probably all that racist inbreeding.

"We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service" rule does not apply anymore???? Hmmmm...I see them all the time in various businesses....so what gives? I guess I better find one of those businesses, act like an asshole and when they refuse to sell me their goods and/or services? I will simply get some ambulance chasing barrister to hammer out an of court settlement that works on a contingency bases......

That sign does not reflect compliance with the law. No such comprehensive right exists.

Wrong. The right exists except where progressive PA laws were imposed.

Where in the US can a business, open to the public, refuse service to a black man, only because of his race?

Apples and oranges.

In one instance, you are refusing service to somebody because of what they are. In the other, you are refusing to participate in a ritual that offends your religious beliefs.

Nobody was refused services because they were gay. They were refused services because they didn't want to be part of a gay wedding.

Wrong.

They refused to accommodate a gay patron in a state whose public accommodations law has a provision prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, the reason for the refusal is irrelevant and not ‘justification’ for denying the service; the fact remains that a patron was refused service because of his sexual orientation.

 

[Iceweasel]

Sexual orientation is protected in about 20 states and a number of localities. You do not have the right to refuse service to people based on sexual orientation in those places just like I don't have the right to discriminate against Christians in any of the states.

You do not have a right to refuse service to just anyone for any reason, as I pointed out quite clearly.

You pointed out that you are a brain dead propagandist. I said it wasn't constitutionally protected and you just backed it up. Again. You're just a lying asshole on the internet, nothing more.

The right of states to include gays in their anti-discrimination laws is constitutionally protected.

No one said otherwise, Dumbass. They had to add it for a reason. The point was too big for you too.

 

[Iceweasel]

"We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service" rule does not apply anymore???? Hmmmm...I see them all the time in various businesses....so what gives? I guess I better find one of those businesses, act like an asshole and when they refuse to sell me their goods and/or services? I will simply get some ambulance chasing barrister to hammer out an of court settlement that works on a contingency bases......

That sign does not reflect compliance with the law. No such comprehensive right exists.

Wrong. The right exists except where progressive PA laws were imposed.

Where in the US can a business, open to the public, refuse service to a black man, only because of his race?

Apples and oranges.

In one instance, you are refusing service to somebody because of what they are. In the other, you are refusing to participate in a ritual that offends your religious beliefs.

Nobody was refused services because they were gay. They were refused services because they didn't want to be part of a gay wedding.

But they are willing to part of a non-gay wedding which by definition makes them discriminators against gays.

No, they discriminate against gay weddings. Gays aren't gay weddings. Ask a child to walk you through it.

 

[Iceweasel]

"We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service" rule does not apply anymore???? Hmmmm...I see them all the time in various businesses....so what gives? I guess I better find one of those businesses, act like an asshole and when they refuse to sell me their goods and/or services? I will simply get some ambulance chasing barrister to hammer out an of court settlement that works on a contingency bases......

That sign does not reflect compliance with the law. No such comprehensive right exists.

Wrong. The right exists except where progressive PA laws were imposed.

Where in the US can a business, open to the public, refuse service to a black man, only because of his race?

Apples and oranges.

In one instance, you are refusing service to somebody because of what they are. In the other, you are refusing to participate in a ritual that offends your religious beliefs.

Nobody was refused services because they were gay. They were refused services because they didn't want to be part of a gay wedding.

Wrong.

They refused to accommodate a gay patron in a state whose public accommodations law has a provision prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, the reason for the refusal is irrelevant and not ‘justification’ for denying the service; the fact remains that a patron was refused service because of his sexual orientation.

Wrong. Gays aren't gay weddings.

If they is such a law requiring them to serve any relationship people can dream up then that's why states are fighting back with freedom laws. They have that right too, works both ways no matter how much it pisses liberals off.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That sign does not reflect compliance with the law. No such comprehensive right exists.

Wrong. The right exists except where progressive PA laws were imposed.

Where in the US can a business, open to the public, refuse service to a black man, only because of his race?

Apples and oranges.

In one instance, you are refusing service to somebody because of what they are. In the other, you are refusing to participate in a ritual that offends your religious beliefs.

Nobody was refused services because they were gay. They were refused services because they didn't want to be part of a gay wedding.

But they are willing to part of a non-gay wedding which by definition makes them discriminators against gays.

No, they discriminate against gay weddings. Gays aren't gay weddings. Ask a child to walk you through it.

That is simply wrong. They are a business providing a service. They want to refuse to provide that service to gays. That is discrimination.

 

[HappyJoy]

"We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service" rule does not apply anymore???? Hmmmm...I see them all the time in various businesses....so what gives? I guess I better find one of those businesses, act like an asshole and when they refuse to sell me their goods and/or services? I will simply get some ambulance chasing barrister to hammer out an of court settlement that works on a contingency bases......

and if they refused you the right to service based on your race, gender, sexual orientation or religion or ethnicity, and they have a public accommodation law that protects that, then you'd probably have case.

Well, not exactly. i don't think PA laws cover assholes.

 

[eagle1462010]

Wrong. The right exists except where progressive PA laws were imposed.

Where in the US can a business, open to the public, refuse service to a black man, only because of his race?

Apples and oranges.

In one instance, you are refusing service to somebody because of what they are. In the other, you are refusing to participate in a ritual that offends your religious beliefs.

Nobody was refused services because they were gay. They were refused services because they didn't want to be part of a gay wedding.

But they are willing to part of a non-gay wedding which by definition makes them discriminators against gays.

No, they discriminate against gay weddings. Gays aren't gay weddings. Ask a child to walk you through it.

That is simply wrong. They are a business providing a service. They want to refuse to provide that service to gays. That is discrimination.

Small businesses are made up of.........

wait for it..............

PEOPLE...............OH MY FUCKING GOD.......

And people HAVE BELIEFS that under the Constitution are protected....as to hold Religious Beliefs and NOT FORCE THEM to do something against those beliefs...........

It's different if it's a WALMART CHAIN...........with massive amounts of customers............

You will FORCE THEM to PARTICIPATE THAT IS AGAINST THEIR RELIGION.........Denying them of their Religious Liberty............and say IT'S THE LAW..............

but tomorrow you will saying BAKING A REBEL CAKE can be BANNED...........

And tomorrow you will say that BANDS can REFUSE SERVICE because they are OFFENDED BY LAW......

You liberals are all over the map on positions...............Hell I don't know how you can navigate across a city.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Where in the US can a business, open to the public, refuse service to a black man, only because of his race?

There is a hell of a lot more to someone walking in to a bakery to buy a cake........and another making them deliver and set up for a Wedding that is against there personal beliefs..................

No there isn't. If you can't run your business without discriminating against certain people, in violation of the law,

then get out of the business.

Show me the law UNDER THE CONSTITUTION that ALLOWS YOU to FORCE ME TO SERVE SOMETHING against my beliefs...........

Now with that said...................Those that refuse to serve in a time of War have no rights anymore to REFUSE to go to War.......because their Religious beliefs no longer apply.....

BTW...........There are other bakers......and caterers...........Why the hell didn't they just go to one that didn't care...........

I'll tell you why..............IT WASN'T ABOUT A DANG CAKE.................It was about FORCING people to ACCEPT THEM...........and done to sue the living shit out of Christians who are OFFENDED........

If they are offended .........you liberals don't care. If you get offended then KATIE BAR THE DOOR.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Employment Division v. Smith

The Constitution has never acknowledged or accepted the notion that religious or personal beliefs are ‘justification’ for not following or obeying a just and proper law, such as public accommodations laws.

These cases have those who disagree in the court.........especially the ones that are like this one.............

Change the court and OH MY GOD the Constitution SUDDENLY IS DIFFERENT..............

Shows how screwed up this country is...............

Try the same case after 3 appointments from a GOP President.

Then try it again on Gun Control with 3 appointments by a DEM President.

You’re as childish as you are ridiculous, ignorant, and wrong.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, as authorized by the Commerce Clause – having nothing to do with the First Amendment.

That states and local jurisdictions may regulate local markets is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute – including regulating public accommodations, and prohibiting discrimination based on race, religion, and sexual orientation.

That one incorrectly perceives his religious or personal beliefs are somehow ‘violated’ by complying with a just, proper, and Constitutional is not ‘justification’ for ignoring that just and proper law, where no Free Exercise Clause ‘violation’ has taken place.

As for the Establishment Clause, the First Amendment does in fact guarantee the right to be free from religion – to be free from government seeking to compel religious compliance, prohibiting government form codifying religious dogma into secular law, and prohibiting government from establishing an official religion – Americans do in fact have a right to be free from religion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where in the US can a business, open to the public, refuse service to a black man, only because of his race?

Apples and oranges.

In one instance, you are refusing service to somebody because of what they are. In the other, you are refusing to participate in a ritual that offends your religious beliefs.

Nobody was refused services because they were gay. They were refused services because they didn't want to be part of a gay wedding.

But they are willing to part of a non-gay wedding which by definition makes them discriminators against gays.

No, they discriminate against gay weddings. Gays aren't gay weddings. Ask a child to walk you through it.

That is simply wrong. They are a business providing a service. They want to refuse to provide that service to gays. That is discrimination.

Small businesses are made up of.........

wait for it..............

PEOPLE...............OH MY FUCKING GOD.......

And people HAVE BELIEFS that under the Constitution are protected....as to hold Religious Beliefs and NOT FORCE THEM to do something against those beliefs...........

It's different if it's a WALMART CHAIN...........with massive amounts of customers............

You will FORCE THEM to PARTICIPATE THAT IS AGAINST THEIR RELIGION.........Denying them of their Religious Liberty............and say IT'S THE LAW..............

but tomorrow you will saying BAKING A REBEL CAKE can be BANNED...........

And tomorrow you will say that BANDS can REFUSE SERVICE because they are OFFENDED BY LAW......

You liberals are all over the map on positions...............Hell I don't know how you can navigate across a city.

If you're going to argue with me argue against my beliefs.

 

[eagle1462010]

There is a hell of a lot more to someone walking in to a bakery to buy a cake........and another making them deliver and set up for a Wedding that is against there personal beliefs..................

No there isn't. If you can't run your business without discriminating against certain people, in violation of the law,

then get out of the business.

Show me the law UNDER THE CONSTITUTION that ALLOWS YOU to FORCE ME TO SERVE SOMETHING against my beliefs...........

Now with that said...................Those that refuse to serve in a time of War have no rights anymore to REFUSE to go to War.......because their Religious beliefs no longer apply.....

BTW...........There are other bakers......and caterers...........Why the hell didn't they just go to one that didn't care...........

I'll tell you why..............IT WASN'T ABOUT A DANG CAKE.................It was about FORCING people to ACCEPT THEM...........and done to sue the living shit out of Christians who are OFFENDED........

If they are offended .........you liberals don't care. If you get offended then KATIE BAR THE DOOR.

It can be found here in the Constitution:

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Employment Division v. Smith

The Constitution has never acknowledged or accepted the notion that religious or personal beliefs are ‘justification’ for not following or obeying a just and proper law, such as public accommodations laws.

These cases have those who disagree in the court.........especially the ones that are like this one.............

Change the court and OH MY GOD the Constitution SUDDENLY IS DIFFERENT..............

Shows how screwed up this country is...............

Try the same case after 3 appointments from a GOP President.

Then try it again on Gun Control with 3 appointments by a DEM President.

You’re as childish as you are ridiculous, ignorant, and wrong.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, as authorized by the Commerce Clause – having nothing to do with the First Amendment.

That states and local jurisdictions may regulate local markets is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute – including regulating public accommodations, and prohibiting discrimination based on race, religion, and sexual orientation.

That one incorrectly perceives his religious or personal beliefs are somehow ‘violated’ by complying with a just, proper, and Constitutional is not ‘justification’ for ignoring that just and proper law, where no Free Exercise Clause ‘violation’ has taken place.

As for the Establishment Clause, the First Amendment does in fact guarantee the right to be free from religion – to be free from government seeking to compel religious compliance, prohibiting government form codifying religious dogma into secular law, and prohibiting government from establishing an official religion – Americans do in fact have a right to be free from religion.

At what point do PA laws override the rights of individuals...............who are religiously against it................

Do the laws outweigh their rights to believe and practice their religion.........

You either support the Constitution or not............

If you are correct.........then NO DRAFT DODGER in our future has the right to refuse service to the military due to religious beliefs...........