Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed
Actually RFRA laws have been in effect for years in many states and even the federal level. This is not a new thing.
I'm not sure how that addresses the point we were discussing (ie has bigotry been reduced to such a low level that it can't have a significant impact on commerce)
Read the part about zoning. You'll note that the main theme is about safety.
The fact remains the states, including OK, have the power to zone for reasons other than safety which is why "the main theme" is safety but not "the only theme"
I'm surprised that you are arguing that safety is the only reason a state can regulate commerce when there are so many examples (ex business hours, minimum wage, easement, signage, recordkeeping, etc) that show that this is not true.
So SCOTUS has never been wrong? They're always right in whether something is constitutional or not? Sorry, I doubt you believe that. As such its quite logical to argue that their decision can be or is unconstitutional.
Right v wrong is a matter of opinion; constitutional v unconstitutional is a matter of law.
That actually has to do with planning. Not zoning. And I believe those laws to be wrong also. Promoting commerce in this way is essentially demanding that you sell your property to meet X requirement size or else is against our property rights.
It's zoning. It's a zoning law. And you're belief in wrong is opinion. The local govts power to make such zoning laws is a legal matter, not a matter of opinion.
You are free to believe that govt should only protect people's rights and safety but our govt was formed and given additional powers including the power to regulate commerce
I won't argue that they do have a legitimate interest in promoting commerce. However they do not have enough of a valid interest to deny peoples Rights.
Whether or not is it valid *enough* is something that is determined through the democratic political process, which is exactly what the framers intended.
But what I am saying is that by this type of "promoting commerce" it is also having the effect of getting rid of commerce. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The govt has the power to regulate commerce in order to promote commerce. Having a power does not require the govt to exercise it. It is for the people to decide (by participating in the political process) when and how that power is to be exercised . Therefore, the fact that the govt doesn't always exercise a power does not mean that power is illegitimate or unconstitutional.
Except we both know that none of those examples made those exceptions based on any law. They based it on feelings.
No, we do not *both* know that.
Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of a law does not legitimize a law. And I've explained how that is no longer true in today's society and population amount.
I'm not arguing that "it's right because it's popular". You argued that such laws are not needed because such bigotry is so uncommon and unsupported. I'm not saying "the law is right because the people in those states supported it". I'm pointing out that the support for such laws prove that this bigotry is not uncommon.
Democracy is nothing more than mob rule. I much prefer our republic type system which is limited by peoples Rights. Even our founders were against democracy.
The founders opposed "pure" democracy. They obviously supported representative democracy because they created a system which relies on it.
The fact remains that the constitution gives the govt the power to regulate business in order to promote commerce, which is a legitimate interest of govt. Since history has shown how discrimination can inhibit commerce, govt has the power to prohibit discrimination.