• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... And Th

Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

Ah yes, a demonstration of the tolerance of the gay community. See it's not the gayness we dislike, it is the behavior of those defending it.

Yeah and blacks and women should have just 'taken it' too instead of speaking out and fighting for their rights.

Sorry some people's fight for equality is inconveniencing or annoying you.
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

If he's not the gay customer's priest then it's not for him to worry about.

Say you. But then, it is not your conscience.
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

Yeah and blacks and women should have just 'taken it' too instead of speaking out and fighting for their rights.

Sorry some people's fight for equality is inconveniencing or annoying you.
You're confusing what was codified in the law with the free exercise of religion
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

You're confusing what was codified in the law with the free exercise of religion

People supported segregation and racism towards blacks by misusing and intentionally (IMO) scriptures, even into the 1960's. And the Bible has lots of passages that have been used to keep women submissive to men and as property. That had been used to discriminate against women for centuries.
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

Those of us who travel allot see it a bit differently ;)

The Constitution is not concerned with the convenience of travelers.
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

People supported segregation and racism towards blacks by misusing and intentionally (IMO) scriptures, even into the 1960's. And the Bible has lots of passages that have been used to keep women submissive to men and as property. That had been used to discriminate against women for centuries.

Yes, in the Netherlands there is even a political party that for decades has ran on the message that it thinks women have no place in public office because there were no women among the apostles of Jesus. Because Jesus had an all male ensemble around him women should not have the right to be elected into office. Now they have been forced to somewhat alter their position for elected office after the supreme court of the Netherlands had ruled that their ban on women in office was against our laws/constitution.
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

The Constitution is not concerned with the convenience of travelers.
You might not be, but the Constitution rules over interstate commerce, which includes travel.
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

You might not be, but the Constitution rules over interstate commerce, which includes travel.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 relies on Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of race and a couple other characteristics. The Supreme Court upheld this use of the Commerce Clause in Katzenbach v. McClung and Heart of Atlanta Motel. But Congress has never claimed the Commerce Clause gives it power to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. It's questionable whether a federal law which did that would be constitutional.

Some states have responded by making sexual orientation a protected category in their public accommodations laws, but that has raised other constitutional issues. Twice the Court has held a state public accommodations law, as it had been applied to prohibit discrimination against homosexuals, unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. In Hurley v. Irish-American GLIB, it held a Massachusetts law violated the freedom of speech, and in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale it held a New Jersey law violated the freedom of association.
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 relies on Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of race and a couple other characteristics. The Supreme Court upheld this use of the Commerce Clause in Katzenbach v. McClung and Heart of Atlanta Motel. But Congress has never claimed the Commerce Clause gives it power to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. It's questionable whether a federal law which did that would be constitutional.

Some states have responded by making sexual orientation a protected category in their public accommodations laws, but that has raised other constitutional issues. Twice the Court has held a state public accommodations law, as it had been applied to prohibit discrimination against homosexuals, unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. In Hurley v. Irish-American GLIB, it held a Massachusetts law violated the freedom of speech, and in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale it held a New Jersey law violated the freedom of association.
Irrelevant.
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 relies on Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of race and a couple other characteristics. The Supreme Court upheld this use of the Commerce Clause in Katzenbach v. McClung and Heart of Atlanta Motel. But Congress has never claimed the Commerce Clause gives it power to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation. It's questionable whether a federal law which did that would be constitutional.

Some states have responded by making sexual orientation a protected category in their public accommodations laws, but that has raised other constitutional issues. Twice the Court has held a state public accommodations law, as it had been applied to prohibit discrimination against homosexuals, unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. In Hurley v. Irish-American GLIB, it held a Massachusetts law violated the freedom of speech, and in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale it held a New Jersey law violated the freedom of association.

In both of those cases, the issue dealt with expressive organizations. There is no doubt that both the state and the feds can prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation for purely commercial entities.

Irrelevant.

Completely. See above

matchlight continues to try to use irrelevant case law to make the argument that the banning of discrimination based on sexual orientation may be wholly unconstitutional

No one is falling for his dishonest and pitiful diversion.
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

Irrelevant.

You have not explained what the power to regulate interstate commerce has to do with discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. How is the one relevant to the other, except in your imagination?
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

You have not explained what the power to regulate interstate commerce has to do with discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. How is the one relevant to the other, except in your imagination?

The customer who comes into the repair shop lives in another state.
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

People supported segregation and racism towards blacks by misusing and intentionally (IMO) scriptures, even into the 1960's. And the Bible has lots of passages that have been used to keep women submissive to men and as property. That had been used to discriminate against women for centuries.
Non sequitur
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

There is no doubt that both the state and the feds can prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation for purely commercial entities.

Please explain what basis you have for claiming there is no doubt about Congress's authority to prohibit that kind of discrimination in public accommodations. Where has the Supreme Court ever suggested that Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, which it relies on to prohibit discrimination by race, etc. in public accommodations, would allow it to add sexual orientation to the list of prohibited grounds?

It is exactly because Congress's authority to do that IS doubtful that a number of states have acted. There is no question that states have inherent authority to prohibit discrimination--including discrimination based on sexual orientation--in their public accommodations laws. The issue before the Supreme Court in its decisions on those laws has not been the states' authority to enact them, but whether they violated some First Amendment freedom.

When Justice O'Connor distinguished between commercial and expressive associations in her concurring opinion in Roberts v. Jaycees, she was talking about how far a state, in that case Minnesota, could go to prevent discrimination in various public accommodations by law without violating the freedom of association. Nothing either she or the majority said had anything to do with whether Congress has power under the Commerce Clause to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation.
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

You might not be, but the Constitution rules over interstate commerce, which includes travel.
The Constitution does not purport to rule over travel. That's a severe twisting of the interstate commerce clause
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

Please explain what basis you have for claiming there is no doubt about Congress's authority to prohibit that kind of discrimination in public accommodations. Where has the Supreme Court ever suggested that Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, which it relies on to prohibit discrimination by race, etc. in public accommodations, would allow it to add sexual orientation to the list of prohibited grounds?

It is exactly because Congress's authority to do that IS doubtful that a number of states have acted. There is no question that states have inherent authority to prohibit discrimination--including discrimination based on sexual orientation--in their public accommodations laws. The issue before the Supreme Court in its decisions on those laws has not been the states' authority to enact them, but whether they violated some First Amendment freedom.

When Justice O'Connor distinguished between commercial and expressive associations in her concurring opinion in Roberts v. Jaycees, she was talking about how far a state, in that case Minnesota, could go to prevent discrimination in various public accommodations by law without violating the freedom of association. Nothing either she or the majority said had anything to do with whether Congress has power under the Commerce Clause to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation.

The commerce clause does not prohibit congress from regulating discrimination based on sexual orientation
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

The commerce clause does not prohibit congress from regulating discrimination based on sexual orientation
But the Tenth Amendment does
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

The customer who comes into the repair shop lives in another state.

So what? Federal law does not prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. Only Michigan law applies to a garage owner there, and it no more prohibits him from declining to serve a non-resident homosexual than a resident one.
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

"Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers"

BWHAHAHAHAHA!

com one come all, calling all bigots! I love this! I said many times and Ill say it again, don't these mentally retarded bigoted morons know that in the end they are simply helping equal rights win, just like bannings did?? So awesome, I love the sweet sweet irony!
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

The commerce clause does not prohibit congress from regulating discrimination based on sexual orientation

Of course the Commerce Clause, Article I, sec. 8. cl. 3, does not prohibit that. It is not a prohibition of anything, but rather a positive grant of power to Congress. The question is whether the Commerce Clause authorizes what you claim.

I asked you to tell us where the Supreme Court has ever suggested Congress's power to regulate commerce "among the several states" includes the power to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. You claimed the federal government has authority to do that, but you cannot explain where that authority comes from.
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

The Constitution does not purport to rule over travel. That's a severe twisting of the interstate commerce clause
I wasn't talking about the interstate commerce clause.
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

Of course the Commerce Clause, Article I, sec. 8. cl. 3, does not prohibit that. It is not a prohibition of anything, but rather a positive grant of power to Congress. The question is whether the Commerce Clause authorizes what you claim.

The CC authorizes the regulation of interstate commerce. Banning discrimination in public accommodations falls withiin that power.

So sayeth SCOTUS
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

I wasn't talking about the interstate commerce clause.
Then what did you mean when you said:

You might not be, but the Constitution rules over interstate commerce, which includes travel.
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

The CC authorizes the regulation of interstate commerce. Banning discrimination in public accommodations falls withiin that power.

So sayeth SCOTUS
That's nothing more than a power grab by the government which any common reading of the Constitution prohibits
 
Re: Michigan Car Repair Shop Owner Says He Will Turn Away Openly Gay Customers ... An

Then what did you mean when you said:
Forgive that was my fault, clearly.

I was thinking of direct aplication of the second amendment: state constitutionS and law must comply with the Federal constitution, and so when the state issues a business license to an entity imposing a gun ban, the state is violating the second amendment.

If you want a business which can discriminate against gays then you have to go out of your way and organize as a religious non-profit. Likewise if you want to ban blacks or jews or armed citizens or women or whatever then you likewise need to go out of your way to organize as some kind of nonprofit.
 
Back
Top Bottom