Welcome to Thunderdome

On the one hand it does. Our government cannot make a law that states that people of different political affiliations will be treated in different ways by the government. The government can't do that with any sort of law. Like, say, making a law that muslim citizens will be treated differently from christian citizens or atheist citizens. That's the equal protection clause in action.

The other half of what you've asked is not equal protection, it's the civil rights act. This is the part that applies to more than just the government, but also controls what companies - an individuals in a publicly-serving business - can and cannot do. That's more specific and only applies to particular traits that are not a choice but are a matter of birth, such as race, gender, orientation, eye color, etc. Political affiliation is a choice and is thus not protected. Religion is also a choice but is grandfathered in for historical reasons.

The homos have exactly the same protections that you do as a hetero. No more and no less.

Vince wrote:

TheCatt wrote:

Vince wrote:I'm still curious as to the Constitutional basis for these homo discrimination protections.

Equal protection clause?

Then by your own argument that should also apply to political affiliation.

Not aware I'm making an argument?

TPRJones wrote:The other half of what you've asked is not equal protection, it's the civil rights act. This is the part that applies to more than just the government, but also controls what companies - an individuals in a publicly-serving business - can and cannot do. That's more specific and only applies to particular traits that are not a choice but are a matter of birth, such as race, gender, orientation, eye color, etc. Political affiliation is a choice and is thus not protected. Religion is also a choice but is grandfathered in for historical reasons.

The homos have exactly the same protections that you do as a hetero. No more and no less.

So you're saying it isn't a Constitutional protection via the Constitution, but rather a legal protection via the Civil Rights Act (which I don't think addresses sexual orientation, but we'll run with that for this clarification).

TPRJones wrote:Religion is also a choice but is grandfathered in for historical reasons.

Has nothing to do with the civil rights act. This one is actually specifically covered by the Constitution and the first amendment. To say this was grandfathered in for historical reasons is factually ignorant. The civil rights bill (or any law for that matter) doesn't trump the Constitution and its amendments.

No, you are the ignorant. You see the Constitution does nothing to limit the actions of individual citizens or companies. The First Amendment only applies to all levels of government. It's specifically the Civil Rights Act that extends some of those protections into the sphere of businesses.

TPRJones wrote:No, you are the ignorant. You see the Constitution does nothing to limit the actions of individual citizens or companies. The First Amendment only applies to all levels of government. It's specifically the Civil Rights Act that extends some of those protections into the sphere of businesses.

Okay, I see your point on that. Touche.

So, does the civil rights act address homosexuality?

TPRJones wrote:No, you are the ignorant. You see the Constitution does nothing to limit the actions of individual citizens or companies. The First Amendment only applies to all levels of government. It's specifically the Civil Rights Act that extends some of those protections into the sphere of businesses.

But the laws addressing the cake baker IS the government limiting the actions of citizens and businesses based on their religious practices and beliefs.

Vince wrote:

TheCatt wrote:

Vince wrote:I'm still curious as to the Constitutional basis for these homo discrimination protections.

Equal protection clause?

Then by your own argument that should also apply to political affiliation.

Political affiliation is a choice and one which the Supreme Court doesn't have precedent for. The Court has a shitload of precedent as it applies to sexuality (Reed v. Reed, Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas).

TheCatt wrote:

GORDON wrote:You aren't allowed to fire someone for their politics, by law. Refusing service has to be in that ballpark.

You are incorrect, you can absolutely get fired for your politics in most states.

We'll find out soon. There's a movement underway to stage a national sick out on Jan 20th.

But the laws addressing the cake baker IS the government limiting the actions of citizens and businesses based on their religious practices and beliefs.

I think you've got that exactly backwards. It doesn't matter what the religious practices and beliefs of the baker are in the slightest. Since they are running a business that services the public they are not allowed to discriminate based on certain things due to the Civil Rights Act. It doesn't matter in any way why they might want to discriminate.

There will of course be some limits on religious freedoms, because people believe all kinds of dangerous or crazy crap due to religion and not all of it can be untouchable by the government. Every single law is a violation of the religions doctrine of somebody somewhere.

The balance that seems to have been struck is to require all laws to ignore religions in their construction such as in the first paragraph above. So that it would be illegal to make a law that says "christian bakers must bake gay cakes" but not illegal to make a law that says "all bakers must bake gay cakes or stop being bakers".

Leisher wrote:

TheCatt wrote:

GORDON wrote:You aren't allowed to fire someone for their politics, by law. Refusing service has to be in that ballpark.

You are incorrect, you can absolutely get fired for your politics in most states.

We'll find out soon. There's a movement underway to stage a national sick out on Jan 20th.

Hell, just thinking about that day makes me nauseous.

Leisher wrote:

TheCatt wrote:

GORDON wrote:You aren't allowed to fire someone for their politics, by law. Refusing service has to be in that ballpark.

You are incorrect, you can absolutely get fired for your politics in most states.

We'll find out soon. There's a movement underway to stage a national sick out on Jan 20th.

Damn. Do they think that will make Hillary president? Do they yet realize she is never, ever going to be president?

TPRJones wrote:

But the laws addressing the cake baker IS the government limiting the actions of citizens and businesses based on their religious practices and beliefs.

I think you've got that exactly backwards. It doesn't matter what the religious practices and beliefs of the baker are in the slightest. Since they are running a business that services the public they are not allowed to discriminate based on certain things due to the Civil Rights Act. It doesn't matter in any way why they might want to discriminate.

There will of course be some limits on religious freedoms, because people believe all kinds of dangerous or crazy crap due to religion and not all of it can be untouchable by the government. Every single law is a violation of the religions doctrine of somebody somewhere.

The balance that seems to have been struck is to require all laws to ignore religions in their construction such as in the first paragraph above. So that it would be illegal to make a law that says "christian bakers must bake gay cakes" but not illegal to make a law that says "all bakers must bake gay cakes or stop being bakers".

So it would be illegal to pass a law saying Jews must eat pork, but perfectly legal and in keeping with the Constitution to say "All people must eat pork".

And upon reflection, you are mistaken about the Constitution does nothing to limit the actions of individuals or businesses. At least the in the case of the 21st amendment. That seemed to address what individuals and businesses can do.

And I haven't read through the civil rights act. Does it address sexual orientation?

Also, Article 1, section 9 is specific to business. The slave trade to be exact.

Vince wrote:And upon reflection, you are mistaken about the Constitution does nothing to limit the actions of individuals or businesses. At least the in the case of the 21st amendment. That seemed to address what individuals and businesses can do.

That's fair. I was mostly considering the base document and the first 10 amendments anyway.

As to the Civil Rights Act, Title 2 is the one that outlaws "discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce". You will note that this in fact does not include orientation. Title 7 - which deals with employment - does specifically include "sex", which has been determined to include both gender and orientation thanks to several decades of legal precedent. More recent legal thought is to extend such inclusion to Title 2 as well, however that's not yet strictly specified under law yet. Thus the existence of the lawsuits that we've been discussing.

Also, it's important to note that several states have their own versions of the Civil Rights Act that do extend the Title 2 protections to include sexual orientation and/or gender as well.

Oh, and I was also wrong about the Fist Amendment being about government and the CRA covering the rest. The First is really only about Congress. Everything else is covered under the CRA. It's got a lot of Titles in it. And some levels of government actually can choose to discriminate in various ways as long as they don't mind that they will lose all federal funding in their territory.

So it would be illegal to pass a law saying Jews must eat pork, but perfectly legal and in keeping with the Constitution to say "All people must eat pork".

No, that's still pretty illegal because the government cannot fuck with your average run of the mill citizen and their dietary preferences to the level you're describing. The gov't can tax the shit out of every foodstuff except pork (while, of course, subsidizing that particular dead pig meat to make it cheaper) and make life a living regulatory hell to get anything besides it, but they can't be as direct as your last phrase.

And I haven't read through the civil rights act. Does it address sexual orientation?

Directly: no. Indirectly: yes. By Congress's own logic ...

Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section eight), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment.

I draw your attention to the second part having to do with the 14th, which means they admit they must guarantee equal rights to whatever the Supreme Court thinks the EPC covers. The EPC explicitly covers state governments trying to fuck with their citizens for any unjustified reason. Back in the day, that probably meant "state governments can't fuck with black people" but it was written in a considerably more powerful way.

TPRJones wrote:Oh, and I was also wrong about the Fist Amendment being about government and the CRA covering the rest. The First is really only about Congress. Everything else is covered under the CRA. It's got a lot of Titles in it. And some levels of government actually can choose to discriminate in various ways as long as they don't mind that they will lose all federal funding in their territory.

I would think that means that congress can't pass a law inhibiting the free exercise of religion. I really think a lot of the disagreements over this stuff comes down to whether the person approaching it thought the founders meant that you were allowed to believe your religion or practice your religion. Like the 2nd amendment isn't that important to the anti gun groups, the religion clause of the first isn't that important to most atheists. I find it as wrong and bigoted as the people that passed sodomy laws.

The line has to be drawn somewhere. You simply cannot let "relgion requires me to do X" be a get out of jail free card for everything. Some religions require their followers to kill all infidels; should we not stop them from doing so? Some religions require their followers to take illegal drugs; what is your stance on that? Personally I think the second one is fine, but some others would disagree. Regardless, this is all just negotiation; the fact is a line must exist somewhere.

To paraphrase: freedom of religion ends where your neighbors' nose begins. If your religion requires you to not interact with certain sorts of people, then you shouldn't be trying to run a business that serves everyone.

EDIT: Well, to be complete, it is possible to not draw a line but only if you are willing to scrap the entire concept of law. When the defendant in any trial can say "my religion required it" regardless of the case and have that always be a valid defense, all law becomes moot.

TPRJones wrote:The line has to be drawn somewhere. You simply cannot let "relgion requires me to do X" be a get out of jail free card for everything.

My line is that some religions should not be treated better than others. If the christian bakers get run out of business for following their so-called religious views, then the muslim ones must be, too. Must. And the double standard drives me nuts.