Non-answer detected.
You favor compelling people to work on things they find repugnant. Involuntary servitude.
Your first sentence describes the rest of your response.
And here's where we disagree. There's nothing creative about inscribing the band, it's simply customer-supplied text, these days likely handled by a machine.
I favor compelling those in commerce to offer the same services and products to every customer.
If it's in his font, yes. Otherwise, no, as it's a creative act. And I doubt it's in his font.
This one is a total red herring--she did vulva waxing, not testicle waxing. The service being asked for was one she didn't even know how to perform. The gender of the person they're attached to is irrelevant.
Really? What protected group are white heterosexual cis men in? I mean, they still pretty much rule the world but which protected legal class?
Well, the same thing can be said for traffic laws. Laws against stealing and murder.
Another non-answer.
If race is protected then white is protected.
It is no more a non- answer than your ironic replies. You think web design requires more creativity than practicing medicine and I don’t. Your self- serving definitions do not create the differentiation you wish to make.
I guess a gay wedding is as different from a heterosexual wedding as the Arabic language is from the Hebrew language. Therefore it’s a completely separate product being made.
You don't get it. This is a glitch to allow bigger glitches. You keep thinking this has to do with speech. It has to do with repression and the difficulty of recodifying a new Jim Crow.
So computer coding is creativity.
You can't seriously imagine that's a sound counterargument. A recent movement to become more accepting among the more liberal wing of the religion, which only happened by plagiarism of non-Christian moral progress, hardly wipes away either two thousand years of general practice or the existence of a conservative wing. So when a Christian claims she got her views against same-sex marriage from her religion's traditional teachings we have every reason to believe her. But if one were to claim she got views against black marriage from her religion's traditional teachings we'd have no reason to believe her -- she'd obviously be lying and just trying to game the system.
How do you figure that helps your case in any way? If getting the thoughts from somebody else made an expression of Ms. Smith "directed" speech and not "free" speech then it would equally make the expressions of the WaPo directed press and not free press. There's practically nothing in constitutional case law distinguishing freedom of speech from freedom of the press -- the SCOTUS barely gives a rat's ass whether somebody is a reporter -- and there's no constitutional basis for supposing free speech doesn't include the freedom to take direction. You might as well claim you can arrest a Jehovah's Witness for preaching from the Watchtower because she didn't write it herself.
The US Constitution recognizes the right of a State to a jury trial in disputes of over $20. Not seeing any other "States' rights" in there. The Rights it lists are Rights of the People.
Why? Selling food from out-of-state looks like interstate commerce to me. Just like the Mann Act -- the feds wanted to outlaw prostitution so they said "transport any woman or girl across state lines for any immoral purpose". This was back in the day when the SCOTUS was still a court of law and hadn't evolved into the House of Lords it is today. Nowadays you get a Gonzales v Raich, where growing weed on your own land and smoking it yourself counts as interstate commerce to the SCOTUS. That's thread thin. The Civil Rights Act? Not so much.
I guess that depends on what you see as the heart of it. If you see the function of government to be holding down class enemies so you can impose your will on them, maybe so. But I'd have thought the heart of judicial review is to have limited government rather than a British-style unrestrained Parliament.
Tenth Amendment anyone? Also see Barron v Baltimore, which held the states were not handcuffed by the Bill of Rights.
The difference there is that one act was committed with the intent to commit a crime in the first state. The other case is about food from one state and how it is sold in another. The food moving to another state was never part of a conspiracy, it was just heading over state lines. SCOTUS could have said that was a stretch. They didn't. This court very well could have.
Holding down class enemies? Requiring corporations provide the services they sell to all comers isn't "holding down class enemies". The role of SCOTUS being to limit government is a tad bit naïve as the larger cases have usually pitted Government verses Government.
If that were the case, it wouldn't have taken nearly six decades to reverse. So many people have this absurd idea that law, especially at the SCOTUS level is black and white. The results of Plessy v Ferguson led to the necessity for Brown v Board of Education... and it being a unanimous decision.
I'm not suggesting special pleading or different. I've been saying the whole time, if it is the product they make and isn't obscene, it should be provided for the customer. No swastika or porn cakes on demand. But wedding cake, yeah. You'll notice, that unlike your distorted claim of my argument, my position is rather neutral. People must be served! Not gays, not blacks, not Christians, just people. All people.
Non-responsive to my point.
"Traditional teachings" is a nebulous and unhelpful term. What is the minimum necessary for a teaching to qualify as "traditional". Why why do traditional teachings matter compared to "non-traditional" teachings.
There are plenty of Christian sects that preach racial bigotry. So, your argument falls apart.
