User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 204

Thread: Supreme Court rejects appeal of B&B owner who denied room to same-sex couple

  1. #21
    Points: 21,811, Level: 35
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 139
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    10000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    alexa's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    3030
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,795
    Points
    21,811
    Level
    35
    Thanks Given
    2,751
    Thanked 3,020x in 2,185 Posts
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    That's true, but on the re-do didn't they come at him again and he won?
    I have no idea. I really didn't pay much attention to the case.

    I didn't know there was a redo.

  2. #22
    Points: 172,917, Level: 98
    Level completed: 82%, Points required for next Level: 733
    Overall activity: 47.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    donttread's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    88548
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    51,904
    Points
    172,917
    Level
    98
    Thanks Given
    18,289
    Thanked 20,516x in 14,777 Posts
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    I found this interesting: Supreme Court rejects appeal of B&B owner who denied room to same-sex couple. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left in place Hawaii court rulings that found a bed and breakfast owner violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by refusing to rent a room to a lesbian couple. The justices rejected an appeal from Aloha Bed & Breakfast owner Phyllis Young, who argued that she should be allowed to turn away gay couples because of her religious beliefs.

    In balancing the state's interest in nondiscriminatory public accommodations against the burden imposed on the freedom of religion (which the court assumed but didn't decide), the court stated: “The freedom of religion does not give businesses a right to violate nondiscrimination laws that protect all individuals from harm, whether on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation,” Peter Renn, an attorney who represents the couple, said in a statement. Last year, the Hawaii Supreme Court rejected Young’s appeal of a lower court ruling that ordered her to stop discriminating against same-sex couples.

    What do you think is the difference here btw this and the Cake Case? The art/creativity issue? Different Court? These balancing acts of conflicting rights are going to be taking place all over the country.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...le/3209681002/

    State Appellate court opinion: https://www.lambdalegal.org/sites/de...23_opinion.pdf

    "Land of the used to be free"

  3. #23
    Points: 21,811, Level: 35
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 139
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    10000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    alexa's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    3030
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    5,795
    Points
    21,811
    Level
    35
    Thanks Given
    2,751
    Thanked 3,020x in 2,185 Posts
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lummy View Post
    You shouldn't be able to come onto my property and dictate who I can and can't like.

    That's absurd.
    You don't have to like them.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to alexa For This Useful Post:

    DGUtley (03-20-2019)

  5. #24

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,135, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 69.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200769
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,922
    Points
    473,135
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,060
    Thanked 46,039x in 24,874 Posts
    Mentioned
    886 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergeant Gleed View Post
    Thus the B&B operator is denied his property ownership AND is forced into involuntary servitude, violating also the Thirteenth Amendment.
    No. That argument has been rejected by the SCOTUS. Remember, rights are not absolute (according to SCOTUS) and may be infringed for a variety of reasons based on a variety of levels (compelling need, rational basis etc). It is a balancing test. I understand all of the arguments about the strict text of the constitution etc. I am just telling you what the status of the law is.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (03-21-2019),Peter1469 (03-20-2019)

  7. #25

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,135, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 69.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200769
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,922
    Points
    473,135
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,060
    Thanked 46,039x in 24,874 Posts
    Mentioned
    886 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by alexa View Post
    You don't have to like them.
    So true. You don't even have to serve them but you can't refuse to serve them for an illegal reason. Treating people differently in a public accommodation b/c of religion, race, sexual orientation (to name a few) are illegal reasons.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to DGUtley For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (03-21-2019)

  9. #26
    Points: 79,997, Level: 68
    Level completed: 98%, Points required for next Level: 53
    Overall activity: 0.3%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    nathanbforrest45's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    77960
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    In a house on a hill
    Posts
    28,260
    Points
    79,997
    Level
    68
    Thanks Given
    7,102
    Thanked 16,261x in 10,568 Posts
    Mentioned
    129 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Common Sense View Post
    I wonder if they turned away unmarried straight couples...or did they cherry pick their religious objections.
    Don't know, why don't you call them and ask?

  10. #27
    Points: 79,997, Level: 68
    Level completed: 98%, Points required for next Level: 53
    Overall activity: 0.3%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    nathanbforrest45's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    77960
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    In a house on a hill
    Posts
    28,260
    Points
    79,997
    Level
    68
    Thanks Given
    7,102
    Thanked 16,261x in 10,568 Posts
    Mentioned
    129 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Common Sense View Post
    I wonder if they turned away unmarried straight couples...or did they cherry pick their religious objections.
    Cherry picking is an interesting choice of words when it concerns two lesbians in my opinion.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to nathanbforrest45 For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (03-21-2019)

  12. #28
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496565
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,575x in 94,412 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sergeant Gleed View Post
    Then there's the fact that nobody argued on Thirteenth Amendment grounds, and yet the 13th clearly forbids compulsory service.
    Having a business open to the public is not involuntary service.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (03-21-2019),DGUtley (03-20-2019)

  14. #29
    Points: 84,523, Level: 70
    Level completed: 87%, Points required for next Level: 327
    Overall activity: 12.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    12826
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Charleston South Carolina
    Posts
    38,294
    Points
    84,523
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    67,690
    Thanked 12,837x in 10,134 Posts
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lummy View Post
    An owner of a bar, restaurant, inn or motel should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason unless the customer has no other choice of a facility but the facility being refused.

    I'm old school.
    You don't have that right and shouldn't. It is discrimination pure and simple.
    Liberals are a clear and present danger to our nation
    Pick your enemies carefully.






  15. #30
    Points: 84,523, Level: 70
    Level completed: 87%, Points required for next Level: 327
    Overall activity: 12.0%
    Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Captdon's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    12826
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Charleston South Carolina
    Posts
    38,294
    Points
    84,523
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    67,690
    Thanked 12,837x in 10,134 Posts
    Mentioned
    161 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lummy View Post
    I'm talking about the rights of the property owner, of course, not social engineering or growing case law.
    The right to discriminate is not valid.
    Liberals are a clear and present danger to our nation
    Pick your enemies carefully.






+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts