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

[DGUtley]

To date, your only "explanation" has been "It is illegal because the law says it is illegal", which of course means absolutely nothing. Congress could pass a law reinstituting slavery or making it legal to hunt and kill people who are left eye dominant and it would be legal to do so until enough people stood up and stopped the nonsense. What I have asked for is the compelling argument behind the law. What could possibly justify stripping Americans of their inherent right to associate with whomever they choose and not associate with whomever they choose. What compelling reason could justify forcing an American to labor on behalf of another against his will under threat of penalty if he refuses to do so? I haven't seen any rationale for this law put forth. All I have seen is essentially "That's the way it is". By the way... I don't need anyone to comprehend anything for me. I just like people to be able to explain their positions rather than just keep spewing meaningless nonsense over and over again.

Actually, it means everything - the law is what the law is. Congress would have to change the constitution to reinstitute slavery. Regardless, I've asked you to read the opinion, did you do that? It discusses the notion of compelling reason. I really can't give you 200 years of jurisprudence in an internet blog response. I'm sorry. I think we covered the 13th Amendment issue previously. Maybe it wasn't you, but we went into it previously.

[MisterVeritis]

Yes.
The question is not an accurate description of the facts. The appropriate question would be: Should Americans be required under penalty of fine to adhere to public accommodation laws as a condition of a business license?

Why should the state have the authority to license a business?

[Cletus]

Who gives a flying fig what the rest of the world thinks of us? I don't. Because of our initial freedoms, which are being eroded before our very eyes, we became the richest, most advanced nation in the history of the world. We are now coasting on our past successes. Soon we will run out of the past and reap what our future has in store. If it wasn't for the United States 3/4's of the entire would would still be in the Middle Ages. Are we perfect? No, of course not, there is no such thing as "perfect", there is always room for improvement. But reducing us back into serfdom and committing cultural suicide is pure insanity.

Well spoken.

Who won't understand it, but it was well said.

[Cletus]

Actually, it means everything - the law is what the law is. Congress would have to change the constitution to reinstitute slavery.

No, it wouldn't. It could pass the law and then someone would have to challenge it and it would have to work its way through the courts until it hit the Supreme Court. That process could take years, during which slavery would again be legal. After all, it would be the law.

Regardless, I've asked you to read the opinion, did you do that? It discusses the notion of compelling reason.

I didn't see it. I'll go back and look.

I think we covered the 13th Amendment issue previously. Maybe it wasn't you, but we went into it previously.

The 13th Amendment says what it says. The opinion of some political appointee judge can't change it.

[Cletus]

Why should the state have the authority to license a business?

It shouldn't.

[DGUtley]

Actually, it should and does. For example, the state has police power through the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution -- which gives the states the powers not delegated to the US. That gives the state the power to establish and enforce laws protecting the welfare, safety and health of the public -- the right to regulate businesses. An individual's right to engage in a chosen business or profession is not absolute; a state may act pursuant to its police powers to regulate or prohibit a business or profession so long as its actions are necessary for the public welfare. State ex rel. Clark v. Brown (1965), 1 Ohio St.2d 121, 30 O.O.2d 478, 205 N.E.2d 377;Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Grosjean (1937), 301 U.S. 412, 57 S.Ct. 772, 81 L.Ed. 1193;Murphy v. California (1912), 225 U.S. 623, 32 S.Ct. 697, 56 L.Ed. 1229. Regulation of the practice of medicine is necessary to protect public health and safety. See Hawker v. New York (1898), 170 U.S. 189, 18 S.Ct. 573, 42 L.Ed. 1002 (upheld statute prohibiting convicted felon from practicing medicine because physician “should be one who may safely be trusted”); Dent v. W. Virginia (1889), 129 U.S. 114, 9 S.Ct. 231, 32 L.Ed. 623 (upheld state's right under its police powers to require that physicians be licensed); Nesmith v. State (1920), 101 Ohio St. 158, 128 N.E. 57 (predecessor to R.C. Chapter 4731 upheld as constitutional as being within the state's police power and necessary for the regulation of public health).

[Cletus]

"... so long as its actions are necessary for the public welfare".

The state should be required to demonstrate that its actions are "necessary for the public welfare" in every single instance.

[DGUtley]

"... so long as its actions are necessary for the public welfare". The state should be required to demonstrate that its actions "necessary for the public welfare" in every single instance.

That was 30 seconds on Westlaw.

I don't think that's the law. The state has the power and therefore (I believe) the law is presumed constitutionally valid and it's incumbent on the citizen to prove otherwise. The burden is on the challenger.

[Cletus]

The burden should ALWAYS be on the state.

[DGUtley]

The burden should ALWAYS be on the state.

No. If the state exercises legitimate power, the burden is always on the one challenging it - I believe.