3 Judge Panel of 5th Circuit Appeals Court Clear MS Anti-Gay Law

This will be appealed to the Supreme Court, and if I had to guess I would say at minimum the part allowing government employees to deny services will be struck down, if not the whole law. 14th Amendment is pretty clear about "equal protection under the law."

>>130957977
Well the Supreme Court has, to my knowledge, so far refused to hear any case from the circuits about LGBT discrimination, so could be interesting.

I think this does ignore the fact that a challenge based on LGBT plaintiffs who actually are discriminated against due to this law could still win.

>>130957025
bump

>>130958328
Fuck off fag, no one wants your gay shit here

>>130958373
bump

>>130957977
If I remember my Con Law class correctly, equal protection standard of review for sexual orientation is rational basis, is that still the case?

>>130957025
They need to read the Bible and see how much they don't know. But they don't. And won't. This is common law it has nothing to do with written statutes or morality or "fact" finding. Gotta keep you shit poor and dirt poor for a shitty zionist asshole republigoyim's economy and lack of healthcare bills though

>>130959055
Correct unless the Supreme Court decides gays are a quasi-suspect class.

Intermediate scrutiny is applied to groups that fall under a "quasi-suspect classification." Gender[10] and legitimacy of birth have been held to be quasi-suspect classes. In 2012, the U.S. District Court for Northern California discussed this type of classification, but applied heightened scrutiny without specifically labeling gays and lesbians a suspect or quasi-suspect class in its decision.[11] Striking down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional in Windsor v. United States (2012), the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held sexual orientation to be a quasi-suspect classification, and determined that laws that classify people on such basis should be subject to intermediate scrutiny.[12] It was the first time a federal court had applied quasi-suspect classification in a sexual orientation case.[13] The Supreme Court however has not decided whether sexual orientation fits into any identified class.

>>130957025
bump

>>130959289
If the Supreme Court decides to identify sexual orientation as a class, would it be arguably an "ideology" that is being protected?

>>130960728
I don't think the Supreme Court is likely to hold homosexuality as an ideology given their previous decisions.

>>130957025
this is fine, free market will take care of people who want to refuse other people service. like, imagine a sex shop that would only sell to married couples. they dont need to be stopped by the law, and they would cause their own doom

>>130961116
Gays are only 3-6% of the population though so stores can run without their business so that argument is not valid.

>>130957025
bump

>>130957025
allowing these idiots to say
>refuse service
when they mean
>force service
is us fucking all the way up.

>>130957977
>equal protection under the law."
that phrase is so broad it only means whatever the judges feel like

>>130961244
irrelevant

>>130962205
to me in this case it would mean
"dont put a gun against my head to force me to bake a fucking cake"

>>130961244
>one gay couple is refused one cake
>they can tell the whole world about it
>puts that bakery on blast
>everyone who doesnt like that can also choose a different bakery

>>130962482
But those arguments have been tried racially and they haven't held up in court. Just replace gay with Black and, assuming the court employs the same logic, they are unlikely to hold up.

>>130962641
refusing a nigger service for just being a nigger is very different than refusing to make a wedding cake with 2 men on it. im sure the bakery would have no problem selling a lemon bar to an obvious gay man, but when it comes to directly supporting his gayness, thats different

>>130963333
Good luck running your business without a license.

>>130964503
appeal to authority

>>130963333
Refusing service for inborn traits is pretty broadly comparable and an argument could be made under the 14th amendment against allowing it.

>>130957025
God bless USA

File: smug anime face.jpg (116KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1280x720px

>>130957025
He shoots, he scores! The crowd goes wild!

>>130964976
refusing service for inborn traits isnt the same as refusing to make a cake celebrating those traits. like i said, refusing to serve a gay man is different than refusing to make him a cake in a certain way.

>>130966947
So if I refuse to marry a Black and White couple because religiously I feel that should not be allowed that is not discriminating by race?

>>130967646
should someone ever be forced to do something they find morally wrong?

>>130968171
Has anybody ever objected to any of your inborn traits?

>>130968318
>born ugly
>women refuse me "service"
GUBMENT FORCE THEM TO SERVE ME

>>130970617
your body is not a public accommodation

>>130970817
your mother is