Do Public Accommodations Laws Violate Free Speech and Free Exercise Rights?

[Mister Emu]

Then make the argument.

Our freedom to determine which religious ceremonies we will participate in is enshrined in our constitution in the first amendment. Mr. Phillips' bakery does not deny all services to homosexuals; he only reserves the right to determine which religious activities he will support via his bakery service.

Cite the case law from which to make that deduction.

I didn't make a claim that there was case law to support it, and am open to being shown case law that is discordant with it.

On the basis of what holding would "the provisioning of the celebratory cake . . . be considered participation" in a religious exercise?

Servicing a religious ceremony advances the ceremony and its purpose. Someone who advances an act can be considered to have participated in it to a degree.

What would be your best guess in attempting to answer that question?

I don't like making guesses; I checked and it seems some lower courts have determined that servicing a religious ceremony can be legally compelled.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Our freedom to determine which religious ceremonies we will participate in is enshrined in our constitution in the first amendment.

Mr. Phillips decision to start and continue a bakery was a voluntary act. As long as nobody is forcing him to make cakes in general, nobody is forcing him to make cakes for same-sex weddings.

Mr. Phillips' bakery does not deny all services to homosexuals; he only reserves the right to determine which religious activities he will support via his bakery service.

IOW, he only discriminates some of the time. Luckily, the law prohibits any amount of illegal discrimination.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I just went and read a few legal "blogs" on the matter of the use of "Notwithstanding"(they seemed to be centered on contract law) in order to do a cursory check that there wasn't a legal definition that differed significantly from the normative usage in common language. Notwithstanding is a subordinating clause. 'Notwithstanding any provision of the law...' means in spite of any laws of the indidvidual states (or their subdivisions), subordinating them to this law.

That's the sense of "notwithstanding" if a controversial section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Wikipedia

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Servicing a religious ceremony advances the ceremony and its purpose. Someone who advances an act can be considered to have participated in it to a degree.

So by the same token, refusal to service a religious ceremony impedes a religious activity?

 

[esmith]

Granting that that is the case, and the bill as interpreted by @esmith is unconstitutional, that doesn't necessarily mean that esmith's interpretation is incorrect; unconstitutional legislative acts do happen, and they are then challenged in court.

Why do you say it is unconstitutional.

 

[Nous]

I just went and read a few legal "blogs" on the matter of the use of "Notwithstanding"(they seemed to be centered on contract law) in order to do a cursory check that there wasn't a legal definition that differed significantly from the normative usage in common language. Notwithstanding is a subordinating clause. 'Notwithstanding any provision of the law...' means in spite of any laws of the indidvidual states (or their subdivisions), subordinating them to this law. This is direct contrast to your claim that it would allow states or their subdivisions to pass laws that would deny this bill.

Read the whole sentence substituting "despite" for "notwithstanding".

The bill, if enacted, would not (and constitutionally cannot) wipe out all state and local CCW laws and rules. The NRA states it clearly:

This legislation would not override state laws governing the time, place or manner of carriage or establish national standards for concealed carry. Individual state gun laws would still be respected.​

Granting that that is the case, and the bill as interpreted by @esmith is unconstitutional, that doesn't necessarily mean that esmith's interpretation is incorrect

The NRA disagrees with esmith about what the bill would do.

 

[Nous]

Once Trump appoints sane judges to the Supreme Court, we can get the travesty of gay marriage over-turned. Then this whole case will be moot.

The purpose of this thread is not to provide a forum for expressions of homophobic bigotry. Your beliefs about equal marriage rights for same-sex couples being a "travesty," and that Obergefell will be overturned are irrelevant to any issue raised or question asked in the OP. Right?

 

[McBell]

Do States have different requirements for drivers license?

As a matter of fact, yes they do

 

[esmith]

The NRA disagrees with esmith about what the bill would do.

Hmmm seems someone didn't read
from: NRA-ILA | NRA Backs Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill in U.S. House

Fairfax, Va. – On behalf of its five-million members, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) applauded the introduction of H.R. 38, The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, authored by Congressman Richard Hudson (NC-8). This legislation would eliminate the confusing patchwork of state carry laws by allowing individuals who possess concealed carry permits from their home state or who are not prohibited from carrying concealed in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.

Care to comment?

 

[Nous]

Hmmm seems someone didn't read
from: NRA-ILA | NRA Backs Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill in U.S. House



Care to comment?

I already responded to that, in #138:

You should have read the whole article:

This legislation would not override state laws governing the time, place or manner of carriage or establish national standards for concealed carry. Individual state gun laws would still be respected.​

The law would not change a "may issue" state into a "shall issue" state.

Contrary to your claim, the law would not require that "every State and the District of Columbia must recognize a CCW permit from any State".

 

[esmith]

I already responded to that, in #138:

IMO you are reading something that isn't there.
Guess we will have to wait until the bills become law, if they ever do, and see who is right.

 

[Nous]

IMO you are reading something that isn't there.

I agree with the NRA's assessment of that bill:

This legislation would not override state laws governing the time, place or manner of carriage or establish national standards for concealed carry. Individual state gun laws would still be respected.​

 

[tytlyf]

This legislation would eliminate the confusing patchwork of state carry laws by allowing individuals who possess concealed carry permits from their home state or who are not prohibited from carrying concealed in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.

That right there shows it's not a 50 state law.

 

[esmith]

I agree with the NRA's assessment of that bill:

This legislation would not override state laws governing the time, place or manner of carriage or establish national standards for concealed carry. Individual state gun laws would still be respected.​

Seems that the anti-gun groups disagree with you.
Or are we are saying the same thing just wording it differently.
https://everytownresearch.org/conce...y-h-r-38-overriding-state-public-safety-laws/

Maybe you should rethink your position
NRA-ILA | National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them
On January 3rd, Congressman Richard Hudson (R-N.C.8th) introduced H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, which simply allows lawful firearm carriers from any state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state. The bill addresses our nation’s patchwork of concealed carry reciprocity laws, where each state determines which states’ permits, if any, they will recognize.

Everytown’s final claim is that the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is flawed because “the public safety laws that work in Wyoming don’t work for a city like Boston or Milwaukee.” It also rings false. The bill recognizes the diversity of state concealed carry laws by making each person subject to the concealed carry laws of the state where they are present, including certain places off-limits to firearms and laws governing defensive use of force. It merely allows out-of-state permitees to concealed carry the same way in-state residents already do.

In other words if I have a permit that allows me to carry an concealed firearm in my state, then any state that allows concealed carry must recognize my permit. However, I must follow all the laws of that state that the residents of that state must follow.
22 States now recognize CCW permits from other states, this law would make the remaining ones recognize CCW permits from other states.

 

[tytlyf]

Seems that the anti-gun groups disagree with you.
Or are we are saying the same thing just wording it differently.
https://everytownresearch.org/conce...y-h-r-38-overriding-state-public-safety-laws/

Maybe you should rethink your position
NRA-ILA | National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them
On January 3rd, Congressman Richard Hudson (R-N.C.8th) introduced H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, which simply allows lawful firearm carriers from any state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state. The bill addresses our nation’s patchwork of concealed carry reciprocity laws, where each state determines which states’ permits, if any, they will recognize.

Everytown’s final claim is that the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is flawed because “the public safety laws that work in Wyoming don’t work for a city like Boston or Milwaukee.” It also rings false. The bill recognizes the diversity of state concealed carry laws by making each person subject to the concealed carry laws of the state where they are present, including certain places off-limits to firearms and laws governing defensive use of force. It merely allows out-of-state permitees to concealed carry the same way in-state residents already do.

In other words if I have a permit that allows me to carry an concealed firearm in my state, then any state that allows concealed carry must recognize my permit. However, I must follow all the laws of that state that the residents of that state must follow.
22 States now recognize CCW permits from other states, this law would make the remaining ones recognize CCW permits from other states.

Why is law enforcement against it? Don't you back the blue?

 

[Nous]

In other words if I have a permit that allows me to carry an concealed firearm in my state, then any state that allows concealed carry must recognize my permit.

This is precisely what the NRA says the bill won't do. In California and Massachusetts, for example, you will still have "good cause" according to the rules in these jurisdictions. This bill does not wipe out those provisions. And if a state passes a law that says the CCW licenses from Texas will not be recognized in the state, HR 38 does not void that law.

 

[Nous]

Guess we will have to wait until the bills become law, if they ever do, and see who is right.

Perhaps you shouldn't hold your breath. Skopos Labs gives the bill a 2% chance of being enacted: Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38)

 

[esmith]

That right there shows it's not a 50 state law.

What is not a 50 state law

 

[tytlyf]

What is not a 50 state law

The law won't be national in every state. How would this law benefit you?

 

[Mister Emu]

The bill, if enacted, would not (and constitutionally cannot) wipe out all state and local CCW laws and rules. The NRA states it clearly:

Of course not; what it would do is make states/their subdivisions recognize visitors' CCW status in their home state as applicable to their CCW laws.

States will still set up under what conditions CCW licenses are valid, if any at all.