Discussion:
Michigan judge rules companies don't have to serve gay customers
(too old to reply)
Joe's Cheap Ho's
2020-12-12 22:35:58 UTC
Permalink
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/11/us/mi-ag-appeals-state-same-sex-ruling-trnd/index.html
Rudy, the short usenet liberal retard, will have to find a new place to
eat when he visits MI.
Rudy is a cretin of habit, he eats at the same places a lot. He
eats those guys with the shorts hanging down below their ass
just above their knees.
=====
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said she will appeal a Michigan
Claims Court judge's ruling that allows discrimination against a
same-sex couple on religious grounds.
Judge Christopher Murray ruled Monday that discrimination against people
on the basis of their gender identity was unlawful, but he concurrently
ruled that a refusal, on religious freedom grounds, to serve customers
based on their sexual orientation was permissible.
The lawsuits came after two companies barred serving a same-sex couple
and a transgender individual "on religious grounds," the opinion states.
One of the two businesses is an event center, while the other is a
business specializing in permanent hair removal for women, according to
state licensing records.
Nessel, in a press release Thursday, praised Murray's ruling against
transgender discrimination but said she would appeal the ruling that the
laws in place allow for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Supreme Court says federal law protects LGBTQ workers from discrimination
Supreme Court says federal law protects LGBTQ workers from discrimination
"Michigan courts have held that federal precedent is highly persuasive
when determining the contours of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act
(ELCRA), and federal courts across the country -- including the U.S.
Supreme Court in Bostock v Clayton Co -- have held that discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination,"
Nessel said. "We intend to submit that all Michigan residents are
entitled to protection under the law -- regardless of their gender
identity or sexual orientation -- in our appeal to this decision."
Nessel also quoted Stacie Clayton, the chairwoman of the Michigan Civil
Rights Commission, who said that "continuing to interpret the word 'sex'
in a more restrictive way than we do any of the other protected classes
under ELCRA is in itself discriminatory."
Murray's decision held that legal precedent in Michigan -- namely under
a prior ruling in Barbour v. Department of Social Services in 1993 --
and the subsequent Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act includes prohibiting
discrimination based on sex, which Murray believed encompasses "gender
identity."
The same laws do not include any explicit protection against
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, as the ELCRA only
spells out protections against "religion, race, color, national origin,
age, sex, or marital status," according to the ruling.
"With respect to whether sexual orientation falls within the meaning of
'sex' under the ELCRA, the Court of Appeals has already concluded that
it does not," Murray wrote.
Murray's opinion concluded that the ruling is not final, as "it does not
resolve all of the pending issues in this case," he wrote.
BeamMeUpScotty
2020-12-13 14:36:47 UTC
Permalink
Judge Christopher Murray ruled Monday that discrimination against people
on the basis of their gender identity was unlawful, but he concurrently
ruled that a refusal, on religious freedom grounds, to serve customers
based on their sexual orientation was permissible.
TWO DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.


Private parties can discriminate according to the Constitution where as
*GOVERNMENT entities* can NOT discriminate. And business has been
claimed to be PUBLIC as in a quasi Government entity. Licensed while
religion can never be licensed or government in any way.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall* make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States; *nor shall any State* deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor *deny to any*
*person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws* .

The 14th Amendment limits States and Government power, so as to limit
their ability to enforce laws un-equally by the Government, for any
reason NOT simply sex or race.




The 1st Amendment makes religion *PRIVATE PARTY domain* where as the
Stores and businesses have been bastardized as PUBLIC domain and
belonging to GOVERNMENT via regulation in a quasi-PUBLIC/private sort of
FASCISM.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Religion is NOT part of the GOVERNMENT and that means that religion does
NOT fall under the *NO STATE SHALL* that we see in the 14th Amendment...

To suggest that religion is part of the state government and is PUBLIC
would be to have *GOVERNMENT establishing religion as a government*
*entity* Which in the 1st Amendment is clearly unconstitutional.
--
TAKE THE RED PILL

https://www.oann.com/ https://americasvoice.news/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/ https://www.zerohedge.com/
https://www.infowars.com/ https://www.tatumreport.com/
https://thenationalpulse.com/ https://www.breitbart.com/
https://www.parler.com/ https://rumble.com/
https://banned.video/ https://www.mrctv.org/
KWills
2020-12-14 10:05:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Dec 2020 09:36:47 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Judge Christopher Murray ruled Monday that discrimination against people
on the basis of their gender identity was unlawful, but he concurrently
ruled that a refusal, on religious freedom grounds, to serve customers
based on their sexual orientation was permissible.
TWO DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.
Private parties can discriminate according to the Constitution where as
*GOVERNMENT entities* can NOT discriminate.
In many cases, yes. But there are cases where a person is of a
suspect (protected) class. Discrimination based on these classes is
illegal. And no ruling from SCOTUS has nullified these laws.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
And business has been
claimed to be PUBLIC as in a quasi Government entity. Licensed while
religion can never be licensed or government in any way.
That a license is requires for a business does not make it quasi
government.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall* make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States; *nor shall any State* deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor *deny to any*
*person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws* .
The 14th Amendment limits States and Government power, so as to limit
their ability to enforce laws un-equally by the Government, for any
reason NOT simply sex or race.
Yes. And?
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
The 1st Amendment makes religion *PRIVATE PARTY domain* where as the
Stores and businesses have been bastardized as PUBLIC domain and
belonging to GOVERNMENT via regulation in a quasi-PUBLIC/private sort of
FASCISM.
They are not government businesses.
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Religion is NOT part of the GOVERNMENT and that means that religion does
NOT fall under the *NO STATE SHALL* that we see in the 14th Amendment...
To suggest that religion is part of the state government and is PUBLIC
would be to have *GOVERNMENT establishing religion as a government*
*entity* Which in the 1st Amendment is clearly unconstitutional.
Where, in reality please, do you see a suggestion that religion
is part of the state government? I've read what you quoted a few
times, but I don't see such a suggestion.
--
KWills
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
Loading Image...
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/
BeamMeUpScotty
2020-12-13 15:09:18 UTC
Permalink
Nessel, in a press release Thursday, praised Murray's ruling against
transgender discrimination but said she would appeal the ruling that the
laws in place allow for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
LAWS can't limit or claim that religion is under the 14th Amendment....
as such religion can't be limited by the 14th Amendment.

The 1st Amendment denies the ability of the GOVERNMENT to claim that a
religion is part of the Government and only when something is part of or
supported by the Government are they subject to the 14th Amendment where
it says "NO state SHALL" [Amendment XIV Section 1.] nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There is no power to make laws that would presume that religion or a
private person is a State entity. And only the States and the Government
are NOT allowed to deny to any person within its jurisdiction *the equal
protection of the* *laws* . Private persons and entities are free to
NOT follow the equal protection clause unless engaging in government
sanctioned activity.

The constitutional laws allow for private individuals and all religion
to NOT be held to the equal protection of the law clause.

The question isn't sex or race or transgender, the question is
government authority to limit freedom of private persons and private
entities. And Religion is actually excluded form being a government
entity. Religion can't be claimed by GOVERNMENT as a government entity.

Democrats love to call it *SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE* and that
clearly defines the fact that religion is NOT part of GOVERNMENT and is
not subject to the "equal protection" clause.

Democrats wanted an absolute separation so they can't now claim that
religion is somehow a public entity and is a quasi-government entity
that has to abide by the equal protection clause. Religion has no power
to make or enforce laws, and can't be held as a government entity of any
kind.



Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law; *nor deny to any person within*
*its jurisdiction* the equal protection of the laws.


Religion can't be governmental, so it has no jurisdiction where it can
deny equal protection of the laws.
--
TAKE THE RED PILL

https://www.oann.com/ https://americasvoice.news/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/ https://www.zerohedge.com/
https://www.infowars.com/ https://www.tatumreport.com/
https://thenationalpulse.com/ https://www.breitbart.com/
https://www.parler.com/ https://rumble.com/
https://banned.video/ https://www.mrctv.org/
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...