|
Re: We are all Slave now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
also to Thurgreed-
People on FB contrast Sarah's not being able to eat with the baker, because Sarah choose to work for Trump, whereas the baker is discriminating against how people are, not what they choose. To me this implies some constitutional right. But i don't think there is a right for a couple reasons- first the Ollie's BarBQ case was about the civil rights Act making it illegal to not let people eat in one's restaurant based upon race. The question was is Ollie's "in commerce." If there was a "right" to eat there then there wouldn't need be the law, or any "in commerce" test. As to sexual preference, I know cities pass "human rights" laws that extend protections based upon preference- here again, this implies there is no con right to get a cake if the baker doesn't want to make it- perhaps there is a law violated, at least in some locations.
But I'm not up on con law at all, so i am asking for a sanity check from the scholars here.
|
It sounds like you're on a search for state action. In Red Hen v. Smoky Eyed Liar, isn't Smokey the State? 3rd Amendment case.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
|
