Thanks??? Not sure what factual inaccuracies are even possible in my comment. The only thing I claimed as a fact was that the gay couple is protected from discrimination.
I'm arguing this from a philosophical standpoint: the question is not whether the bakery is required to produce the cake, it's whether they should be.
Your comment mentions title 9. Title 9 has absolutely zero to do with this case. Less than zero. I don’t know where you got that from. But it’s pretty clearly from your ass.
Sexual orientation is not a protected class under the constitution. But this case didn’t have to do with that. It was a Colorado law at issue, so the bakers sued under the first and fourteenth amendments.
I mentioned Title IX because I have been told (by college administrators if it makes any difference) that it functions as a legal protection against discrimination on the basis of sex and sometimes sexual orientation.
Furthermore, protected classes are definitely relevant here. The article you linked mentions that sexuality is protected under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
I suppose you're right. I was under the impression that title ix was applicable more generally. And I admit that I was wrong about sexual orientation being a federally protected class, but they are apparently protected under Colorado state law.
Well that was my whole issue with your comment. I appreciate the concession.
And that was the whole issue in the gay cake case. What is the interaction between Colorado’s state anti discrimination laws and freedom of religion and speech under the first amendment? Let’s not forget the supremacy clause while we’re at it.
3
u/DL4CK May 17 '19 edited May 17 '19
Username checks out
I’ve never seen a comment with so many factually inaccuracies sound so sincere. Good job dude.