Centinel
VIP Member
- Jul 6, 2012
- 1,498
- 143
- 85
Depends on the State and the basis of their offense.
Well, no. They no longer have the right to disagree. A gay caterer, by law, must service a straight pride event. They can't discriminate against the event organizers because of their sexual orientation.
It's stupid that the state can force you to engage in trade with someone you don't want to.
Intrastate commerce is a power retained by the State. Thus, its their business if they decide it is and it doesn't violate rights. See Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3....along with the 10th amendment. Its perfectly constitutional.Commerce is the state government's business? Why?
As long as no fraud or violence has occurred, and as long as the state gets it's extortion money, er, I mean taxes, why should LGBTQ issues by any concern of the state?
Because they decide it is.
Let's hope they don't decide it's double-plus good to crucify all redheads. Because I guess if they decided to do so, that law would be just too.
The rights that are protected by a State aren't limited to federally protected rights. Many States can and do have far more extensive protections for people than the federal government recognizes. And that's totally within the power of a People of a State to do.
Federal Protections establish the baseline minimum of rights. Not the maximum. And if the people of State decide that you have a right to be free from discrimination based on sexual orientation when conducting acts of commerce, they have every authority to protect that right.
The only thing that could practically trump them would be federal amendment......or a violation of federal rights. Neither of which are an issue with PA laws.
The government should, you know...govern. Not involve itself in the peaceful, private interactions of people. And it certainly shouldn't conscript the bodies of people and force them to perform acts to which they are opposed.
As long as people aren't defrauding, threatening, or harming others, they should be free to do what they want.
That's bullshit. People need to be protected from discrimination.
Discrimination doesn't harm anyone's person or property. How can it be a crime?
It can certainly be a civil infraction. It can cause financial harm, prevent access to necessary goods and services, cause emotional harm, and be wildly exploitative.
In areas of commerce, a State can set minimum standards of conduct for those who wish to conduct business in their State. And frequently do.
That you don't think they 'should' is again immaterial. As within the bounds of the constitution and individual rights, the People of the States have vast powers. Which most definitely includes authority over intra state commerce.
Causing financial harm? Prevent access to necessary goods and services? Cause emotion harm? Be wildly exploitative?
I think you made these up.
Trespassing against a person or their property (or threatening to do so) are the only legitimate crimes. Punishing anything else is just a violation of rights.