Luckily, the Supreme Court ruling has that whole "binding on all states" aspect to it. My stance relies in my faith in the Supreme Court and their expansion of current case law. If that case fails, it will be a sad day and I will have to start eating other chicken sandwiches.
Until you find your next excuse to keep eating there.
If you found out that your favorite restaurant was headed by a KKK member and they contributed profits from the place to KKK organizations, would you care? KKK doesn't really have any political power after all, so it should A-ok for you right?
And what is this supposed to accomplish exactly? The company will continue to make delicious sandwiches which I won't be able to partake of anymore and gay marriage will still be legalized. I do not see how refraining from buying chicken sandwiches because of this will do anything but harm the economy and innocent third parties working for the company.
It stops being a simple viewpoint when the company is using business profits to donate to foundations of said viewpoint. Active donations means they're doing far more than simply expressing an opinion.
They're engaging in political activity, which is protected by the First Amendment.
Subjective factors is basically the constituents saying they don't like it. It's not due to economic problems, but simply because they don't want it there. That's still a legitimate reason for banning a store, as it has happened before and will happen again.
It matters why they don't want it there. If it's because of the political views and activities of the owners and the corporation, then it's not a legitimate reason because of the First Amendment.
At any rate, I'm only explaining to you as to why the Mayor has the power to do what he did. I'm not trying to sell you on a concept that doesn't exist.
He does not have the power to block Chik Fil A from opening, which he will discover if he tries to do so. He does have the power to express his opinion in that letter. Note that the letter simply says they are not welcome, not that they can't open. Probably he got legal advice from his counsel who told him that, contra your assertions, he can't block CFA from opening because their political views are unwelcome.
Your money spent at Chick-fil-a. HAS HURT PEOPLE. As evidenence in Prop 8 they had the right to marry which was taken away because of the organizations that they fund. They had the rights and they were taken away.
The likelihood of the Supreme Court denying to hear this case is pretty low. If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, I will also eat crow. But again, my stance relies on the Supreme Court taking the case.
As per your second point;
All of those will be effected by the decision. Were this court case to be heard, it will center around the old definition of 'protected peoples'. In other words, the classifications of peoples that are granted superior protections of the law in order to warrant higher judicial scrutiny of legislation. A striking down of this marriage law will rewrite the definition of protected peoples. It will include sexual orientation. This will outcrop to all legislation concerning this classification of peoples. In other words, the ruling would impact not only marriage law, but also adoption and other civil rights. This one case has the potential to instigate a sweeping change on ALL laws related to the LGBT community.
SCOTUS is probably not going to rule in the way you think. They are probably going to say that California can't grant marriage rights to gay people, only to then turn around and take them away and replace them with civil unions. Judge Reinhardt wrote his opinion specifically based on that argument. Even if the right side wins, it is unlikely to be a broad ruling that all gay marriage bans are unconstitutional everywhere, as you seem to expect.
SCOTUS is probably not going to rule in the way you think. They are probably going to say that California can't grant marriage rights to gay people, only to then turn around and take them away and replace them with civil unions. Judge Reinhardt wrote his opinion specifically based on that argument. Even if the right side wins, it is unlikely to be a broad ruling that all gay marriage bans are unconstitutional everywhere, as you seem to expect.
Kennedy is going to be pushing what I presented as the main argument that will be before the court. After all, there needs to be some constitutional issue before the court for them to hear it. If they are going to strike down the law, like I have a feeling they will, it will be due to a redefining of the classification of protected peoples. This separate but equal stuff of civil unions is not going to fly in the Supreme Court.
Kennedy is going to be pushing what I presented as the main argument that will be before the court. After all, there needs to be some constitutional issue before the court for them to hear it. If they are going to strike down the law, like I have a feeling they will, it will be due to a redefining of the classification of protected peoples. This separate but equal stuff of civil unions is not going to fly in the Supreme Court.
No it won't. It will be on the narrow ground that the only reason to explain why California gave gays marriage rights, then took them away and gave them same sex unions, is because of irrational animus, same as Romer v. Evans. It's not going to suddenly find that classifications based on sexual orientation now receive strict scrutiny after holding for decades that they receive rational basis review.
They're engaging in political activity, which is protected by the First Amendment.
It matters why they don't want it there. If it's because of the political views and activities of the owners and the corporation, then it's not a legitimate reason because of the First Amendment.
He does not have the power to block Chik Fil A from opening, which he will discover if he tries to do so. He does have the power to express his opinion in that letter. Note that the letter simply says they are not welcome, not that they can't open. Probably he got legal advice from his counsel who told him that, contra your assertions, he can't block CFA from opening because their political views are unwelcome.
What if I wanted to open "Jim Crow's slavery style chicken shack" with a blackface logo of a guy eating watermelon and fried chicken? Of course no one's going to allow that to open in most places.
If there's legal pressure, the mayor or whoever would say "Due to my own bias, I resign from any dealings with Chick Fil-A in this city" and then have his minions constantly change zoning laws and mire the Chick Fil-A people in paperwork and mandatory meetings for years and years.
If a big city doesn't want a business it's not going to let that business in. If Chick Fil-A wants to spend tens of millions of dollars (legal and otherwise) trying to put in a single location (which will cause resentment with city residents anyway) it can, but that would only be throwing money away to try and prove a point. I highly doubt Chick Fil-A's board would find that proposition favorable. They're businessmen before they're moralists, constitutionalists, or religious activists.
Well, if there were hundreds of political parties offering similarly neutral platforms, and only one supported positions harmful to a group of individuals, and you were aware of this and still supported that party, what would you call it?
No it won't. It will be on the narrow ground that the only reason to explain why California gave gays marriage rights, then took them away and gave them same sex unions, is because of irrational animus, same as Romer v. Evans. It's not going to suddenly find that classifications based on sexual orientation now receive strict scrutiny after holding for decades that they receive rational basis review.
Yes, it will. But you have to pay attention to the qualification I place on this statement. This legal discussion will take place if the court is to strike down the law. Why? Because unless a higher scrutiny is applied, this law will ultimately be upheld by the Supreme Court. Why do I think that they are going to be going into a discussion of classifications? It is simple; political pressures. The court is just as much of a political body as any other. Right now, the court is leaning towards a legal philosophy of a living Constitution meant to adapt to the changing demands of the times.
They want to be able to turn over anti-same sex marriage laws. They will be feeling political pressures from recent events like the news about the Navy couple who had to hide their marriage for years. The Supreme Court is not immune to these kinds of things. They will start reaching, and the only avenue available to them is to start a sweeping change in Constitutional interpretation.
Will Scalia be pissed? Yes, yes he will. But it is unlikely he will get his way if they are going to overturn it.
But does giving someone money to purchase a Baseball bat, who later hits someone with it mean you support that? This thread is a surprise to many as seen so far, so it's like knowing about the reputation after of someone who does as such.
As I've also said before, who your give you money to doesn't mean you support what they do outside of your initial cause(Unless you are donating). I'm sure there are many things people give you money for, for whatever things/services/gestures what have you, that for what you buy they don't support. What they buy has nothing to do with what you buy.
Cities pass all kinds of laws limiting business in areas, even down to which business can or can't operate. All kinds of morality rules too, for things like Strip Clubs.
All under the guise of what is good or bad for the community.
Would denying a Chick-Fil-A violate some other precedent that these other laws aren't?
But does giving someone money to purchase a Baseball bat, who later hits someone with it mean you support that? This thread is a surprise to many as seen so far, so it's like knowing about the reputation after of someone who does as such.
As I've also said before, who your give you money to doesn't mean you support what they do outside of your initial cause(Unless you are donating). I'm sure there are many things people give you money for, for whatever things/services/gestures what have you, that for what you buy they don't support. What they buy has nothing to do with what you buy.
What if I wanted to open "Jim Crow's slavery style chicken shack" with a blackface logo of a guy eating watermelon and fried chicken? Of course no one's going to allow that to open in most places.
If there's legal pressure, the mayor or whoever would say "Due to my own bias, I resign from any dealings with Chick Fil-A in this city" and then have his minions constantly change zoning laws and mire the Chick Fil-A people in paperwork and mandatory meetings for years and years.
If a big city doesn't want a business it's not going to let that business in. If Chick Fil-A wants to spend tens of millions of dollars (legal and otherwise) trying to put in a single location (which will cause resentment with city residents anyway) it can, but that would only be throwing money away to try and prove a point. I highly doubt Chick Fil-A's board would find that proposition favorable. They're businessmen before they're moralists, constitutionalists, or religious activists.
Yes, as a practical matter Boston or Chicago can engage in a variety of machinations to force CFA into a lengthy legal battle that will make it ultimately not worth the effort. But their actions will still be unlawful.
Yes, it will. But you have to pay attention to the qualification I place on this statement. This legal discussion will take place if the court is to strike down the law. Why? Because unless a higher scrutiny is applied, this law will ultimately be upheld by the Supreme Court.
Romer v. Evans struck down an anti-gay statute and still applied the lowest tier of scrutiny. Have you even heard of that case?
Why do I think that they are going to be going into a discussion of classifications? It is simple; political pressures. The court is just as much of a political body as any other. Right now, the court is leaning towards a legal philosophy of a living Constitution meant to adapt to the changing demands of the times.
They want to be able to turn over anti-same sex marriage laws. They will be feeling political pressures from recent events like the news about the Navy couple who had to hide their marriage for years. The Supreme Court is not immune to these kinds of things. They will start reaching, and the only avenue available to them is to start a sweeping change in Constitutional interpretation.
Will Scalia be pissed? Yes, yes he will. But it is unlikely he will get his way if they are going to overturn it.
You missed the part after in which I said it's like knowing of the reputation after it happens. Not everyone (including myself) knew about Chic-Fil-A doing this stuff.
You missed the part after in which I said it's like knowing of the reputation after it happens. Not everyone (including myself) knew about Chic-Fil-A doing this stuff.
Maybe not, but if they announced they would try to knock someone on the head with a bat, and I then gave them a bat, and they tried, you'd probably call me a dolt.
I guess I don't see the difficulty here, if charmin made this announcement I wouldn't have much difficulty using, uh, brawny or something. My ass is getting wiped either way.
You missed the part after in which I said it's like knowing of the reputation after it happens. Not everyone (including myself) knew about Chic-Fil-A doing this stuff.
Well, if there were hundreds of political parties offering similarly neutral platforms, and only one supported positions harmful to a group of individuals, and you were aware of this and still supported that party, what would you call it?
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that the number of entities determines whether or not supporting said entities is considered "harmful"? (hundreds of fast food joints vs. 2 political parties)
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that the number of entities determines whether or not supporting said entities is considered "harmful"? (hundreds of fast food joints vs. 2 political parties)
I'm well aware of Romer v. Evans. That is one of the first cases one goes over in Con Law. However, there are a few factual dissimilarities which make it so that Romer will not be the one to be followed. It has to to do with the stated interests of the state. In Evans, they didn't even bother trying to hide the reasons for the law behind veiled reasoning. However, there are more compelling reasons behind Prop 8 which would take more deliberation for the court. Given that the court is not a fact finding body, it is likely to adopt the state's reasoning for the purpose of the law thus surviving a rational basis test. That is why they will want to try and redefine protected classes. And even if there were not the glowing differences in government interests, the court would more than likely overrule Romer given the current political climate.
You ever clerk for a judge before? Let me tell you what they are like. People venerate judges like they are some bastion of legal reasoning. Let me tell you from experience; they are not. They are highly emotional people who decide what they want the result of a case to be before hand and then find case law to support their own views. The human element is the most important part of predicting Supreme Court decisions. Any person who looks at the court in a mechanistic view point will never be a good lawyer.It is 90% human emotion and political leaning. Given many of the connections on the court with the armed forces, I can see a number of people swaying towards overturning the law.
I'm well aware of Romer v. Evans. That is one of the first cases one goes over in Con Law. However, there are a few factual dissimilarities which make it so that Romer will not be the one to be followed. It has to to do with the stated interests of the state. In Evans, they didn't even bother trying to hide the reasons for the law behind veiled reasoning. However, there are more compelling reasons behind Prop 8 which would take more deliberation for the court. Given that the court is not a fact finding body, it is likely to adopt the state's reasoning for the purpose of the law thus surviving a rational basis test. That is why they will want to try and redefine protected classes. And even if there were not the glowing differences in government interests, the court would more than likely overrule Romer given the current political climate.
You ever clerk for a judge before? Let me tell you what they are like. People venerate judges like they are some bastion of legal reasoning. Let me tell you from experience; they are not. They are highly emotional people who decide what they want the result of a case to be before hand and then find case law to support their own views. The human element is the most important part of predicting Supreme Court decisions. Any person who looks at the court in a mechanistic view point will never be a good lawyer.It is 90% human emotion and political leaning. Given many of the connections on the court with the armed forces, I can see a number of people swaying towards overturning the law.
Yes, I clerked for a federal judge in the Southern District of New York. Are you a 1L or something? The hyper legal realism you are espousing suggests you just read Thurman Arnold and got infatuated. The district court found as a factual matter that there was no rational reason to revoke gay marriage. The SC has to review that under the clearly erroneous standard, not simply defer to the legislature.
Yes, I clerked for a federal judge in the Southern District of New York. Are you a 1L or something? The district court found as a factual matter that there was no rational reason to revoke gay marriage. The SC has to review that under the clearly erroneous standard, not simply defer to the legislature.
(Which should not be important anyway. We both know how useless 2L and 3L designations are anyway when it comes to Constitutional Law considering its all theoretical classes after that)
, and I am well aware what the district court found in the lower court. However, there are a number of reasons why the Supreme Court will not be focusing their attention on a rational basis standard or applying Romer; the reasons espoused by the state of California are significantly more complex than those which were talked about in Romer. The Court will not be willing to do an indepth analysis of the far more complex reasonings behind Prop 8, however much of a veiled attempt at hiding religious influence as it may be. Romer is a far simpler case than Prop 8. It is a combination of the different legislative reasons behind Prop 8 combined with the human aspect of the court which will force them into a discussion of protected classes; which if they decide to overturn Prop 8 will likely be the controlling factor.
And it is my opinion as a legal scholar that at least 5 of the justices have compelling reasons to want to overturn the law.
Nah. It'd be nice if more people did join in on the boycott, but its a bit much to get upset at people who still eat there. Yes, they're contributing to a bad cause in the end, but 99.9% of the customers aren't doing so consciously.
Nah. It'd be nice if more people did join in on the boycott, but its a bit much to get upset at people who still eat there. Yes, they're contributing to a bad cause in the end, but 99.9% of the customers aren't doing so consciously.
Sorry if there was some confusion, but that's totally what I meant. If you don't know that you're supporting a business that supports discrimination how could I be upset?
It's just the people who know what they're doing that bother me a bit. I won't call them evil... I just feel the same way about them that I feel about people who're cool with supporting racism and whatnot.
(Which should not be important anyway. We both know how useless 2L and 3L designations are anyway when it comes to Constitutional Law considering its all theoretical classes after that)
, and I am well aware what the district court found in the lower court. However, there are a number of reasons why the Supreme Court will not be focusing their attention on a rational basis standard or applying Romer; the reasons espoused by the state of California are significantly more complex than those which were talked about in Romer. The Court will not be willing to do an indepth analysis of the far more complex reasonings behind Prop 8, however much of a veiled attempt at hiding religious influence as it may be. Romer is a far simpler case than Prop 8. It is a combination of the different legislative reasons behind Prop 8 combined with the human aspect of the court which will force them into a discussion of protected classes; which if they decide to overturn Prop 8 will likely be the controlling factor.
And it is my opinion as a legal scholar that at least 5 of the justices have compelling reasons to want to overturn the law.
Still a law student. That explains a lot. None of this hand-waving makes much sense. Have you even read Reinhardt's opinion? 5 justices may well vote to overturn the law but it won't be because they suddenly find, contrary to all previous precedents, that gays are a protected class. I don't think Olson and Boies even argued that.
Sorry if there was some confusion, but that's totally what I meant. If you don't know that you're supporting a business that supports discrimination how could I be upset?
It's just the people who know what they're doing that bother me a bit. I won't call them evil... I just feel the same way about them that I feel about people who're cool with supporting racism and whatnot.
Even if they know, most people will put it to the back of their minds and the next time they walk into Chick-Fil-A, they'll be thinking about getting something good to eat, not, "I'm about to support anti-gay stances". And I dont blame them. Its not ideal, but it doesn't automatically make them a bad person or anything. Some people are just not idealistic sorts and others might choose to pick their battles elsewhere and I can accept that.
So...how many more years until someone in that family is caught in a gay sex scandal. Not that I care if they are gay/straight, but that's the only logical way this story ends right?
Still a law student. That explains a lot. None of this hand-waving makes much sense. Have you even read Reinhardt's opinion? 5 justices may well vote to overturn the law but it won't be because they suddenly find, contrary to all previous precedents, that gays are a protected class.
Even if they know, most people will put it to the back of their minds and the next time they walk into Chick-Fil-A, they'll be thinking about getting something good to eat, not, "I'm about to support anti-gay stances". And I dont blame them. Its not ideal, but it doesn't automatically make them a bad person or anything. Some people are just not idealistic sorts and others might choose to pick their battles elsewhere and I can accept that.
It's not that they're a bad person, it's just that they don't mind supporting a company that fights against the rights of gays when fast food chicken enters the equation.
Even if they know, most people will put it to the back of their minds and the next time they walk into Chick-Fil-A, they'll be thinking about getting something good to eat, not, "I'm about to support anti-gay stances". And I dont blame them. Its not ideal, but it doesn't automatically make them a bad person or anything. Some people are just not idealistic sorts and others might choose to pick their battles elsewhere and I can accept that.
One of the reasons I want to continue eating there (and I'm not saying I want to eat there to spite anyone in the thread) is because they have absolutely great customer service here.
I've always heard about 'Southern Hospitality' before finding myself in the south but in the town I'm living in, customer service is terrible. Everyone is fucking rude as hell, they treat you like your dumb, they forget to give you what you want or fuck up your order, or they rip you off on purpose (had it happen at numerous places here).
But the Chik-Fil-A here has the best customer service in town, hands-down. I have had a pleasent experience every time I have been there. Which is kind of surprising since it is mainly 17 year old high school kids who work there. But they kill it. Bringing your food to your table, sending people outside to take orders when the drive-thru gets long, giving military discounts, striking up friendly conversations.
They are always polite and have a smile at the locations I have eaten at. And while I certainly don't feel that bigotry at the top of the company should be rewarded, I feel like the employees at the lowest level who are awesome (and more than likely don't want to keep gays down) should be rewarded. And I certainly don't want to see them out-of-work or anything. I'm unemployed and I know what the employment situation is like in this town; it fucking sucks.
