Maybe you want to reread what actually happened there? The wedding photographer lost the case. The Supremes refused to hear her appeal.
You realize that has to do with the state not being allowed to limit people's freedoms. There's not one letter in there about people compelling other people to do things. You telling people what to do is not your freedom, infact, its actually slavery in its purest form.
This is what we call engaging in confirmation bias. You're going to read into it what you want, but the Civil Rights Act, and subsequent legislation and court rulings, as well as the 14th amendment, demonstrate that we have a right to not be discriminated against in business dealings and in relation to our governing bodies.
Procedural. The supreme court very rarely hears cases, even ones with merit, until there is a split in federal courts.
The protection in regards to forcing a business providing services is based upon civil rights laws and being a designated protected class not upon the Constitution.
That's nice. The implication was that the wedding photographer won the case and the Supreme's refused to hear the appeal by the gay couple. That is 180 degrees out of phase with what happened.
All I'm seeing is straw grasping non sequitors here.
Yes the case was based upon state law not federal law so if the people of new mexico want to alter those laws then it is within there discretion to do so.
Incorrect if they want to alter those laws to allow businesses to discriminate based on sexual preference.
This
Wait, did you miss the part where NM found them guilty of discrimination and THEY were the ones appealing and SCOTUS declined? lol
You missed the point where the people you disagree with don't give a fuck what you think on the matter because you're wrong.
Black is white
Yes, apparently he did lol.
Welp why continue a discussion with someone entrenched in their immature and foolish viewpoint. Im done with you sir.
Nice opinion but you have but you do actually need get a supreme court ruling saying so for it to be true. As court left it there was no ruling on federal level and states are free to alter there state laws as they see fit.
I wasn't stating an opinion, so you disagreeing with me is kinda like someone disagreeing that water is wet.
No the entire ruling in new mexico case was based upon state law. You were the one implying that states could not alter there laws if they so chose because of federal law/Constitution has no support in that case. that case is what started the ball moving that led to the recent Indiana law. Because the failure of supreme court to make a decision put the ball squarely into state legislators court in regards to the issue.
