Not a “First Amendment” issue, although that might be an incidental detail. It’s the right to the free possession and use of ones own property, labor and time. The right to freely enter into contracts, and NOT enter into contracts, at will, for any reason or for no articulated reason.
A1S10C1: No State shall...pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Course, Legis/Courts haven’t adhered, nor referenced, the Constitution in ~100yrs+.
Can’t break the contract but can mandate you sign on the dotted line (as well as trample our Right of association])?! Talk about.
Congress could tell the Courts to fark-off, but, of course, won’t use their proper authority....They SUPPORT every step toward full control by govt.
‘Not a “First Amendment” issue, although that might be an incidental detail. It’s the right to the free possession and use of ones own property, labor and time. The right to freely enter into contracts, and NOT enter into contracts, at will, for any reason or for no articulated reason.”
Exactly right! Same for tobacco and other issues. Let the free market reign.
If this merely a contract issue, and since the Supreme Court has said in the past that states have the right to regulate contracts, then the state has the right to deny a business the right to refuse a contract based on sexual orientation. The First Amendment argument is probably the way to go.
It is erroneously cast under ‘equal protection’ of the 14A.