An artist using his talents for creative expression IS protected speech and should fall within First Amendment protection.
But they’re not right if it was all based on blackmailing Roberts.
So if I demand that the protected class of Ilhan Omar bake me some pies that express the sentiment "Farook farooking Molesterman Mohammed!"...that's gonna happen?
"protected class"
Interesting choice of words.
Noting that I don't know the specifics of this case, it's déjà vu of the 3th Amendment (3A) imo which prohibits the feds from quartering soldiers in private homes, the incident certainly running against the grain of that amendment, 3A applied to the states by the 14th Amendment.
"3rd Amendment: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner [emphasis added], nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
In fact, consider Justice Joseph Story's insight to 3A.
"§ 1893. This provision speaks for itself. Its plain object is to secure the perfect enjoyment of that great right of the common law, that a man's house shall be his own castle, privileged against all civil and military intrusion [!!! emphasis added]. The billetting of soldiers in time of peace upon the people has been a common resort of arbitrary princes, and is full of inconvenience and peril. In the petition of right (3 Charles I.), it was declared by parliament to be a great grievance." — Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§ 1893
Note common law mentioned above is a constitutional term. So I question the constitutional integrity of the Court's response to this Hawaii case. The common law “castle” would support the 2nd Amendment and other enumerated protections too.
Insights welcome.
Sometimes I think that you could ask even conservative, post-FDR era Supreme Court justices what year the Constitution was ratified and hear them say in 1942 when the Supremes wrongly decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress’s favor. /sarc
Also, since you mentioned protected classes, note that the Founding States made the following constitutional clauses to prohibit the feds and the states establishing privileged / protected classes which HI's law, along with the Court’s response, effectively does for LGBT people imo.
"Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States [emphasis added]: And no person holding any office or profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."
"Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility [emphasis added]."
In fact, since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called LGBT agenda “rights,” we’re seeing politically correct state rights trump constitutionally enumerated rights.
Again, insights welcome.
I'm convinced that possibly many FReepers are constitutionally savvy to the extent that they can decide Supreme Court cases with more constitutional integrity than the Supremes can.
"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition [emphasis added].” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
Homosexuality is a protected class?
The very idea of a "protected class" is repugnant to a free society. Where in the Constitution is any form of US government authorized to grant special "protection" to any group of citizens?
There should be no protected classes: none.
Blind justice and equal enforcement are inherently incompatible with the very concept.