Timeline for Does the first amendment protect business owners from being forced to work for protected classes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 11, 2013 at 22:41 | comment | added | Bobson | Nice revision. Much clearer now. Upvoted! | |
| Dec 11, 2013 at 20:44 | history | edited | pAvEmEnT | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added why Civil Rights Act of 1964 was upheld, and decision of United States v. Morrison
|
| Dec 11, 2013 at 15:08 | comment | added | Sam I am says Reinstate Monica | @pAvEmEnT put that in your anser | |
| Dec 11, 2013 at 14:05 | comment | added | pAvEmEnT | A woman that was attacked wanted the civil remedy due to her for this. The attacker did not want to pay and appealed, alleging that Congress didn't have the right to enact such a law.The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit declared the law unconstitutional. They found that there was no substantial influence on commerce, so Congress could not use the commerce clause, and they also could not use the Fourteenth Amendment because of the precedent the Court established in the Civil Rights Act of 1875. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the decision of the Fourth District. | |
| Dec 11, 2013 at 13:28 | comment | added | pAvEmEnT | @SamIam The United States v. Morrison was in regards to 42 U.S.C.S. § 13981, which was a law Congress enacted that provided a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence. | |
| Dec 11, 2013 at 13:21 | comment | added | pAvEmEnT | @DJClayworth Sorry about that, I didn't get a chance to get to that. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was indeed upheld, but only because Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. The decisions that the Court made regarding the 1875 version were never reversed. The Fourteenth Amendment is still only applicable to the government. Which leads me to the next point. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 20:10 | comment | added | Sam I am says Reinstate Monica |
Someone visiting this site and reading this answer might be interested to know what United States v. Morrison was about. I'm certainly interested in it. A brief summary of that might strengthen your answer.
|
|
| Dec 10, 2013 at 14:28 | comment | added | DJClayworth | I believe you omit a significant piece of information, which is that the constitutionality of restricting the ability of private businesses to discriminate against customers was UPHELD during the challenges against the 1964 Civil Rights act, reversing the earlier decisions with regard to the 1875 Civil Rights act. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 9:48 | review | First posts | |||
| Dec 10, 2013 at 20:10 | |||||
| Dec 10, 2013 at 9:30 | history | answered | pAvEmEnT | CC BY-SA 3.0 |