Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
43. This case MAY not make it to the Fifth Circuit court of Appeals.
Tue Apr 28, 2015, 04:48 PM
Apr 2015

This is a County Court decision and the proper appeal is NOT to the Federal Courts but the State's appellate courts. Also this involves the City of Lexington's Civil Rights Law NOT the Federal Civil Rights law, so except for the First Amendment Argument you have NO federal issue in this case. Thus it is possible that this case will work itself through the State Court System. When the State Courts are finished with the case, who ever lost can then file in Federal Courts for review on the Federal Issue (First Amendment) OR file with the US Supreme Court on the First Amendment issue. In the later, you bypass the Fifth Circuit completely.

It is also possible that no one files in the Federal System after the State Supreme Court has ruled on this issue. Remember the only Federal Issue is the First Amendment claim, the Civil Rights Claim is a claim NOT covered by the Federal Civil Rights Laws (And, given this print shop has previous refused to print heterosexual
messages out side of marriage AND messages involving violence, the equal protection of the law of the 14th amendment does NOT come into play).

Thus this may NEVER be heard by the Fifth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals.


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Eventually these little shops will change their tune. redwitch Apr 2015 #1
This gets into very dicey areas w/r/t the first amendment. geek tragedy Apr 2015 #2
How so? It is a public business dbackjon Apr 2015 #9
it's a public business but it's expressive conduct. geek tragedy Apr 2015 #11
I agree this gets into a grey area dbackjon Apr 2015 #12
I would say "Congratulations Melissa and Jane" would be something that would be outright bigotry geek tragedy Apr 2015 #13
And accorrding to the record Big_Mike Apr 2015 #34
But these weren't obscene shirts Politicalboi Apr 2015 #25
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2015 #40
I'm actually more concerned about the 13th amendment problems MosheFeingold Apr 2015 #15
do you feel similarly about restauranteurs and hoteliers? nt geek tragedy Apr 2015 #16
Don't get me wrong MosheFeingold Apr 2015 #17
Banning discrimination is not a form of slavery. geek tragedy Apr 2015 #18
Sorry, I am not explaining well MosheFeingold Apr 2015 #19
I understand the argument. It's frivolous. geek tragedy Apr 2015 #21
The Trial Judge ruled this was a first Amendment case, the right to associates with others. happyslug Apr 2015 #33
Facts negoldie Apr 2015 #36
I am going by the actual DECISION by the judge and his statements as to the facts happyslug Apr 2015 #39
Have you read anything from the 5th Circuit lately? MosheFeingold Apr 2015 #41
This case MAY not make it to the Fifth Circuit court of Appeals. happyslug Apr 2015 #43
This has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment dballance Apr 2015 #22
discrimination based on a person's status (Jewish, lesbian, black) is different than geek tragedy Apr 2015 #38
Even Better! HassleCat Apr 2015 #3
i know a few libertarians iamthebandfanman Apr 2015 #5
Actually that's not true. PoliticAverse Apr 2015 #7
That's a legitimate hate Politicalboi Apr 2015 #27
but are you compelled to help them express that opinion, or express that opinion with them? geek tragedy Apr 2015 #8
During one event that Westboro christx30 Apr 2015 #20
Yes, Absolutely the Gay shop owners must make signs for Westboro Baptist. dballance Apr 2015 #23
I can see the "should" argument but don't see the "must" geek tragedy Apr 2015 #37
Read the Judge's opinion, he goes into the issue of forcing people to do what they object to happyslug Apr 2015 #30
My print shop years ago rejected a job from the California National Socialist Movement . . . Journeyman Apr 2015 #10
As a graphic designer I don't have to do a layout for you. Throd Apr 2015 #14
I work for a screen printing company... smiley Apr 2015 #31
That is NOT the law, you can discriminate as long as such discrimination is legal happyslug Apr 2015 #32
These people are dumbasses that misuse the bible to justify their hate LynneSin Apr 2015 #4
So when they offered to get the print job done elsewhere for the same price, that was hatred? happyslug Apr 2015 #29
Bigoted but legal i must say. alp227 Apr 2015 #6
Here is the actual opinion happyslug Apr 2015 #24
I don't get the uproar. Travis_0004 Apr 2015 #26
I imagine a lot of people don't get the uproar in regards to bigotry. LanternWaste Apr 2015 #42
If you were a business owner and were asked to print a KKK pamphlet would you say no? davsand Apr 2015 #28
If I own a print store christx30 Apr 2015 #35
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Kentucky judge rules for ...»Reply #43