Colorado Baker Wins

[EastTexan 662]

1 hour ago, troph said:

Arthur Jones - a holocaust denier and outspoken white nationalist received 20,000 votes in the outskirts of Chicago in his uncontested bid for the Republican nomination for Congress. He will likely lose as the district is heavily Democratic. Yet he still received 20,000 votes and is on the ballot.

Brisket has reason to be alarmed.
 

Trump is a holocaust denier?

[Anastasis 23191]

14 hours ago, GabrielsHorn said:

I wish this was the place to discuss the interesting parts of the decision, particularly how Kennedy was trying to balance how objections to gay marriage are protected views, how Thomas wanted to decide on whether the baker's objection to making the cake and whether it is a piece of expression, and Ginsburg dissent that mounted to that the gay couple shouldn't lose this case, but instead it goes back to the same old same old. 

Pffftt. Fuck off traitor!

[Dahobbs 17089]

8 hours ago, DixonHur said:

After 20 years of doing M&A, I'm 100% sure I've forgotten more about corporate finance than you've ever known.

And I guess you missed this part where it says...

"The applicability of Title II is carefully limited to enterprises having direct and substantial relation to the interstate flow of goods and people"

That leaves a whole lot of green pasture for a challenge.

I am not challenging your knowledge of finance. But your m&a experience is completely irrelevant here because the definition of terms public and private used by the finance industry has absolutely nothing to do with the use of those terms for purposes of public accomondation laws. You have to think of them as different words entirely. You have appeared to be unable or unwilling to understand that concept and it baffles me. 

And I didnt miss anything. You said Title II would be found to be unconstitutional. That is ridiculious as this issue is well settled. Overturning Title II on constitutional grounds would require upsetting a hundred years of commerce clause precedent. That aint happening.

You may have meant that application of the law to a particular business may be found to be unconstitutional. But, given that the act has already been limited, any such holding would not be that Title II is unconsitutional, but rather that it is interpreted to be limited in a way consistent with constitution and thus the act itself does not apply to this hypothetical business. That is a huge distinction that any lawyer should appreciate it, even a non litigator.  

Edited June 5, 2018 by Dahobbs

[DixonHur 10807]

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I am not challenging your knowledge of finance. But your m&a experience is completely irrelevant here because the definition of terms public and private used by the finance industry has absolutely nothing to do with the use of those terms for purposes of public accomondation laws. You have to think of them as different words entirely. You have appeared to be unable or unwilling to understand that concept and it baffles me. 

And I didnt miss anything. You said Title II would be found to be unconstitutional. That is ridiculious as this issue is well settled. Overturning Title II on constitutional grounds would require upsetting a hundred years of commerce clause precedent. That aint happening.

You may have meant that application of the law to a particular business may be found to be unconstitutional. But, given that the act has already been limited, any such holding would not be that Title II is unconsitutional, but rather that it is interpreted to be limited in a way consistent with constitution and thus the act itself does not apply to this hypothetical business. 

Well, we can agree to disagree that Title Ii's constitutionality is settled.  The right if Congress to have enacted the law is settled...in so far has Congress has the right to oversee interstate commerce.  

What has not been tested is where interstate commerce ends and a person's right the free speech and expression starts.  For example, the baker in Colorado is clearly not engaged in interstate commerce, so does he have a right to deny service?

I'm not saying which is the morally/ethically correct answer, I'm only talking about in relation to constitutional rights.

Edited June 5, 2018 by DixonHur

[Dahobbs 17089]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

Well, we can agree to disagree that Title Ii's constitutionality is settled.  The right if Congress to have enacted the law is settled...in so far has Congress has the right to oversee interstate commerce.  

What has not been tested is where interstate commerce ends and a person's right the free speech and expression starts.  For example, the baker in Colorado is clearly not engaged in interstate commerce, so does he have a right to denied service?

I'm not saying which is the morally/ethically correct answer, I'm only talking about in relation to constitutional rights.

The bounded or boundless nature of the commerce clause isnt settled. But any such limitation would ultimately result in a limiting of the Title II, not its invalidation. And, if the commerce clause does not reach a particular business, then neither does title ii. The first amendment would be entirely irrelevant in deciding that point.

Assuming the commerce clause reached the subject business and the law as applied impacted free speech, the courts would then look into whether the law could curtail free speech (as many laws do). Although, forcing speech (as in this hypothetical) and restricting speech are different matters, so I am not entirely sure what test the courts would apply.  

As to Masterpiece, the law at issue was a state law, not federal. The commerce clause was completely irrelevant because it is a source of federal government power, not state power.

 

 

 

[Steamboat1874 4008]

If I was gay and living in Colorado I would order a plain wedding cake from these assholes......pay for it and pick it up...and I was walking out the door would have my lover come in and introduce him or her to the baker and say thank you for making a gay wedding cake.

This has opened up a whole can of worms in my opinion.

[jimmyjazz 45055]

I'd just like to go on record as saying there is no way in hell this discussion would ever take place on texags, and for that I appreciate surly/shaggy even more than I did before.  Plus, I'm learnin' some shit.

[phdhorn 6224]

3 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

If I was gay and living in Colorado I would order a plain wedding cake from these assholes......pay for it and pick it up...and I was walking out the door would have my lover come in and introduce him or her to the baker and say thank you for making a gay wedding cake.

This has opened up a whole can of worms in my opinion.

That wouldn't violate his faith because he didn't know about it before acting.  1 Cor. 8-11:1 (the whole argument about meat sacrificed to idols) covers that.

[Steamboat1874 4008]

Just now, phdhorn said:

That wouldn't violate his faith because he didn't know about it before acting.  1 Cor. 8-11:1 (the whole argument about meat sacrificed to idols) covers that.

Don't care about that...I would do it just to piss him off because he is an asshole and probably a pedophile as well.

Ha !

[DixonHur 10807]

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

As to Masterpiece, the law at issue was a state law, not federal. 

My understanding was that it was even more narrow than that...I thought it was about how he was treated in the state case.

Anyway, my only point was that you're saying that Title II is settled law.  I'm saying it's not, and I think next time it's challenged, if ever, it will be on the basis of the 1st Amendment.  Granted I'm not a constitutional lawyer...or any kind of lawyer for that matter...but I think it would be interesting to see how it would be adjudicated since it's the rights of the government versus the rights of the citizenry under the constitution.

[Dahobbs 17089]

14 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

My understanding was that it was even more narrow than that...I thought it was about how he was treated in the state case.

Anyway, my only point was that you're saying that Title II is settled law.  I'm saying it's not, and I think next time it's challenged, if ever, it will be on the basis of the 1st Amendment.  Granted I'm not a constitutional lawyer...or any kind of lawyer for that matter...but I think it would be interesting to see how it would be adjudicated since it's the rights of the government versus the rights of the citizenry under the constitution.

Yes, the holding in Masterpiece was narrowly focused on the right to neutral arbiter. But the underlying case involved enforcement of a colorado law and had nothing to do with title ii or the commerce clause (federal law). The states can do things that the feds cannot because the federal government is one of enumerated (limited) powers whereas the states are not.

A challenge to title ii under the first amendment could only limit title iis reach, not invalidate it entirely (yes, title ii's  legality is well settled except perhaps for some fringe cases like this). And, the first amendment in general is a poor means to attack a law of general applicability because all sorts of laws that restrict free speech have already been found to be constitutional. 

Edited June 5, 2018 by Dahobbs

[JBJ 3591]

36 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

If I was gay and living in Colorado I would order a plain wedding cake from these assholes......pay for it and pick it up...and I was walking out the door would have my lover come in and introduce him or her to the baker and say thank you for making a gay wedding cake.

This has opened up a whole can of worms in my opinion.

That's pretty much what he had offered the gay couple.  He wasn't refusing to make them a cake, he was refusing to custom design one.

[ChickenSandwich 9750]

39 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

If I was gay and living in Colorado I would order a plain wedding cake from these assholes......pay for it and pick it up...and I was walking out the door would have my lover come in and introduce him or her to the baker and say thank you for making a gay wedding cake.

This has opened up a whole can of worms in my opinion.

Well he did offer to sell them any of his standard cakes avalaible irnoff the shelf, so your hypothetical was offered, and declined by the couple. Time for a pound of flesh  

Should a gay baker be required to create custom “gay marriage is a sin” cakes for alt right groups?

They want someone who’s views they disagree with to suffer, and the Colorado government decided to pitch in and help. Saying he can no longer create custom cakes because he was honest and wouldn’t create this one should be considered a crime. Colorado with the throw back to Hitler’s Germany. 

I hope to see your same passion when the White supremists go looking for a minority baker for some rally cake, because forced expression is ok with regardless. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

I love it. A thread about a religious freedom incident, and now America is poised to not only replicate the Holocaust, but now a new genocide against native Americans, a Rwandan type genocide against somebody (we're not sure who yet) slavery is about to be re instituted and we 're being led by the biggest racist since Edmund Ruffin.

All of you little children are being led by the nose by Brisket who seems one step from jumping off a ledge.  We're doooooooooomed !!!!!!!!!  Seriously dredging up incidents that occurred over 150 years ago, and acting like it's getting ready to happen again.....  How in the world did some of you survive college without safe spaces ?

Not a peep about a committee over stepping it's bounds and potentially trampling an individuals constitutional rights of freedom of religion.  The tone has been yeah SCOTUS didn't side with the baker they just said the committee was a skosch heavy handed on something we hate anyway so fuck him....

Yep all concerned citizens one and all as Long as it's your issue of course.

 

 

[MAROON 442]

1 hour ago, Steamboat1874 said:

Don't care about that...I would do it just to piss him off because he is an asshole and probably a pedophile as well.

Ha !

actually you would be the asshole in that scenario.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 18303]

1 hour ago, Steamboat1874 said:

Don't care about that...I would do it just to piss him off because he is an asshole and probably a pedophile as well.

Ha !

Wow.  Casting aspersions about.  This is why discourse is uncivil.  He is different than me, thus, he most be horrific.  Idiot.

[DixonHur 10807]

50 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, the holding in Masterpiece was narrowly focused on the right to neutral arbiter. But the underlying case involved enforcement of a colorado law and had nothing to do with title ii or the commerce clause (federal law). The states can do things that the feds cannot because the federal government is one of enumerated (limited) powers whereas the states are not.

A challenge to title ii under the first amendment could only limit title iis reach, not invalidate it entirely (yes, title ii's  legality is well settled except perhaps for some fringe cases like this). And, the first amendment in general is a poor means to attack a law of general applicability because all sorts of laws that restrict free speech have already been found to be constitutional. 

Fair enough, but just as clarification, Title II came up as a general anti-discrimination subject, not in direct relation to the baker case.  This thread has been all over the map as I'm sure you've noticed.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Wow.  Casting aspersions about.  This is why discourse is uncivil.  He is different than me, thus, he most be horrific.  Idiot.

welp........ yeah !!  

This ain't the Algonquin round table here ma'am.

[jimmyjazz 45055]

34 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Not a peep about a committee over stepping it's bounds and potentially trampling an individuals constitutional rights of freedom of religion.

Really?  Not a peep?  You don't read good.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Really?  Not a peep?  You don't read good.

I'm sorry yes, a whole peep, and some lip service, and then a litany of you little babies saying the world was getting ready to crash around our ears. Genocide, Indian massacres, lynchings and slavery are all on the horizon....brought to you by one DJ Trump and co.  He ain't that smart or devious enough.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how a cake causes the end of civilization in America, but Brisket apparently knows, cause he and the usual cabal filled us in.  How do some of you even get out of bed in the morning ?

[jimmyjazz 45055]

Quote

How do some of you even get out of bed in the morning ?

Well, it's a struggle, but somebody has to fight the good fight.  Pray for me.

[Dahobbs 17089]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm sorry yes, a whole peep, and some lip service, and then a litany of you little babies saying the world was getting ready to crash around our ears. Genocide, Indian massacres, lynchings and slavery are all on the horizon....brought to you by one DJ Trump and co.  He ain't that smart or devious enough.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how a cake causes the end of civilization in America, but Brisket apparently knows, cause he and the usual cabal filled us in.  How do some of you even get out of bed in the morning ?

I don't think anybody really has a problem with the outcome of the case. It seems reasonable to me. But the bigger question of whether religion can be used to justify discrimination has not been answered and an answer in the affirmative would have to be very narrowly and carefully tailored in order to avoid legitimizing conduct that we have worked hard to eliminate for 60 years. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Well, it's a struggle, but somebody has to fight the good fight.  Pray for me.

Heh heh, I'm the wrong guy to ask. I don't believe in an all knowing, powerful creator watching our every move, just biding his time till he sends his son back to kill everyone who dissed him for 10,000 years.  I do however respect peoples right to believe as such, and if it makes them better kinder people for that well, that's a win win.

[jimmyjazz 45055]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Heh heh, I'm the wrong guy to ask. I don't believe in an all knowing, powerful creator watching our every move, just biding his time till he sends his son back to kill everyone who dissed him for 10,000 years. 

Ah, you're a Presbyterian.

[Fozzz 152]

lmao

https://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/1004003191523069953

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think anybody really has a problem with the outcome of the case. It seems reasonable to me. But the bigger question of whether religion can be used to justify discrimination has not been answered and an answer in the affirmative would have to be very narrowly and carefully tailored in order to avoid legitimizing conduct that we have worked hard to eliminate for 60 years. 

I'd agree. And I don't think religion is grounds for about 99.999% discrimination in the public arena.  This case does seem to center on some intellectual issues with regard to design.  Being in that field I'm particularly sensitive to intelectual property rights, and who and what I provide them to/for.

I have a hard time thinking the gov't can require someone to design something they have strong feelings against.  The selling of an item on the other hand is another story.  However what if he sold religious artifacts, and knew a buyer was going to use them as a joke or desecrate them in some manner. Does that affect the issue ??

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Ah, you're a Presbyterian.

One time Catholic, and part time Baptist.  My Baptist family members were far and away more christian like (not in your face christians)  than my Catholic family members.

[David Dennison 17660]

39 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

One time Catholic, and part time Baptist.  My Baptist family members were far and away more christian like (not in your face christians)  than my Catholic family members.

But those Baptists are going to burn in hell for being heretics.

Allegedly.

 

[phdhorn 6224]

55 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think anybody really has a problem with the outcome of the case. It seems reasonable to me. But the bigger question of whether religion can be used to justify discrimination has not been answered and an answer in the affirmative would have to be very narrowly and carefully tailored in order to avoid legitimizing conduct that we have worked hard to eliminate for 60 years. 

What's going to make it interesting is that Kennedy acknowledged that discrimination exists on both sides of the fence.  His whole attack was on the demonizing of the baker, thereby in essence justifying the same discriminatory practices of which the anti-baker elements accused the baker.

Kennedy put the tightrope out there, I'm just not sure the Feds (SCOTUS) would ever be able to write a blanket decision, because according to this one, both sides are equally culpable of hostility and discrimination.  The flowers case will I guess kind of be one to watch.

[Pig Bellmont 8637]

Why the fuck is this thread 9 pages? The decision was a punt and did not address the underlying merits of whether a baker can rightfully refuse business to gays. 

 

thats it. All this debate about what some of y’all feel should be constitutional is masterbatory. We have a different forum for that. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

But those Baptists are going to burn in hell for being heretics.

Allegedly.

 

I'd say if you can't dance, play cards or drink yer burning in Hell on Earth.

[Fozzz 152]

Vladeck is a good follow but he should realize that many of these people (Cornyn being an example) are arguing in bad faith regarding that point.  

Edited June 5, 2018 by Fozzz

[hayden_horn 11311]

48 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Why the fuck is this thread 9 pages? The decision was a punt and did not address the underlying merits of whether a baker can rightfully refuse business to gays. 

 

thats it. All this debate about what some of y’all feel should be constitutional is masterbatory. We have a different forum for that. 

everyone ignored my post saying the exact same thing all the way back on page 3:

 

[TahoeHorn 107]

5 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

everyone ignored my post saying the exact same thing all the way back on page 3:

 

I think this portends well for fans of the baker's position in future rulings on how religious freedom will be balanced with gay rights.  Although this ruling didn't cut the baby I think it's clear that will happen.  And I think lawyers who read all the opinions can make a good guess as to how future rulings will come out.

 

There was concern among fans of the baker's position that religious freedom would get trampled.  I think that concern is greatly reduced.

[Dahobbs 17089]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Why the fuck is this thread 9 pages? The decision was a punt and did not address the underlying merits of whether a baker can rightfully refuse business to gays. 

 

thats it. All this debate about what some of y’all feel should be constitutional is masterbatory. We have a different forum for that. 

I'm sorry, would you prefer I take the interesting legal questions to another thread so that the circle jerk of name calling can continue?

In case you were wondering, your very point was made plenty of times in those 9 pages, including by me. SCOTUS may have punted, but it turns out the people in this forum want to discuss the underlying issue.  

[Pig Bellmont 8637]

The First Amendment will not be a vehicle to deny people places of public accommodation on the basis of their sexual orientation, regardless of any sincerely held religious beliefs. There’s no legitimate debate to the contrary. 

[hayden_horn 11311]

28 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I think this portends well for fans of the baker's position in future rulings on how religious freedom will be balanced with gay rights.  Although this ruling didn't cut the baby I think it's clear that will happen.  And I think lawyers who read all the opinions can make a good guess as to how future rulings will come out.

 

There was concern among fans of the baker's position that religious freedom would get trampled.  I think that concern is greatly reduced.

i'm not sure that it does, as the court very carefully outlines the time frame during which this baker experienced the discrimination. it's explicitly mentioned that it was pre-obergefell, and that he law structure in CO was slightly different, and given these, his right to religion was stepped on. but i think it indicates that moving forward, bake the fucking cake, man.

[Bill Brasky 1415]

53 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

everyone ignored my post saying the exact same thing all the way back on page 3:

 

Too many clicks 

[Section4Row36Seat8 76]

6 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

The First Amendment will not be a vehicle to deny people places of public accommodation on the basis of their sexual orientation, regardless of any sincerely held religious beliefs. There’s no legitimate debate to the contrary. 

This all ultimately leads back to whether you believe if a person engages in a trade or service to the community and economy, are they required to supply that trade or service to the best of their ability regardless of the circumstances. 

I think if you do require someone that engages in the economy to provide a service that is a slippery slope. 

Do you require liberal music performers to perform at Trumps Inauguration if he asks? 

Do you require Muslim clerics to perform same sex weddings?

Do you require surgeons to perform operations even though they believe it is dangerous to the patient even though a patient wants the surgery?

Even if the tradesman or servicewoman refuses to fulfill a service or trade for discriminatory or asshole related motives when you make them perform, how do you draw the line between the times to force them to perform verses enslavement to the community?

I fear it will degenerate to the entitlement attitude of this jerk that wants someone to crochet a blanket for lest that $2/hr in compensation simple because the person enjoys the craft or worse. 

 

https://www.boredpanda.com/customer-complaint-blanket-price-krafty-katt/

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pig Bellmont 8637]

1 minute ago, Section4Row36Seat8 said:

This all ultimately leads back to whether you believe if a person engages in a trade or service to the community and economy, are they required to supply that trade or service to the best of their ability regardless of the circumstances. 

I think if you do require someone that engages in the economy to provide a service that is a slippery slope. 

Do you require liberal music performers to perform at Trumps Inauguration if he asks? 

Do you require Muslim clerics to perform same sex weddings?

Do you require surgeons to perform operations even though they believe it is dangerous to the patient even though a patient wants the surgery?

Even if the tradesman or servicewoman refuses to fulfill a service or trade for discriminatory or asshole related motives when you make them perform, how do you draw the line between the times to force them to perform verses enslavement to the community?

I fear it will degenerate to the entitlement attitude of this jerk that wants someone to crochet a blanket for lest that $2/hr in compensation simple because the person enjoys the craft or worse. 

 

https://www.boredpanda.com/customer-complaint-blanket-price-krafty-katt/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You actually don’t have a grasp of the issue at hand and not a single analogy you used is applicable to the underlying merits of the case at issue. A place of public accommodation has a very specific legal meaning, and persons will not be denied those spaces on the basis of their sexual orientation under the Constitution. The inauguration example is political. Priests/clerics/religious institutions operate under a different set of rules. Elective surgery and physical harm to a patient had literally nothing in common with this case. Explaining this is apparently a waste of time. 

[Section4Row36Seat8 76]

4 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

You actually don’t have a grasp of the issue at hand and not a single analogy you used is applicable to the underlying merits of the case at issue. A place of public accommodation has a very specific legal meaning, and persons will not be denied those spaces on the basis of their sexual orientation under the Constitution. The inauguration example is political. Priests/clerics/religious institutions operate under a different set of rules. Elective surgery and physical harm to a patient had literally nothing in common with this case. Explaining this is apparently a waste of time. 

As far as I know the baker didn’t refuse access to his bakery or purchasing his products. He only refused his expert service of making a custom cake that celebrated something against his religious beliefs. 

How is this protected under public accommodation? I honestly tried to find any law or legal precedent that showed a tradesman cannot refuse his trade under public accommodation laws. If you have an example I would like to read it. 

[Mole 4265]

We obviously can't force Kirk Cameron to give the toast at a gay wedding no matter how much money they offer him. Westboro Baptist can't force Ian McKellen to give the toast at one of their weddings either. If a cake reaches an appropriate level of expression/speech, which I think it clearly can, then we can't force the baker to make it no matter how bigoted we might think they are. Or at least, we can't force them to do certain parts of making it. Compelling speech is far different than the moderate and reasonable restrictions we have on speech. Growing up, free speech was a liberal cause.

[jimmyjazz 45055]

38 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

A place of public accommodation has a very specific legal meaning, and persons will not be denied those spaces on the basis of their sexual orientation under the Constitution.

Wait, what?  When did sexual orientation become a Federally protected class?

[Pig Bellmont 8637]

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wait, what?  When did sexual orientation become a Federally protected class?

That and Obergefell applies equal protection under the 14th Amendment to same sex couples who want to get married. It would be an odd carve out to have sexual orientation *not* be a protected class in places of public accommodation 

Edited June 5, 2018 by Pig Bellmont

[jimmyjazz 45055]

No.  I'm no lawyer or Constitutional scholar, but I have not seen ANY legitimate argument that sexual orientation is now a protected class.  You are saying it is now equivalent in this regard to gender, race, etc.  No way.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

17 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

That and Obergefell applies equal protection under the 14th Amendment to same sex couples who want to get married. It would be an odd carve out to have sexual orientation *not* be a protected class in places of public accommodation 

It really wouldn't.  As those protected classes were created by statute.

[David Dennison 17660]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

It really wouldn't.  As those protected classes were created by statute.

Sexual orientation as a federally protected class akin to race is right around the corner and everyone knows it.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Sexual orientation as a federally protected class akin to race is right around the corner and everyone knows it.

There is little doubt judges are about to make some shit up.  Let's wait and see what SCOTUS says though.

[David Dennison 17660]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

There is little doubt judges are about to make some shit up.  Let's wait and see what SCOTUS says though.

They wouldn't be making anything up. They taught you that in law school.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

They wouldn't be making anything up. They taught you that in law school.

Congress in 1964 had zero, and I mean zero, intent to cover sexual orientation with Title VII.  That is such a far fetched argument.  Again, SCOTUS will get the final say on this.