S2: Barronelle Stutzmann Act

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Greetings, Members of the Chamber of Delegates;
As Secretary of the Interior and head of the Subdepartment of Justice, it is my duty to inform you that this bill as presently constituted stands in violation of Section 1 of the Evergreen-Tmthforu LGBTQ+ Rights Act (Title XLII of the Code of the Republic of Atlasia) and Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and is consequently unconstitutional under Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia, which states

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Should this bill, as presently constituted, be adopted by the Chamber of Delegates and signed by the Governor, my office will have no choice but to bring charges against this Region for the violation of the Constitution and Federal Law.

Kind Regards,
Harry S Truman
Secretary of the Interior

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

There is nothing in Evergreen's bill requiring business owners to accommodate every customer, nor preventing businesses from choosing to decline work contrary to the purpose of their business.

For example, are you requiring Catholic churches to admit homosexual men to the priesthood? If not, why not?

Clearly freedom of religion and association still exists in Atlasia.

Section 1 of the Evergreen-Tmthforu LGBTQ+ Rights Act explicitly states that the provisions of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to cases of discrimination "on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity." Title II, if you were not aware, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or (now) sexual orientation by businesses that engage in interstate commerce.  Ergo, refusing to serve a client due to their sexual orientation is a violation of both Acts, and regional legislation that would protect such actions are contrary to the terms of Article VIII of the Constitution. Because the CRA applies only to businesses, religious institutions (such as the church in your hypothetical example) are not affected by this legislation and may continue to act in accordance with the teachings of their faith.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I don't know Barronelle Stutzmann. I have never met her, and I do not pretend to be familiar with the way she runs her business. Yet whether or not a single business owner in a single transaction violated the terms of the Evergreen-Tmthforu Act and the CRA is wholly irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. We are not discussing whether Barronelle Stutzmann was within her rights to refuse service to a particular person; we are discussing whether legislation that states "business owners may choose to decline to service a customer, at any time and for any reason," contradicts Federal Law and therefore the Constitution. This bill, as currently proposed, does not apply to a single business; it applies to all businesses in the South. The CRA and the Evergreen-Tmthforu Act clearly state that businesses that engage in interstate commerce do not have the rights that this bill would grant them; therefore, this bill is in violation of both of those acts and is thus unconstitutional.

Your interpretation of what constitutes "interstate commerce" is novel and not at all in keeping with the verdict reached by the Supreme Court in Katzenbach v. McClung, which established the precedent by which cases under the CRA are judged. Even if it were, whether Ms. Stutzmann's business is or is not engaged in interstate commerce is beside the point, because (again) this bill does not apply to a single business; rather, it purports to apply to all businesses in the South, and clearly there are many, many Southern businesses that engage in interstate commerce as defined by the CRA and upheld by Katzenbach v. McClung.

My job as Secretary of the Interior is to uphold the law as it now stands, and the law clearly states that businesses that engage in interstate commerce may not discriminate against potential clients on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. If you would like to offer an amendment to rectify this lack of compliance with federal statute, then I can return to my daily responsibilities and leave the Chamber of Delegates to debate the merits of this proposal. While the current text remains, however, this bill stands in violation of two federal laws and Article VIII of the Constitution, and it would be a dereliction of duty for me to permit it's unchallenged execution.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

You have completely ignored half the argument, Secretary Truman. Do you believe that a baker should be forced under the CRA to bake a cake for a KKK meeting? Yes or no?

No, because such a refusal would not be based on the race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity of the person(s) refused service.

As worded, a business could not bar someone who was homosexual from their establishment. But they could decline to cater a wedding.

You really should read up on Barronelle's case before commenting on this proposed law. The CRA does not prevent a business owned from declining business that they do not want.

As I stated earlier, the question of whether or not Ms. Stutzmann was within her rights in that particular incident is wholly irrelevant here, because the bill as it stands does not apply to a single industry or line of service; it applies to all Southern businesses. There might be an argument to be made that a catering service is sufficiently different from a restaurant or motel to not constitute "interstate commerce" - I would need to review the particulars of Title II to know for sure - but we're not discussing a bill that allows caterers to decline to serve a gay wedding; we're discussing a bill that would allow all businesses to refuse service to a particular person or persons "at any time and for any reason." The CRA and the Evergreen-Tmthforu Act explicitly state that "no, there are circumstances in which certain businesses may not refuse service to a person or persons," so as long as this bill purports to apply to all businesses in all transactions, it is plainly unconstitutional.

If you're intention is for these provisions to apply only to the catering industry, or only to businesses that service weddings, then you need to write an amendment, because the bill as it now stands does not say that. The current text would authorize Southern businesses to refuse to serve any person for literally any reason, including all of the circumstances when the CRA and the Evergreen-Tmthforu Act state that businesses cannot make such a refusal. I don't know how to be any more clear about this: as long as this bill purports to apply to all Southern businesses, without distinction, this bill stands in violation of two federal laws and, therefore, the Constitution. That's all there is to it.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then the same is true for a wedding.

No, because refusing to cater a gay wedding because the couple to be married is gay is clearly "based on the sexual orientation" of the persons in question.

Anyways, I'm not here to debate policy or to argue the merits of a particular position, because my political opinions really aren't important as far as the Chamber of Delegates is concerned. My job is to explain what the Constitution and Federal Law have to say on the matter, and I have done so. If the Chamber of Delegates would be so kind as to amend the bill specifying that its provisions do not apply to businesses engaged in interstate commerce, then I can leave and let y'all get back to work.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then you would be forcing the bakery to cater to the KKK. That is a violation of the first amendment.

>Sigh<

That's not what I said, nor is it what the law says. I understand that such an inflammatory example may be politically useful, but I would appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth. The CRA (as I explain now for the fourth time) prohibits discrimination on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin;" the Evergreen-Tmthforu Act expands those protections to include "sexual orientation and gender identity." I don't think that's particularly cryptic. No business engaged in interstate commerce may refuse service to persons based on race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation; they remain free to refuse service on other grounds (such as a moral objection to racism). This is not rocket science.

I'm also afraid that the provisions of the CRA apply to businesses that are engaged in interstate commerce to any degree, not just those who earn the majority of their profits from interstate commerce. While the amendment offered is an improvement, it still allows some businesses engaged in interstate commerce to deny service to persons for reasons prohibited by the CRA and the Evergreen-Tmthforu Act. The bill needs to be amended to specify that 'businesses engaged in interstate commerce are excluded from the protections established herein', or something to that effect; otherwise, it is a violation of both the CRA and the Evergreen-Tmthforu Act.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

This is getting us nowhere. You are essentially arguing that our existing federal civil rights statutes are unjust and ought to be repealed. That's fine, but it is not at all relevant to this discussion because the Chamber of Delegates does not have the power to override federal law.

I have already explained the provisions of Title II multiple times; I do not think it necessary to explain them again. I shouldn't have to explain how a bill that would allow any business to refuse to serve persons "at any time and for any reason" violates the Civil Rights Act. It's not even clear that the measure in the OP and the measure you're arguing for are the same bill; in your most recent post, you talk about how catering services are different from traditional business transactions (like selling bread at a bakery), but the bill we're talking about doesn't make that distinction - in fact, it claims to apply to all businesses.

I will not continue to engage in this debate when it is clear your only intention is to hurl "gotcha questions" and misrepresent my every sentence. The bill as written is unconstitutional. If it is passed, it will be brought before the Supreme Court, and I am highly confident that it will be found unconstitutional. That will be all.