Sorry to persist with bird site content, but I must recommend reading Dr. Logan's comments.
https://twitter.com/TrevonDLogan/status/1674795877033213952?t=kwf2DZ0c94-Maez0VGB3ww&s=19
“For those in the know, federal prohibitions on discrimination in public accommodations are enforced under the commerce clause. I predict that soon a direct challenge to Heart of Atlanta v. US (1964) will seek to overturn Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
The text of Dr. Logan's posts (1/4)
For those in the know, federal prohibitions on discrimination in public accommodations are enforced under the commerce clause. I predict that soon a direct challenge to Heart of Atlanta v. US (1964) will seek to overturn Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
2/4 + image of rest of his thread
The current ruling is narrow to “expressive” services, but Justice Sotomayor raises the key question— what is the definition of expressive, and what are its boundaries? A wide range of services can be considered expressive. And is expressive what you do or who you do it for?
3&4/4 fit in 1 toot
This opens the door to a drumbeat of cases seeking to get broader and broader definitions of what these services are, and whether the client is a function of that expression. I do not expect this to go well.
The road to this is already in place. The Civil Rights Cases of 1883 put limits on the use of the 14th Amendment to ban discrimination. The court can very quickly work it’s way back there in a series of decisions or with one big one. They did so on abortion, after all.
eridyn