September 7, 2017

Can businesses put up a sign that says, “We Don’t Sell To Gays?” President Trump says yes.
Today Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions told the Supreme Court in an amicus brief that businesses have a constitutional right to discriminate against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. That means that business owners could put a sign in the window saying, “We Don’t Serve Gays,” even if a state or Congress says anti-gay discrimination is unlawful.

While the Justice Department says this wouldn't necessarily allow businesses to turn people away because of their race, if the Constitution protects such a right to discriminate against gay people, it would also authorize businesses to discriminate based on national origin, sex, religion, disability, gender identity, or any other basis. That means businesses could put up other signs as well: “We Don’t Sell to Women.” “No Muslims.” “No Transgender People.” All in open defiance of the nation’s civil rights laws.
How did we get here?
The case before the Supreme Court has deceptively simple facts. Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig were planning their wedding reception in Colorado. Along with Charlie’s mom, Dave and Charlie went to the Masterpiece Cakeshop bakery near Denver to order a cake in July 2012. The bakery turned them away, saying it doesn’t make wedding cakes for gay couples because that would violate its religious beliefs and artistic freedom.

Everyone in this country should be opposed
to such a radical ruling that would undermine
America’s core commitment to equality.

Under long-standing Colorado law, businesses that are open to the public can’t turn customers away because they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual. That’s just what happened here, so Charlie and Dave sued. The Colorado courts agreed that it was discrimination and ruled that free speech and religious protections don’t give anyone a right to discriminate.
It’s easy to dismiss the case as trivial. Dave and Charlie could — and did — get a cake from another bakery. And few people would really want a cake from a bakery that doesn’t actually want to bake it.
But consider what a ruling for the bakery could mean here — constitutional protection for discrimination based on freedom of religion or expression. That’s breathtaking in its scope and consequences. It would mean that a florist could refuse to sell flowers for the funeral of an interfaith couple, a dance studio could turn away the children of an interracial couple, an architect could put up a sign saying, “No Jews,” a doctor could turn away transgender people altogether. And each and every law that makes discrimination illegal would be overridden by the constitutional right to discriminate.
In fact, the consequences go far beyond nondiscrimination laws.
If any business has a constitutional right to express its views or its religion by refusing to comply with a nondiscrimination law, it could defy other government rules as well. Businesses could refuse to follow food safety rules because they want to express themselves through their refusal. Or a company could flout consumer protection regulations because they are inconsistent with its religious beliefs.
This case has never been about the cake. It’s about whether anyone in America can be turned away from a business because of who they are. It’s about whether the Constitution gives businesses the right to discriminate whenever they want to.
Everyone in this country should be opposed to such a radical ruling that would undermine America’s core commitment to equality. That President Trump has endorsed a right to discriminate against LGBT people may not be surprising, given his earlier actions to strip transgender youth of protections in schools and to deprive lesbian, gay, and bisexual people of federal civil rights protections altogether. But it couldn’t be more un-American or shameful.

https://soundcloud.com/thepurplestatereport/episode-4-i-came-out-of-the-...
Subscribe to our podcast.

On today’s episode, Alejandra speaks with Victor Galvan, a DACA recipient who came to the United States as an infant. Earlier this week the Trump administration announced its plan to rescind DACA in six months affecting more than 800,000 young people like Victor. Also, John discusses an ACLU case on behalf of a Colorado man who spent 52 days in jail waiting to see a judge.

Call to Action: Tell your members of Congress to pass the Dream Act of 2017. Send them a message at: http://bit.ly/DreamAct17

Social media hashtags: #heretostay #dreamact

For more information on CIRC go to: http://coloradoimmigrant.org/

DACA Walkout and Rally, September 5, 2017. Denver, Colorado.

Colorado elected officials and community leaders held a press conference in support of DACA. September 1, 2017. Colorado Capitol, Denver, Colorado.

The Purple State Report is brought to you by the ACLU of Colorado. Our show was produced by Vanessa Michel, Alejandra Garza, and John Krieger with original theme music by Pablo Novelas. Additional music by Helado Negro. If you have feedback or suggestions for future episodes email us at [email protected]. 

DENVER – The ACLU of Colorado filed a lawsuit this morning against the Pueblo and Teller County Sheriff’s Offices on behalf of Michael Bailey, who was held in jail for 52 days on a years-old misdemeanor warrant awaiting his first appearance before a judge.   

The lawsuit, which was filed this morning in federal district court, seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

On Sept. 8, 2015, the Teller County Sheriff’s Office arrested Mr. Bailey on a four-year-old misdemeanor warrant from Pueblo County.  Although Colorado law requires that newly arrested detainees be brought “without unreasonable delay” to the nearest county court judge, who could set bond,  the Teller County Sheriff’s Office refused to take Mr. Bailey to court.  Instead, it waited for the Pueblo County Sheriff’s Office to transport Mr. Bailey to Pueblo.  For more than six weeks, the Pueblo County Sheriff’s Office ignored multiple notices to transport Mr. Bailey. 

When Mr. Bailey finally appeared before the Pueblo County Court after 52 days in jail, he was immediately released on a personal recognizance bond, and all charges were dismissed soon afterward.       

“Both the Teller and Pueblo County sheriffs, through their indifference and incompetence, are responsible for forcing Michael Bailey to languish in jail for two months without any opportunity to post bond or see a judge,” said Mark Silverstein, ACLU of Colorado legal director. “Bailey was stuck in legal limbo as both sheriff departments violated his constitutional right to appear promptly before a judge who could advise him of his rights and allow him to be released on bond. 

As a result of his prolonged detention, Bailey lost his job and nearly two months of wages.

According to ACLU of Colorado staff attorney Rebecca Wallace, what happened to Mr. Bailey is indicative of a long-standing, statewide problem. 

“For years, the ACLU of Colorado has been receiving complaints of defendants languishing in jail on warrants from other counties for 10 days or more, with no opportunity to see a judge,” said Wallace.  “We have been investigating the cause of these delays and have determined that many county sheriffs across the state are not following court rules requiring them to bring their prisoners promptly before a judge for a first appearance.  This failure not only violates defendants’ constitutional rights, it also contributes to the problem of over-incarceration and jail overcrowding that plagues Colorado.”

“The real-life consequences of pretrial detention are broad and deep,” said ACLU cooperating attorney Darold Killmer. “That’s why we have due process protections built into the system to ensure that pretrial defendants, who are innocent in the eyes of the law, are not stuck in jail waiting for their day in court.  In this case, and far too many others across the state, those protections failed because they were not followed.”

Bailey is represented by Silverstein, Wallace and Killmer, as well as Michael Fairhurst of Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP. 

more on this case