Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BDS
I'm no lawyer, but I don't think your conclusion follows from your premise. The right to shop isn't guaranteed by the Constitution, either, but public shops are not allowed to discriminate based on race. If (and I don't know if this is the case) something in the Constitution prohibits the state from discriminating based on gender, then it's reasonable to suggest that it might prohibit the state from allowing some people to marry, but prohibiting others to marry based on gender.
|
I'm not a lawyer either, but as I understand it, neither the Constitution nor its Amendments contain anything like a general non-discrimination clause. The 15th, 19th and and the 26th Amendments address specific issues of non-discrimination in regard to voting rights. Issues relating to discrimination in regard to things like housing, education, etc. have been dealt with either by legislative action or executive orders. I believe that the most common argument against discrimination, on the basis of sexual preference, is based on the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. How broadly those provisions may be applied is still, I believe, a matter of continuing litigation.
As I read it, the case in the OP has to do with the court's interpretation of the New York State Constitution. I would expect to see this appealed in Federal court on the grounds that New York's ban violates that same equal protections clause in the 14th Amendment.