T shirt maker has gay customers, gay employees, still sued

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If you didn't understand what I meant, "gay-married' is referring to a marriage between two people of the same identified gender.  "Regular-married" is a marriage that, like 99.999% of marriages in the world today, is between a man and a woman.

Cinepro, it just made me smile (I hadn't seen them written that way before) and I was just teasing with the quotes.  Sorry if it offended you.

I guess I just think of them both as being equal now.   I know not everyone feels the same way, of course.

[kllindley]

I agree that this case was decided as it should have been.  However, let's not whitewash the history here:

1) The Lexington-Fayette HRC did find that HOO had violated the Non-discrimination ordinance and instituted fines and other orders accordingly.  

2) The case was then appealed.  Who would dare to help HOO appeal this decision?  The Alliance Defending Freedom.  That hate organization.  

3) The circuit court overturned the previous decision.  It sounds like everyone here agrees with that decision.  (I guess they must also be grateful for the ADL getting involved in this case.)  

4)  Despite "everyone"  agreeing that this was the right decision, there were still LGBT groups who felt this ruling is in error and the company was violating the law.  So they appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.  

5) The Kentucky CoA upheld the lower court's reversal.  Again everyone keeps saying that this is clearly the correct decision.  

6) But that decision was a bare majority.  The HRC and other groups are not satisfied with the outcome and are planning to appeal this to the Kentucky Supreme Court.  

Clearly not everyone agrees that this case has been decided as is should have.  

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I agree that this case was decided as it should have been.  However, let's not whitewash the history here:

1) The Lexington-Fayette HRC did find that HOO had violated the Non-discrimination ordinance and instituted fines and other orders accordingly.  

2) The case was then appealed.  Who would dare to help HOO appeal this decision?  The Alliance Defending Freedom.  That hate organization.  

3) The circuit court overturned the previous decision.  It sounds like everyone here agrees with that decision.  (I guess they must also be grateful for the ADL getting involved in this case.)  

4)  Despite "everyone"  agreeing that this was the right decision, there were still LGBT groups who felt this ruling is in error and the company was violating the law.  So they appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.  

5) The Kentucky CoA upheld the lower court's reversal.  Again everyone keeps saying that this is clearly the correct decision.  

6) But that decision was a bare majority.  The HRC and other groups are not satisfied with the outcome and are planning to appeal this to the Kentucky Supreme Court.  

Clearly not everyone agrees that this case has been decided as is should have.  

If everyone in the world agreed with how a case should be decided there would not be a case to decide.

[Calm]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And I am guessing the government will lose.

This is not really worthwhile as a cautionary tale. So far it proves the system is working. If they win precedent is established in Kentucky. Why is this being lamented on Fox instead of cheered? Slow news day?

How much is this costing the company and the taxpayers, I wonder, because the government official has decided they know better than the judge what is lawful.

It might be great advertisement for the company, so there is a possibility in the long run it is beneficial on a financial context (but might be detrimental on a personal basis due to stress).  I can't see it being all that great for the city to pay for three court cases.

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I agree that this case was decided as it should have been.  However, let's not whitewash the history here:

1) The Lexington-Fayette HRC did find that HOO had violated the Non-discrimination ordinance and instituted fines and other orders accordingly.  

2) The case was then appealed.  Who would dare to help HOO appeal this decision?  The Alliance Defending Freedom.  That hate organization.  

3) The circuit court overturned the previous decision.  It sounds like everyone here agrees with that decision.  (I guess they must also be grateful for the ADL getting involved in this case.)  

4)  Despite "everyone"  agreeing that this was the right decision, there were still LGBT groups who felt this ruling is in error and the company was violating the law.  So they appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.  

5) The Kentucky CoA upheld the lower court's reversal.  Again everyone keeps saying that this is clearly the correct decision.  

6) But that decision was a bare majority.  The HRC and other groups are not satisfied with the outcome and are planning to appeal this to the Kentucky Supreme Court.  

Clearly not everyone agrees that this case has been decided as is should have.  

Thanks for the summary--it's often helpful to ensure the conversation is based on factual information.

Yes, the ADL did appeal the decision.  It would be interesting to know how it happened that they came to be the organization representing the defendants, and whether or not the ACLU was involved or w/could have stepped in.  Due to attorney/client privilege, I imagine we'll never know the answers to those questions.  That being said, even individuals belonging to organizations designated as "Hate Groups" have a constitutional right to both free speech and to the right of due process of law.  I'm glad to see that thus far, justice has been served and the courts moved to protect their rights, as well.  I imagine SCOTUS will decline to hear the case, but if they do, I hope the business prevails again, because I think the legal reasoning is sound a reasonable. As I have said many times before, I may not agree with everything others say, but in the name of equal application of the law, I will absolutely defend your right to say them. 

I'm puzzled by what I view as an unfortunate and ironic choice to use the term "whitewashing" in your response.  "Whitewashing" is defined as "a deliberate concealment of someone's mistakes or faults in order to clear their name," and it's synonymns include "cover-up, camouflage, deception, facade, veneer."  I haven't seen any evidence of anyone on my side of the discussion trying to conceal, cover-up, or deceive any history or any of the other facts of the case, but welcome you to share any evidence you see that support the implication of "whitewashing."

Out of curiosity, do you know if the Lexington-Fayette HRC is part of the judicial system? Or is it the creation and extension of the legislature?

What those on my side of the argument ARE trying to do is ensure the conversation is based on factual information and the differences are clearly understood and articulated.

One final note: thankfully, regardless of the number of judges by which the majority ruling is established, it becomes law and precedent for future rulings. Thank goodness. We've had our own close calls on my side leading up to marriage equality for same-sex couples, and obviously,  not everyone agrees with the ruling, so I know the feeling.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Daniel2

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

How much is this costing the company and the taxpayers, I wonder, because the government official has decided they know better than the judge what is lawful.

It might be great advertisement for the company, so there is a possibility in the long run it is beneficial on a financial context (but might be detrimental on a personal basis due to stress).  I can't see it being all that great for the city to pay for three court cases.

Better to settle such matters expensively once and hopefully be done with it. I do not know of a cheap way to establish a precedent.

[Darren10]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And I am guessing the government will lose.

This is not really worthwhile as a cautionary tale. So far it proves the system is working. If they win precedent is established in Kentucky. Why is this being lamented on Fox instead of cheered? Slow news day?

Don't know, I never watch Fox and very rarely look for news reports from them. 

I think the government will lose but the fact that this is going as far as it is in Kentucky is a sign that society is altering itself away from how the system should work. Even the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage. A right which does not exist except for the fact that they say it does. My guess is that had they not done so this case would not be going to the Kentucky Supreme Court but I could very well be wrong on that. 

Edited September 26, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We will only know the supreme law of the land on this issue when the Supreme Court rules.

I'm sure you meant the supreme interpretation of the law if the land. I do want the Supreme Court to rule on the cake case. We have enough judges who'll rule based on their religion and not law.

[Darren10]

9 hours ago, ALarson said:

This was not a part of the court's orders ("orders of promoting gay weddings").  Or am I misunderstanding you?  

From what I read, this bakery no longer offers wedding cakes to any of their customers which was his option.

Here is what he was actually ordered to do:

 

Getting out of the wedding business completely was their only option left without being forced to shut down the company. 

I do think my statement was poorly worded but the court in question did order the cake folks to retrain their employees to be, let's say, "more sensitive" to "diversity". I think this encoded post is better stated than my original.

Edited September 26, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

You don't seem to be getting the distinction between offering a product offered to other customers vs being asked to create some kind of custom message.

I only see people being forced to use their artistic creativity yo make something which violates their Christian conscience. You could capitalise on this problem and create t-shirts to satisfy the plaintiff's complaints. But, let me know if you do so I can think of something, oh, "creative" for you to make for me. 

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Getting out of the wedding business completely was their only option left without being forced to shut down the company. 

I do think my statement was poorly worded but the court in question did order the cake folks to retrain their employees to be, let's say, "more sensitive" to "diversity". I think this encoded post is better stated than my original.

They got over a half a million dollars in donations. The 'poor little me' angle stops working at some point.

[The Nehor]

44 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I only see people being forced to use their artistic creativity yo make something which violates their Christian conscience. You could capitalise on this problem and create t-shirts to satisfy the plaintiff's complaints. But, let me know if you do so I can think of something, oh, "creative" for you to make for me. 

You seem ignorant of the distinction between the two cases and want to wax hyperbolic about them.

[LittleNipper]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

Just to be clear, the "cake" case would be like if a tuxedo store refused to sell a tuxedo to a person just because they were getting gay-married, but they sold lots of other tuxedos to people that were getting regular-married.

I think the argument would be that the mere act of selling the tuxedo (or cake) is itself an act of support.  Is this what the bakery is arguing?

There is a difference! A guy comes in and either buys or rents a tux for a multitude of reasons. A wedding cake is delivered and is usually specific to the event. Very often there are specific decorative requests with regard to a cake. With a tux, the guy picks one off the rack. I do like a tux in midnight blue with shawl lapels with a pleated shirt, cumberbun and hand tied bowtie ... 

Edited September 27, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Gray]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I only see people being forced to use their artistic creativity yo make something which violates their Christian conscience. You could capitalise on this problem and create t-shirts to satisfy the plaintiff's complaints. But, let me know if you do so I can think of something, oh, "creative" for you to make for me. 

If they make the same thing for their straight customers, they'll just have to stop being such snowflakes and provide it to their gay ones as well.

What if a fundamentalist baker bakes a cake with the idea that it's a straights-only wedding, but a gay person is inadvertantly invited to the wedding and eats a bite of cake with his boyfriend. Does the baker go directly to hell? *gasp*

[Gray]

27 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

There is a difference! A guy comes in and either buys or rents a tux for a multitude of reasons. A wedding cake is delivered and is usually specific to the event. Very often there are specific decorative requests with regard to a cake. With a tux, the guy picks one off the rack. I do like a tux in midnight blue with shawl lapels with a pleated shirt, cumberbun and hand tied bowtie ... 

But someone used their creativity to design that tux!

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I'm sure you meant the supreme interpretation of the law if the land. I do want the Supreme Court to rule on the cake case. We have enough judges who'll rule based on their religion and not law.

The supreme law of the land is the Constitution.  That supreme law is as stated by the Supreme Court, unless they reverse themselves in the future (which has happened).  It matters not at all whether the decision is a good or bad one, it is still the supreme law.  That is the principle upon which law-abiding citizens agree, in order to prevent blood feud becoming the basis of our legal decision-making.

[The Nehor]

48 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The supreme law of the land is the Constitution.  That supreme law is as stated by the Supreme Court, unless they reverse themselves in the future (which has happened).  It matters not at all whether the decision is a good or bad one, it is still the supreme law.  That is the principle upon which law-abiding citizens agree, in order to prevent blood feud becoming the basis of our legal decision-making.

I for one miss the good old days of blood feuds.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I for one miss the good old days of blood feuds.

Yeh, my Viking ancestors loved it.  Tankards of ale, and just going berserk when the occasion demanded.  Then on to Valhalla at death.  I can hear Wagner's Twilight of the Gods:  

 

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They got over a half a million dollars in donations. The 'poor little me' angle stops working at some point.

Good for them. You can triple that amount and I will still support their right to refuse to bake a cake to celebrate a gay wedding.

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You seem ignorant of the distinction between the two cases and want to wax hyperbolic about them.

Both cases involve freedom of religion. If we cannot discriminate against gays by not celebrating their marriage why can we discriminate against who has religious freedom and who does not? Because one has writing on their product?

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I for one miss the good old days of blood feuds.

Including pistol dueling. It almost got rid of Andrew Jackson. Big blood feuds is as mixed bag. It got rid of slavery and Abraham Lincoln.

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The supreme law of the land is the Constitution.  That supreme law is as stated by the Supreme Court, unless they reverse themselves in the future (which has happened).  It matters not at all whether the decision is a good or bad one, it is still the supreme law.  That is the principle upon which law-abiding citizens agree, in order to prevent blood feud becoming the basis of our legal decision-making.

Correct and that's best interpreted (and I think was originally interpreted) that the powers given explicitly to the federal government is the supreme law of the land. That's why states cannot print their own currency or raise an army though they may indeed have their own militias.  

Is this a supreme law of the land?

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(Bold mine)

If so, I fail to find a clause which makes a distinction between a product with writing on it and a product which is just a [plain] cake. Why is this even questioned in this country? I a glad the right to redress grievances is strongly supported.

Note also the wording "Congress". The Bill of Rights was originally a prohibition against the federal government from violating certain rights, not the states. A state may, and all the original 13states did, pass laws establishing a religion. No Framer used the constitution to stop them. Instead they all (almost unanimously It think) went to their respective states to stop such laws. Eventually they all did and today every state has a constitution very identical to the US Constitution. There's an ugly side to freedom though, especially when countrymen do not exercise it righteously. Slavery is a glaring example of the dark side of freedom. (Here's a short post that's quite good and to the point. I cannot vouch for any risqué pictures to the sides though. Read at your own risk).

On state's right's issues:

•  We live in a country today where no state would return to slavery. Not by a long shot so suggesting that state's rights would return to slavery somehow is absurd. But, without the exercise of state's rights, we have this conflict in Kentucky which may affect you and me instead of just Kentucky.
• That's the best way to guard your own Constitutional rights as your voice has much more potency.
• The maximum amount of freedom possible for the maximum amount of people without plunging into anarchy can be achieved by state's rights

In the end my post was about the role of the Supreme Court. It is not here to make law. It is here to interpret law. Their interpretation does indeed hold the power and weight of law, the "law of the land", as we commonly say, but it is only an interpretation. Laws are made by elected representatives. As a nation we have evolved to include the non constitutional though not necessarily unconstitutional power of Judicial Review. That power has grown greatly over the years, especially during the 20th century if you ask me.

Most importantly, we do not have rights because the Supreme Court or any branch of government says so. We have rights because we exist. We exist as humans created in the image of Deity.

 

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, my Viking ancestors loved it.  Tankards of ale, and just going berserk when the occasion demanded.  Then on to Valhalla at death.  I can hear Wagner's Twilight of the Gods:  

 

A memory from my high school years:

 

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

But someone used their creativity to design that tux!

It was their right to make it for a gay wedding, was it not?

2 hours ago, Gray said:

If they make the same thing for their straight customers, they'll just have to stop being such snowflakes and provide it to their gay ones as well.

What if a fundamentalist baker bakes a cake with the idea that it's a straights-only wedding, but a gay person is inadvertantly invited to the wedding and eats a bite of cake with his boyfriend. Does the baker go directly to hell? *gasp*

Yup and that's one place you do not want to drop the soap.

[Darren10]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

How much is this costing the company and the taxpayers, I wonder, because the government official has decided they know better than the judge what is lawful.

It might be great advertisement for the company, so there is a possibility in the long run it is beneficial on a financial context (but might be detrimental on a personal basis due to stress).  I can't see it being all that great for the city to pay for three court cases.

That would be "judges".

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Good for them. You can triple that amount and I will still support their right to refuse to bake a cake to celebrate a gay wedding.

Both cases involve freedom of religion. If we cannot discriminate against gays by not celebrating their marriage why can we discriminate against who has religious freedom and who does not? Because one has writing on their product?

Including pistol dueling. It almost got rid of Andrew Jackson. Big blood feuds is as mixed bag. It got rid of slavery and Abraham Lincoln.

Correct and that's best interpreted (and I think was originally interpreted) that the powers given explicitly to the federal government is the supreme law of the land. That's why states cannot print their own currency or raise an army though they may indeed have their own militias.  

Is this a supreme law of the land?

(Bold mine)

If so, I fail to find a clause which makes a distinction between a product with writing on it and a product which is just a [plain] cake. Why is this even questioned in this country? I a glad the right to redress grievances is strongly supported.

Note also the wording "Congress". The Bill of Rights was originally a prohibition against the federal government from violating certain rights, not the states. A state may, and all the original 13states did, pass laws establishing a religion. No Framer used the constitution to stop them. Instead they all (almost unanimously It think) went to their respective states to stop such laws. Eventually they all did and today every state has a constitution very identical to the US Constitution. There's an ugly side to freedom though, especially when countrymen do not exercise it righteously. Slavery is a glaring example of the dark side of freedom. (Here's a short post that's quite good and to the point. I cannot vouch for any risqué pictures to the sides though. Read at your own risk).

On state's right's issues:

•  We live in a country today where no state would return to slavery. Not by a long shot so suggesting that state's rights would return to slavery somehow is absurd. But, without the exercise of state's rights, we have this conflict in Kentucky which may affect you and me instead of just Kentucky.
• That's the best way to guard your own Constitutional rights as your voice has much more potency.
• The maximum amount of freedom possible for the maximum amount of people without plunging into anarchy can be achieved by state's rights

And would you also support the rights of businesses to throw Mormons or gays or green-eyed people out of stores or to put "No Mormons allowed outside their business? That is in essence what you are trying to allow under the guise of religion. The Nazis at least had the decency not to pretend it was a religious right.

By your logic tribalism would be the best form of government.

Slavery is a glaring example of the "dark side of freedom"? It is the diametric opposite of freedom. It is not a side of freedom at all.

[Darren10]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And would you also support the rights of businesses to throw Mormons or gays or green-eyed people out of stores or to put "No Mormons allowed outside their business? That is in essence what you are trying to allow under the guise of religion. The Nazis at least had the decency not to pretend it was a religious right.

By your logic tribalism would be the best form of government.

Slavery is a glaring example of the "dark side of freedom"? It is the diametric opposite of freedom. It is not a side of freedom at all.

If they want to put "we do not celebrate gay weddings" on the door, sure.

I thought I was being hyperbolic. I'll have to reread those posts. I'm sure it was a mistake.

"By your logic tribalism would be the best form of government."

No, by my logic, the "supreme law of the land" is the best form of government:

Quote

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Consistency please.

"Slavery is a glaring example of the "dark side of freedom"? It is the diametric opposite of freedom. It is not a side of freedom at all."

And yet, constitutionally speaking, Supreme Court speaking, ergo, the "supreme law of the land" speaking, people had the right to own slaves. Ergo;, were free to own slaves. Even blacks had slaves. Race based slaves.  Mormons also owned slaves. Race based slaves. After the Gettysburg Address, they did not. That blood feud got rid of slavery. It gets very dark when people do not exercise their freedom correctly; based on good and correct principles.

EDITED TO AD: Here's the ultimate form of good government but since we will never have it until the Second Coming, our constitutional republic will do nicely:

"13 Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people—I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you."

(Mosiah 29 - Bold mine)

Edited September 27, 2017 by Darren10

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Good for them. You can triple that amount and I will still support their right to refuse to bake a cake to celebrate a gay wedding.

Both cases involve freedom of religion. If we cannot discriminate against gays by not celebrating their marriage why can we discriminate against who has religious freedom and who does not? Because one has writing on their product?

Including pistol dueling. It almost got rid of Andrew Jackson. Big blood feuds is as mixed bag. It got rid of slavery and Abraham Lincoln.

Correct and that's best interpreted (and I think was originally interpreted) that the powers given explicitly to the federal government is the supreme law of the land. That's why states cannot print their own currency or raise an army though they may indeed have their own militias.  

...................................................

If so, I fail to find a clause which makes a distinction between a product with writing on it and a product which is just a [plain] cake. Why is this even questioned in this country? I a glad the right to redress grievances is strongly supported.

Note also the wording "Congress". The Bill of Rights was originally a prohibition against the federal government from violating certain rights, not the states. A state may, and all the original 13states did, pass laws establishing a religion. No Framer used the constitution to stop them. Instead they all (almost unanimously It think) went to their respective states to stop such laws. Eventually they all did and today every state has a constitution very identical to the US Constitution. There's an ugly side to freedom though, especially when countrymen do not exercise it righteously. Slavery is a glaring example of the dark side of freedom. (Here's a short post that's quite good and to the point. I cannot vouch for any risqué pictures to the sides though. Read at your own risk).

On state's right's issues:

•  We live in a country today where no state would return to slavery. Not by a long shot so suggesting that state's rights would return to slavery somehow is absurd. But, without the exercise of state's rights, we have this conflict in Kentucky which may affect you and me instead of just Kentucky.
• That's the best way to guard your own Constitutional rights as your voice has much more potency.
• The maximum amount of freedom possible for the maximum amount of people without plunging into anarchy can be achieved by state's rights

In the end my post was about the role of the Supreme Court. It is not here to make law. It is here to interpret law. Their interpretation does indeed hold the power and weight of law, the "law of the land", as we commonly say, but it is only an interpretation. Laws are made by elected representatives. As a nation we have evolved to include the non constitutional though not necessarily unconstitutional power of Judicial Review. That power has grown greatly over the years, especially during the 20th century if you ask me.

Most importantly, we do not have rights because the Supreme Court or any branch of government says so. We have rights because we exist. We exist as humans created in the image of Deity.  ........................................................

In the USA we have a contract called the Constitution, of which the Bill of Rights is a key part -- applicable to the states by the 14th Amendment.  It doesn't matter whether you like that Constitution, and many so-called "conservatives" hate it with a purple passion.  It remains the supreme law of the land, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

D&C 101:77,79-80 "According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; . . . Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.  And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood."

The slogan of "states' rights" is really designed to prevent certain minorities from exercising their constitutional rights via gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc.

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In the USA we have a contract called the Constitution, of which the Bill of Rights is a key part -- applicable to the states by the 14th Amendment.  It doesn't matter whether you like that Constitution, and many so-called "conservatives" hate it with a purple passion.  It remains the supreme law of the land, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

D&C 101:77,79-80 "According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; . . . Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.  And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood."

The slogan of "states' rights" is really designed to prevent certain minorities from exercising their constitutional rights via gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc.

So called Liberals make up tripe like voter surpression of minorities by Conservatives. Does...Not...Happen. You may not like voter ID laws but your accusation is extremely without merit. 

Question: I cited the 10th Amendment above. If the US Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" as you say, how do you say, "as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court".

To wit:

Quote

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

https://usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.html

That's "state's rights". This is the "supreme law of the land", correct? Where else within does the "supreme law of the land" say that the U.S. Supreme Court interprets the U.S. Constitution as per Judicial Review? 

I agree it is the supreme law of the land, just not how you are defining it. Judicial Review is indeed real but the manner which you are outlining constitutional powers does not make sense. It does not follow logic. Your rights are not given you because a court says so. Your rights are given you because you are a child of God. And, check this out, minorities are children of God too. That's why they have rights and it is up to *you* / *us*,  freeman, the voter and active citizen to keep your / our rights respected; not the Judiciary. So, as per the "supreme law of the land", We the People keep our rights respected through our voice, not through lawsuites. 

"And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.""

Correct. God inspired the 10th Amendment, not Judicial Review. Furthermore the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Holder in district mandering. 

Quote

Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 2 (2013), is a landmark[1] United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and Section 4(b), which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subjected to preclearance based on their histories of discrimination in voting.[2][3]

On June 25, 2013, the Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that Section 4(b) is unconstitutional because the coverage formula is based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states.[2][3] The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula.[4]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder

Can you cite a Supreme Court case where minorities were found oppressed? If so, what was the ultimate outcome of that case? 

Edited September 27, 2017 by Darren10