Quote:
Originally Posted by garhkal
|
Actually, they do. Have you seen their policies?
The first paragraph of the article you linked:
Quote:
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
|
I'll repeat to stress the point: "police did not have a
constitutional duty to protect a person from harm"....
... so you are wrong on "the law"! You carefully omitted the "constitutional part"!
How the officer responds to a particular call is discretionary, which means that with a few exceptions the officer does not HAVE to make a warrantless arrest someone, even when the offense is committed in their presence....if their departmental policy is different then they may get administrative action within the department and/or civil liability based on failing to comply with policy.
I didn't bother to look at the SC case, because historically the SCOTUS defines the boundaries of police action as opposed to the obligations they have to the community that hired them. The LE took an oath and agreed to the policies and procedures of the department. BTW: Before you go there .. customarily the policies and procedures of LE departments follow a format except for minute details that may be specific for their particular jurisdiction....responding to calls for service within their jurisdiction and extraterratorial jurisdiction is not one of the details.
But your diversion away from the posted reason why this officer went into the coffee shop is not relevant. Only trying to change the subject ... he went in to get a cup of coffee ... not a call for service at that location. Is your objection that illegals drink coffee there, but not police?
Your statement:
Quote:
"Especially when in one of those bakery's cases, he'd sold cakes to those gays PLENTY OF TIMES, he just did not wish to cater a gay wedding."
|
... is not relevant. #1: Gays are a protected class if discriminated against as such and #2: the bakery served "gays" (how they knew I don't have a clue, but perhaps they have a "gayness" meter at the door), but their objection was their religious beliefs regarding "gay marriage," which they were asked to facilitate. That is apples and oranges as far as refusing to serve uniformed officers.
Do you know any bars in the community that serve uniformed officers alcoholic beverages?