In 1971, the Supreme Court decided Phillips v. Martin Marietta . . . which prevented employers from discriminating against women with children when hiring. Under the argument you're taking here, the constitution and democratic process said nothing about giving women the right to equal protection. So, are you deeply disturbed by this decision as well?
FYI, 1971 is after 1964. So yes, the democratic process had said something about discrimination against women in the workplace, so no, I'm not deeply disturbed by a decision where the court applied a statute in a pretty straightforward manner.
Wait, wait, wait.
Why is the civil rights act of 1964 considered a democratic process allowed to reinterpret the constitution, but the 2008 passing of legislature in Colorado that specifically grants gay people protected class status (as with sex/race) not considered the democratic process?
The Civil Rights act of 1964 isn't "allowed" to reinterpret the constitution. Since this is following up in the reference to Phillips v. Martin Marietta, I'm not sure if you're not getting the difference between the constitution and statutes or if you are switching to an argument over why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn't declared unconstitutional (at least with respect to discrimination between private parties) like the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
The Civil Rights Act explicitly expanded the rights of a group of people (women) that are not guaranteed in the constitution. This is exactly what the legislation passed by Colorado did . . . it expanded the rights of a group of people (gay couples) that are not guaranteed in the constitution. You were saying that using the former to make decisions in the Supreme court is OK, but using the latter to make decisions in the Supreme Court is overreach and 'legislating from the bench' . . . I'm trying to understand your logic for this position.
The Civil Rights Act is a federal statute. The supreme court applied it in Phillips v. Martin Marietta because they are a federal court. Had their been a question raised as to its constitutionality, they would have been obligated to address such question (once they granted cert, unless they kicked it down on another ground and so didn't have to address the constitutional question). So essentially, we became more enlighted, and Congress, being subject to negative or positive response of their constituents, rightly passed legislation essentially reflecting a conclusion that it is wrong to discriminate in employment on the basis of sex.
That's a massive difference from taking an area of law that previously had been almost exclusively in the purview of the states (except that DOMA dictated how the federal gov't treated marriage for the purposes of federal law, such as with SS benefits), and having 5 justices with lifetime appointments and insulated from any political process other than impeachment, deciding that they had new "insights" and therefore states not rewriting or reapplying their state statutes to include a newly found right would be violating substantive due process and the equal protection clause.
I'm not sure what your referencing by "the legislation passed by Colordao". I would assume the antidiscrimination law at issue in the cake baking case, but in context maybe you're talking about them legalizing same sex marriage? Either way, that's a colorado state law that won't be before the U.S. Supreme Court unless there is a constitutional question they want to address. In the cake baking case, there was a question over whether it violated by first amendment by mandating expression, and the court punted on that question and instead just ruled that in that particular instance, the colorado commission exhibited such hostility and bias that they had to start the process over. If you're talking about legalizing same sex marriage, there is no constitutional question for the federal courts raised by Colorado legalizing same sex marriage (don't think there was a colorado plaintiff in the Obergfell case, FYI), unless maybe a full faith and credit issue came up if they later moved to or were traveling to another state where it became an issue.