Posted on 03/30/2015 6:36:22 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
One must ask, while providing goods and services for the proponents of deviance, what is the manner and extent of affirming their behavior. If, for example, by providing a wedding cake for a gay marriage, one is really saying, “I agree to participate in your celebration.” For many people, and for good reason, such a provision gives the appearance of evil, and that is enough to resist/fight/cease from such provision. I will probably never be in a position to sell a cake to someone who insists upon it - my baking is not very good - but if that were ever the case, a firm rebuke at the time of delivery would probably not make them want to do business with me any more. The time may be coming, however, where merely a firm rebuke will invoke the powers of godless deviants who think it is their right never to be offended.
Congress is given the power to regulate specific forms of commerce--certainly not any commerce;--but interstate commerce, commerce with foreign nations & with the Indian tribes. While in the corruption that has taken place in Washington, this power has been improperly used to try to legislate a form of social or moral uniformity between the States, any logical review of the history of settlement, prior to the Constitution, will demonstrate just how inappropriate such interpretation of Constitutional power is.
The several States represented very different cultures on moral issues at the time of ratification. That is why there were no powers related to establishing uniform social or moral values; why the "Police Powers," the rights to deal with health, safety & morals, were left to the States.
The court, since the 1990’s has tended to reign in the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause via the 10th Amendment, but this only means those who challenge the law will engineer standing and issue. For instance a charter buys company refusing to take a gay glee club from Indiana to Illinois, or a florist refusing to deliver to a gay wedding across state lines, or a pharmacy refusing to fill a perscription, etc. The challenge will not be “organic”, it will be a set up.
But this may be out dated as we speak. I saw an interview this morning where two Indiana GOP Representatives said the bill does not and should not allow anyone to refuse service to anyone, so if the law is being misinterpretted as such, they will work to change the law to be more clear. Don’t know what the law is supposed to do then, and what they thought they were writing, but these Reps, seem to be on the way to caving.
But isn”t the florist, the photographer, the wedding cake maker “participating”- in the wedding ritual when they perform their service? These type of services are unique, creative expressions from the provider. These are not off the shelf type of items you sell in a store.
Is there no instance in which a provider of a service can deny that service?
Do you want this law changed?
I guess the court is likely to give us an answer to your question.
I think the law was already covered by the federal act (see Hobby Lobby decision), and will turn out to cost Indiana a lot of money to defend what amounts to a publicity stunt that is in the process of backfiring.
So far today the majority of the commentaries I have heard and seen on the issue all amount to, “it doesn’t say that. We didn’t mean this to be a license to discriminate...”. Even Rush is saying that this bill is not about that. How is an effort that results in Republicans all over the country standing up and saying, “we don’t want to be seen as anti-gay”, be a victory?
Well the cat’s out of the bag now - You are nothing but a liberal troll.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3273822/posts
Se, I’m not making waves or causing trouble. We need more strategic thinking and less reactionary thinking. Instead of being a step forward, we gave them arrows for their quiver. Now the retreat will be hailed as a victory for the left.
And with Gov. pence looking at a Whitehouse bid, if he doesn’t sign the amended law he will be asked about nothing else throughout his campaign, and if he does he’ll be called a traitor on this board. He’s in a no win scenario.
Like I said, we need more strategic thinking.
Yeah. Not wanting to do stupid things to achieve conservative ends, that’s a liberal troll. In two weeks, when everything I have predicted has come true, then I will happily accept your apology. Christians are willing to forgive.
Your concede defeat with every post and continue to live under a bridge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.