Posted on 06/04/2018 2:33:22 PM PDT by reaganaut1
Tolerance, it appears, is not a one-way street. Since the rise of the gay-marriage movement, it has become fashionable to decry dissenters as haters and bigots, to attempt to write them out of polite society in the same way that the larger American body politic has rightfully rejected the Klan. Politicians thunder against Christian bigots. Media organizations put the words “religious liberty” in scare quotes, as if the expression of deeply held religious beliefs is a mere pretext, used to conceal darker motivations. And ideologues in state agencies give full vent to their rage, mocking faithful Christians as if they stand in the shoes of slavers and murderers.
Today, the Supreme Court said, “enough.” Today, the Court breathed a bit of life back into religious-liberty jurisprudence. And the justice who did it is none other than Anthony Kennedy, the architect of the Obergefell opinion and the justice most responsible for the gay-rights revolution.
Here’s how he did it. Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, raised two constitutional defenses to Colorado’s charge that he unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple when he refused to custom-design a cake for their same-sex wedding. He first argued that creating a custom cake constituted an act of protected expression under the First Amendment, and he could not be compelled to exercise that expression to support a same-sex wedding.
The Court essentially punted on the question, noting that it raised complex and difficult issues. To the extent that the dicta provides any guidance going forward, it seems that the greater the obvious expressive content, the greater the constitutional protection. In other words, a cake that contains words or symbols might enjoy greater protection than a cake with no obvious expressive meaning. But that’s speculation. The case wasn’t decided on that basis.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
RE: Justice Kennedy Strikes a Blow for the Dignity of the Faithful
Actually, this looks to me like a PYRRHIC victory.
As I said in a previous post.... the DECISION’s SCOPE IS LIMITED.
There’s a lot to be said for decisions that are narrowly limited to the point at hand. Just because our Congress is no longer responsible, taking up the mantle and legislating clearly, doesn’t mean we should be leaning on the SCOTUS to do our legislating. Besides, it was the baker himself who argued for a narrower construction (see Page 10).
“[..]there are no doubt innumerable goods and services that no one could argue implicate the First Amendment. Petitioners conceded, moreover, that if a baker refused to sell any goods or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a different matter and the State would have a strong case under this Court’s precedents that this would be a denial of goods and services that went beyond any protected rights of a baker who offers goods and services to the general public and is subject to a neutrally applied and generally applicable public accommodations law. ”
They conceded that they had to make cakes for gay weddings. It was only the issue of artistic skills and expressive statement (1st Amendment) they fought:
For those who say this is a great victory,. I say it’s more like catching an opponent moving a pawn illegally. Sure, it stops their move in this case, but it’s no great victory in the game itself.
The decision has verbiage like the following (page 9):
““[t]he First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 27). Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.”
That’s far from a rebuke of the general principle of public accommodations law and its ability to infringe (my word) on religious liberty. And this language wasn’t from a dissenter!
How about Page 12:
“And any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying “no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,” something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons.”
Why would anyone care what David French thinks?
The decision amounts to no decision. Folks who will test the waters of refusal of service may find themselves in jeopardy.
I’m starting to form the opinion the left, in all its media, academia, and Hollyweird glory, is not nearly as popular as it thinks it is.
I think people in general are fed up with all the hate, SJW, PC, and LGBTQ crap being spewed across the so-called news media, TV shows, and movies at every turn. They see the double standard. Rosanne gave the right quite a gift in exposing that. Samantha Bee equaled that gift by being herself the very next day to gift the people a blatant comparison but without the same consequences.
I think they are so sick of it they will be sending a message this November. SHUT UP ALREADY Leftists. Time will tell.
Mad Maxine only had 10 people show up to her rally. Pretty sure she’s done. Pelosi is the gift that keeps on giving. Kamala Harris has proven herself to be the more openly hateful version of obama. A pedophile is openly running for office in VA where a far left loon, McAuliff, made that possible. Still, I don’t want to give the American people too much credit quite yet, they did vote in obama for a second term after learning what he truly was during the first one.
Pyrrhic? Perhaps not satisfying as it should have been but how as this phyrrhic? Mr. Phillips had nothing else to lose - he already lost his business because of all this nonsense.
We need to stand up to these bullies and their fawning media sycophants. They want to exile nonconformists to their immoral crusade into the “hater” and “bigot” bins.
When people start to understand the difference between tolerance and acceptance, the discussion gets a lot more defined. People have a right to live their lives the way the want (within the confines of existing laws). Want to be a homosexual, be my guest. Its none of my business. That is tolerance. Want my approval or active participation in your homosexual lifestyle - NO! I don't have to accept something that is against my religious beliefs.
“The case wasn’t decided on that basis.”
Actually, it partly was. The case, like many, aren’t based on one simple nugget of argument but an array of issues.
Specifically mentioned in the summary is the failure of the lower ruling bodies to consider that the baker would have offered an already available cake in the shop. He just wouldn’t make a special one for them. So the fags weren’t denied service in general.
RE: Pyrrhic? Perhaps not satisfying as it should have been but how as this phyrrhic?
I used the word — PHYRRIC because it does not settle the issue of religious liberty once and for all.
In no way does the majority opinion dismiss the gay couple’s argument that they have suffered harm because they were customers who come to a place of business to obtain its advertised service, only to be turned away or stigmatized.
So, the majority appears to treat as significant that gay marriage was NOT YET LEGAL in Colorado when Mr. Phillips denied service. THAT is one point of concern. Now, that gay marriage is legal, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A NEW CASE ARISES?
Now that Colorado recognizes gay marriage, it must be frustrating to Mr. Phillips that he still does not know today what he did not know yesterday - whether he can, going forward, refuse to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings.
This decision does not stop any future lawsuits I am afraid.
What I want is a decision that tells us this (cutting the legalese) :
Nobody should be forced to make something they don’t want to make.
It makes no difference whether it’s for religious reasons or whatever reasons or no specified reason. No business person should be forced to make something they don’t want to make.
We have not reached that kind of decision yet.
Yes it is a narrow victory on the other hand it would have been a huge loss.
There is no reconciling public accommodations law with the Constitution.
Liberty and equality are antonyms. You can have one or the other, but not both.
It’s a good thing Muslims don’t like sweets. Have to wonder what would happen in the case of a Muslim baker. Hmmmm. Would Kennedy be so fervent in his language to defend gay right?
Moslems don’t like sweets? Since when? Have you ever been to one of their “breaking the fast” meals? I have gone into a sugar coma by just walking in the door.
Oops my bad. I just assumed...OK bad call on my part.
OK, then the better word might be “undecided” or even “undetermined” but not sure it’s Pyrrhic. A Pyrrhic victory is one that is as bad as a loss because of the casualties required to achieve that win.
That’s not what happened here. This is a long slog and we have many more battles yet with this skirmish going our way.
Patriots are reminded that we can clean up the Supreme Court by cleaning up Congress with our votes in November.
To me the real issue is how a civil rights commission can take and deprive people of life, liberty etc. without due process. #fakecourt due process is too messy let’s just fine the suckers into submission. complete bs. Where are the supremes on that!
Try not to personalize your judgment. Separate the personality from the objective facts.
Abortion is considered to be a woman’s “right” according to Roe v Wade decision, but many doctors refuse to perform abortions & others refuse to perform any except very early first trimester abortions. Almost no medical doctor will perform a third trimester elective abortions, & despite abortion being a woman’s “right”...doctors get to choose to call it a wrong & are not compelled to perform abortions which violate their own conscience. So there is ample precedent for allowing somebody who owns a bakery to retain his own right to freedom of conscience, speech, property rights.......being that the laws are being changed after the fact with regard to gay rights & gay marriage. Plus, same-sex marriage decision by the Supreme Court clearly was an unconstitutional amendment by simple majority of judges. Marriage licensing is a form of regulation & judges didn’t strike down marriage laws, they rewrote them, turning their intent on its head. What if judges decided there should be a flat tax because of “equal protection” or that Obamacare has to apply to small business as well as big business........or if unelected judges decided “Medicare/Medicaid-for-all” under the excuse of “equal protection”.
Kennedy equivocated again.
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.