Replies

This may have been asked and answered before. If so, forgive me.

If a Muslim was working in a grocery store and refused to sell bacon, and was discharged, would we declare that her 1st Amendment rights were being violated?

I know Levin's position: activist judge...judiciary not the final word...

The law is wrong. Is this a case where we should follow King's guidance regarding unlawful laws?

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, it is rather strange and paradoxical to find us consciously breaking laws. One may well ask, "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "An unjust law is no law at all." (Letter from a Birmingham Jail)

Seriously, please help me see the difference.

If a Muslim was working in a grocery store and refused to sell bacon, and was discharged, would we declare that her 1st Amendment rights were being violated?

A couple of clarifying questions:

Did the grocery store sell bacon at the time the Muslim accepted employment?
If so, did the Muslim note an objection to selling bacon at the time the job was offered?

If the grocery store made a decision to sell pork products at some point after the Muslim started working there, then, perhaps, there would be a point. However, if the Muslim accepted employment there knowing full well that selling pork products was an expectation, then I'd tell the Muslim to pound sand.

Also, I can think of two liquor stores in my local community that are owned and operated by Muslims...as well as a well-known local pizza chain (and they sell pizzas with pork like sausage and pepperoni). So I think the argument is specious. But I'll play along...

And, let us not forget this example: Abercrombie & Fitch pays out $71,000 to settle lawsuits over hijabs

Now Kim Davis is an elected official, not an employee. The Obergefell decision was published after she was elected to office. Leaving aside the moral and natural law issues, once she is up for re-election, if she takes the position during the campaign that she will not issue marriage licenses to sodomites, then so be it. If she does like the Virginia Attorney General and says one thing during the campaign and does a 180° shift as soon as she's sworn in, then that's a different situation altogether.