Posted on 06/26/2017 6:46:06 AM PDT by Trump20162020
JUST IN: Supreme Court agrees to hear appeal from baker who turned away same-sex couple.
Good point....I am thinking they’ll codify the suppression of religious expression, since they just overruled the state of Arkansas in an issue that has nothing to do with the federal government.
I see what you’re saying, though. Hope I am wrong.
He’s a good guy.
Extremely religious but very soft spoken.
Oddly, the first person that came into his shop and drop off
a contribution to him in order to support his position on the
court case was a local gay advocate that thought they were
going overboard by trying to force him to make a cake.
You nailed it down perfectly. It should be very easy for even the liberals on the SC to understand and act accordingly.
This will be a BIG decision.
>
Whatever happened to:
{We Reserve The Right to Refuse Service To Anyone}
>
That more or less died in 1964 w/ the advent of ‘public accommodations’ and ‘Civil Rights’....essentially a Takings w/o the $$.
>
Whatever happened to,”No shoes, no shirt, no service?”
I think that went the way of, “It’s a free country.”
>
Great tagline: Going the way of, “It’s a free country.”
If it weren’t so true as to make you spit, or cry.
>
*sigh* — It’s too bad they don’t look at the Constitution as supreme law, or value Justice, or even assert that the law should be logically consistent in as much as possible.
>
Everything after ‘Constitution’ is superfluous, being the keystone to the whole works; the latter are merely symptoms of the former. Unfort., even the 1st could not have passed if not for the lack of support from We the People.
>
I wonder what the appeal is going to be based on — the Thirteenth Amendment looks like a good objection at first glance, but given how the court had been endorsing political expedience (as in Affordable Care Act) and endorsing ‘current practices’ (as in allowing “exigent circumstances” to stand against the mandates of the Fourth Amendment) it’s quite likely losing battle:
We have years and years of forced involuntary servitude on record in our taxing laws. (Or do you think forcing employers to be uncompensated tax-collectors is strictly voluntary?) In addition, the political expedience says that the best course of action is to rule against the baker: history showing that Christians will take it if they lose, while the homosexual lobby will raise a ruckus if they lose.
>
Hell, the whole of the 16th violates the 4th, 5th, 13th AND 14th, yet still decreed valid. Slavery had only been abolished 60 yrs. before started under a new moniker.
I too presume they will rule against. Volumes will be written to pretzel the logic and verbage to hide the fact of our involuntary servitude via these such ‘anti-discrimination’ style cases.
>Never understood how bakers were prosecuted in a state that itself did not recognize same sex marriages.
As if THAT would ever stop govt (and their lackeys in the rainbow-club) from their pound of flesh.
That more or less died in 1964 w/ the advent of ‘public accommodations’ and ‘Civil Rights’....essentially a Takings w/o the $$.
That’s right.
As I’m put it earlier: “Lunch counters”.
>
The whole concept of a ‘protected class’ needs to be defined or rejected by the SC, and this case may do just that.
>
Even if defined, it runs counter to the whole of the Constitution (All Men are created equal, equal under the Law).
Thus, you can neither the clarification nor refutation of the same....just gray areas where the Judicial revolving door is allowed to turn out volume upon volume of ‘precedent’ and our Rights & Liberty shrink by the same.
>
Or a Jewish print shop being required to produce flyers for Nazi’s.
This MUST be framed in terms of free speech and coerced speech. This IS discrimination - but against an EVENT not the PERSON. Between forced servitude and coerced speech this is requiring you to put your labor toward an EVENT with which you have a conscientious objection to. It is part of being able to live according to your beliefs.
If a baker won’t sell a ready-made cake on the shelf to somebody because they’re gay that is one thing, it is entirely another when you’re requiring somebody to enter into a contract to create something for an event they don’t agree with. This is NOT discrimination against a person but an event.
Unless this perspective is argued, that it is more of a free speech issue than religious freedom, the point is lost. The argument will otherwise be that religious beliefs don’t trump discriminating against a person. That is not the point.
>
Sorry FRiend, but THAT’s some fuzzy logic right there (no pun intended).
In no way is discrimination ‘bad’, be that vs. any noun. That is called freedom of CHOICE; to associate, or not.
Operating a biz, owning some parcel, etc. does not take that Right away; does speaking on a soap-box on the street corner (public accommodation) negate your 1st A. Rights?
One is free to, or not, do anything they wish. The market/word of mouth will show how those choices are perceived.
It is not a matter only dealing w/ the 1st, but Freedom in general.
I understand your point - I’m taking the position that we’re so far from winning that argument, we need to frame this specific case in a context we can win while living under “discrimination” laws as they’re defined today.
Everyone is pre-programmed to think “discrimination = bad”. Unless we can show that we’re not violating the law we’ll lose. Which means we must differentiate the different types of discrimination, an event vs. a person. We will lose if the context is just “not serving a person”.
Oral arguments on this case should be interesting.
>
I understand your point - I’m taking the position that we’re so far from winning that argument, we need to frame this specific case in a context we can win while living under “discrimination” laws as they’re defined today.
>
Sorry, but what would framing the debate improperly\illogically gain? Govt cannot follow the simple English of the Constitution, but a nuanced argument, they’ll ‘see the light’??
Fine, we win one. What does that single, small cut-out gain us from the long train of abuses??
>
Everyone is pre-programmed to think “discrimination = bad”. Unless we can show that we’re not violating the law we’ll lose.
>
IMO, you can chalk that up to govt, shitty ‘leaders’ and shittier electorate. Govt education not teaching critical thinking (harder to control), parents allowing the same and ‘leaders’ who couldn’t articulate how to fold a paper airplane...Yet, expect ‘em to talk to Joe-6-pk how we ALL discriminate, and that’s not a bad thing?
99% of these douches have NEVER worked in their lives. *WE* pay for their every wish in and out of office. They’re going to rock-the-boat on THAT gig??
>
Which means we must differentiate the different types of discrimination, an event vs. a person. We will lose if the context is just “not serving a person”.
>
Sorry, but that’s WAY too nuanced. Want to keep it ‘winnable’ and on the electorate level, IMO, stick w/ the “right to refuse service” angle. Still in the populace vocabulary, easy to understand and apply across the spectrum (and grow out from different scenarios).
Course, they win on that front, there’s no more ‘personal discrimination’ allowed in the U.S. (IE: best keek yo mouth SHUT.)
No one should be compelled to create art.
This Colorado ruling hits multiple parts of the 1st Amendment, not just one.
The Civil Rights Act doesn't even explicitly mention sexual orientation though.
True, but a lot of state civil rights laws, such as the Colorado law at issue here,include LBGT's in the protected class, and prohibit discrimination in places of "public accommodation," which has the same or a similar definition as used in the federal civil rights act. The issue is whether the civil rights for LGBT's created under state law violates the religious freedoms that are protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
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.