Here’s EXACTLY why the Religious Freedom Act is so important

allenwest.com ^ | April 1, 2015 | Allen West

[don-o]

Snip money quote:

However, is it really fair to force a private sector business owner to do something against their First Amendment right to the freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof? And sadly, we have charlatans like Al Sharpton who will try to equate this to race — incomparable. When I walk into an establishment there are two identifying characteristics — male, black. There are no other behavioral aspects that are known, unless, I feel so compelled to broadcast such in an attention-grabbing stunt.

[DBrow]

The First also mentions Freedom of Association.

[Regal]

First, it doesn’t matter what it means to me, ultimately, it matters what it means to the court.

However, following your reasoning, a gay couple could use the 9th Amendment to suggest that they have a right to a cake baked by a Christian. They do not.

If you can cite case law, that would be a step in the right direction.

[T-Bird45]

Money quote FTA:

So, in conclusion, this ruckus is much ado about nothing — other than a certain group that seeks to impose its lifestyle and behavioral choice upon others. Now that ladies and gents isn’t fair — and it’s even more unfair when the state is complicit by way of coercive policies allowing one to throw the punch, forcing the other to take it on the nose.

[Sherman Logan]

Exactly.

We already have such cases about Sikhs being ordered to cut their hair or shave their beards.

There were Muslim taxidrivers up in MN who didn’t want to transport people with service dogs.

Fairly obviously a line needs to be drawn somewhere, which means the discussion should be about where it is appropriate to draw the line. Instead, in general both sides want to argue there should be no lines.

[Sherman Logan]

Actually, it hasn’t been the law of the land for many years. Something like 50 years now.

Possibly it SHOULD be the law, but it isn’t.

[don-o]

You are the one who asserted that there is no Constitutional right to own a business. The 9th Amendment answers that.

[Regal]

The law is an odd thing. My family owned several businesses, so I have seen the peculiarities up close.

You can refuse to serve anyone for any reason, but not have a policy of not serving blacks, or Baptists, and in some states gays.

But in my experience with business, NOT serving someone was never as big an issue as trying to attract as many paying customers as humanly possible. NOT doing business never crossed our minds.

[sten]

we hear all the time about reporters and their first amendment rights. how an artist’s latest Christianity bashing ‘masterpiece’ is protected expression. how a movie maker can make any movie as it’s protected under the first amendment.

do you think these people were doing these things for free?

those protections are not exclusively for religious or political matters.

the question boils down to whether or not your work can be your expression and if you have a Constitutional right to exercise it in order to provide for yourself and your family.

[Regal]

The court has never, ever seen expression in the light you are describing.

Your argument, however, would be of interest to prostitutes, drug dealers, pornographers, very much to graffiti vandals, arsonists.....

[sten]

and florists, bakers, auto mechanics, or any business owner that does not wish to be forced into compliance to do work against their will

[MortMan]

If one has to set aside the tenets of your religion to engage in business, how can this not be considered prohibiting the free exercise thereof? There is no affirmative link in the constitution between disavowing one’s freedom of religion and being in business. Creating such a link, therefore, necessarily means severing the first amendment protection for freedom of religion.

[Regal]

The government has to show a compelling interest. For instance, should a businessman state that it is against his religion to wash his hands. The government can tell him that he can’t handle food. Your argument is that the government cannot tell this person that he has to wash his hands. The government’s argument will be that either he washes his hands or he has to find another line of work.

The argument is approachable for the other side of the coin. The convenience store owner who loses lots of revenue, because the local government tells him he cannot sell beer on Sunday. Is the government imposing the historic, religious beliefs of the community, ie. forcing religious practice on him, or are they enforcing some sort of government interest?

[goldi]

They should also put a sign on the wall saying that part of their profits are going to Christian defense attorneys.

[nathanbedford]

The question for me is,does the United States Constitution forbid a state from compelling an individual or a business in the ordinary course of its business to service homosexuals? Put another way, does the first amendment of the united states prohibit a state from requiring individuals or businesses to service homosexuals when that is contrary to religious conscience?

On the other side, does the Fourteenth Amendment requirement of equal protection of the laws require or permit a state to prohibit individuals or businesses from refraining from servicing homosexuals. If so, are there restrictions on this power?

That brings us to the question which you allude to, whether there is a compelling interest in the state to require that which is repugnant to religious conviction? This is a test fashioned by the Supreme Court to solve the problem of balance but the wording, of course, does not appear in the Constitution and it is the product of the court itself.

Ironically, the Indiana statue in effect only provides for a hearing in order to determine whether such compelling circumstances exist. This is fully appropriate.

However, this is an entirely different procedure than a blanket requirement which compels a business to service homosexuals nor, in my view, can it be justified as a legitimate condition imposed by the state of doing business. That is an entirely different test than the compelling circumstances test.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Are you saying that people who sell a "message" item have to produce messages with which they do not agree, and which constitutes for them a cooperation with evil??

The Black newspaper has to run an ad for the Klan rally?

The Jewish silk-screener has to produce a Swastika T-shirt?

The Christian liturgical designer has to decorate an altar for Satanist devotees?

The Yezhedi banner maker has to make banners for ISIS?

They are not allowed to turn down a proposal?

Or what? Fines? Imprisonment? The loss of business + home + retirement savings (which is what they're doing to Baronelle Stutzman) who is actually a friend of the gay male couple in question, but could not in conscience help them celebrate their wedding?

And if Mrs. Stutzman still won't bake the damn cake, I suppose we'll have to go to flogging?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Correction: Baronelle Stutzman is not the baker, she is the florist who wouldn't create floral arrangements for the gay couple --- even though she had no problem selling the same guys flowers for birthdays and other occasions.

So it wasn't the gay guys, per se, she had a problem with. It was the message: the "gay marriage" message.

On being forced to promote and propagate other people's messages, no matter how repugnant to your own moral integrity, I offer this statement of principle by Thomas Jefferson:

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

[Regal]

We are going to have to come to a consensus about what this law says, because Gov. Pence and Rush Limbaugh have said that it has nothing to do with not serving gays. Exactly what it is about, I’m not sure, but both have stated that it has nothing to do with refusing services to gays.

But, In Loving v. Virginia (1967-Loving was the name of the party) the Supreme Court ruled that state laws against mixed race marriages were unconstitutional because marriage was a fundamental right and the states could not come up with a compelling reason to keep ividuals from marryng who they want to marry.

In forcing anyone to serve anyone that they have a reliqious qualm related to that service, the court will have to work through it. I’m sure that it is everyone’s fear that there will be some who try to water down the meaning of religion by claiming whatever they don’t want to do is some sort of religious offense. That will be particularly interesting see played out in the courts in the next few years.

I was raised Catholic by a restaurant owner, and caterer. it’s going to be interesting to see if this plays out across all religions and situations. Will Catholics refuse to work for people getting mazrried a second time. Can a big box store chain refuse gunowners to carry in the store due to a religious belief? Can a Jewish landlord refuse to rent an apartment to a gentile?

This is just the beginnig. But when the case comes to the Supreme Court, I bet it will not be a cake and flowers. It will more likely be something mroe substantial such as housing or medical care.

[Regal]

I know of no law or ruling that identifies a “message item”. I don’t know what that is. I’d be happy to read any source you send me to.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don't think there is a law or ruling on a "message item," --- or one could call it an "expressive product," something that conveys meaning as well as utility. But I think there ought to be such a law or ruling. Surely we all can comprehend what would be in that category.

It's a statue crafted by a sculptor...an opinion piece by a blogger... a website made by a website designer...a T-shirt produced by a silkscreen artist... a cake designed by a cake decorator... a sermon by a pastor or preacher...a portrait album by a photographer....a greeting card produced by a card designer....a composition by a songwriter...a drawing made by a commercial artist...a wreath made by a florist....an editorial written by a columnist.... A billboard put up by an advertising agency.

I would argue there's a reasonable distinction between a message item and a general object of commerce. For instance, if I refuse to sell somebody a ream of paper because they're a different religion than I am, that would be arbitrary and unjust. But can't I refuse to design, print and deliver 500 flyers that say "Judaism is a Gutter Religion" if it goes against my moral integrity to do so?

Can my ad agency decline to design ad copy for a Marxist?

Can my publishing house decline to publish a book promoting the glorious legacy of Nancy Pelosi?

Can my Quick Copy shop turn down a proposal to print "Global Warming" pamphlets?

In a better world, everybody would have the freedom to do business, or not do business, with anybody they want. But even now, I think we can make a special case to be protected from being forced to send and "own" messages we don't want to send.

Doesn't freedom of association entail freedom NOT to associate? Doesn't freedom of speech entail the freedom NOT To promote and propagate a message I consider abhorrent?

[jaydee770]

I think he’s all over the target and getting good hits.

One point I wish folks would think about is the invention of new rights out of wholecloth. For instance, most any “PC” issue hinges almost entirely on a completely contrived “Right NOT to be offended”.

Then there is the additional twist that this “Right NOT to be offended” only applies to PC Issues and not to those who oppose any PC issues. ie. The PC gay mafia has the right NOT to be offended by a baker refusing to produce a same-sex wedding cake; however, if you as a baker are opposed to and offended by producing a same-sex wedding cake, then it is acceptable to deny you the same “right”.

Where did this magical, logically twisted “Right NOT to be offended” come from and why do we (society) even accept it as a premise? Once you remove that premise, what remaining argument do they have?