Posted on 04/07/2015 12:09:58 PM PDT by Kaslin
If you look at the trajectory that we're on, this is a logical destination. Mandatory participation in homosexual acts.
It sounds outlandish today, but back when homosexuals were first coming out of the closet they were saying their only goal was to have privacy in their own bedrooms.
People then would have laughed at the idea that homosexuals would be "married", that made-up homosexual "rights" would trump the constitutional right of free religion, that catering to homosexuals would be mandatory under the law, and that normal people would be prosecuted for not baking up a homosexual wedding cake.
It is worthwhile to note that Prof. Adams is a professor of Criminal Justice, so he is quite knowledgeable about the law in regards to what constitutes criminality. And he could also tell us about the Critical Legal Studies foolishness that is currently taught in most law schools. CLS is where the profs say that there is no absolute morality to serve as a foundation for laws and so the judges have the responsibility to decide the outcomes.
“Or enforced association.”
Interesting point. I will meet you at least halfway. Restaurants are private, so considering them as “public” is in the realm of enforced association. Same for country clubs.
But, what about tax-funded venues, like trains, airports, or railroads? The government pays, so under “equal protection” concepts, it shouldn’t allow discrimination by its subcontractors.
I think the issue is partly whether the forced association can reasonably be anticipated by the person being compensated for the work. What baker could know he’d be forced to cater gay weddings by court-backed homo-aggressors? On the other hand, if you punch tickets on Amtrak, you’re working for the government, and you shouldn’t be able to turn anyone away from the train based on your own personal beliefs. But, that could have been foretold in advance. None of these things are simple—for example, doctors who are government funded refusing abortion work meets the legitimate bar of conscience, but they may be working for a publicly funded entity which has a different policy.
It’s much simpler in a less complex society. But, I still submit there has to be some concept of “public accomodation” in the sense of a neutral ground for some activities.
It's not complicated.
I agree with that.
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.