Posted on 06/26/2017 10:16:02 AM PDT by Texas Fossil
A Colorado baker being punished by his state, which also imposed an indoctrination requirement on him and his employees, for living by his Christian faith now will have his case reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The justices announced on Monday they will hear the dispute involving Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in the fall.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Hope that I am not disappointed, but am tired of the Politically Privilaged Nazi's running over the rest of the nation.
May this be the beginning of a serious examination of the extent and authority of the subservient Federal Court system.
Too many laws that are selectively enforced to a political agenda. Shift authority back to States on many matters and Examine and Downsize the Federal Court System.
“Modern Liberalism” is.
“Classic Liberalism” was not.
“The Reality of Modern Liberalism exists within the boundaries of Illusion, Lies, Deception and Fraud. And is part of a hidden political agenda of enslavement.”
The outcome should be foreordained; “Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”.
We’ll have to wait to see how it actually comes to pass.
“AN ACT to provide for the division of Dakota into two States and to enable the people of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington to form constitutions and State governments and to be admitted into the Union
....
That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured and that no inhabitant of said States shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship.”
http://leg.wa.gov/History/State/Pages/enabling.aspx
The permanent requirement for “perfect toleration of religious sentiment” was typically required by Congress for statehood.
We only have 3 conservatives on the court, I am not optimistic.
Classic liberalism was a stepping stone to modern liberalism.
I have never understood how courts could compare a custom-designed wedding cake to something like a box of ready-made cupcakes. No baker would deny a gay customer who wants to buy some of the day’s output of ready-made cupcakes. But to force an artisan to sit and consult with the Bible-denying couple about their plans and dreams for their ideal wedding cake and then not just take the many days and hundreds of steps to bake and decorate it, but also to deliver it in their truck with the name of their bakery on the side, and help to set it up in the venue — that is humiliation and slavery.
The Roberts court seems to like giving 3/4 of an apple to a victor. In the Cake Case, how will they split it?
I expect them to affirm the right of the store to deny specific messaging, but agree that the bakers have to sell the cakes. Something like that.
Given the remote possibility that you haven’t already seen the following information, you might find it interesting.
Regarding political privileges, note that the Founding States made the Constitution’s Clause 1 of Section 10 of Article I to prohibit themselves from establishing privileged / protected classes.
"Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility [emphasis added]".
But this is what misguided, low-information, pro-LGBT activist state officials are effectively doing with respect to pushing politically correct LGBT “rights” imo.
Also, when the states ratified the 14th Amendment, they prohibited themselves from abridging the freedoms that they amend the Constitution to expressly protect, so-called LGBT “rights” not among those enumerated rights.
”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
So, misguided, LGBT activist states are not only probably violating the Nobility Clause, but also violating the 14th Amendment imo.
In fact, patriots who value 1st Amendment-protected religious expression should note that Acts 22:25-29 indicates that Paul claimed his protections as a Roman citizen to save himself from being flogged.
Finally, consider that another major problem related to constitutional rights is this. Regardless that Congress has the 14th Amendment power to strengthen constitutionally enumerated rights, the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress just sat on its hands during the lawless Obama Administration while several states abridged the constitutionally enumerated rights of religious expression and speech.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
In fact, if Justice Gorsuch turns out to be a liberal Trojan Horse then we will need 67 patriot senators to remove a House-impeached Gorsuch from office.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
To me there seems like a very easy fix for this.
Something like this....
“I don’t believe in same sex marriages. Under current law, I am legally required to make you a cake if you ask me to. I must warn you though that I consider making cakes an art. I do it because I enjoy it. I am good at it because I enjoy it. If I am compelled by the force of government to make your cake, I will not enjoy it. This will probably result in me not doing a very good job. If you are o.k. with a cake that isn’t made right and doesn’t taste good, then we can move forward with this government mandated transaction.”
Praying that Kennedy will be a bad memory by then and Gorsuch II will be on the court.
Governor Brown of California just returned from a trip to Asia where he signed some international trade agreements between foreign governments and California. . . he is also negotiating Global Warming agreements with foreign governments to side step President Trump. How are these agreements not unconstitutional?
This has the potential, although very unlikely, to undo the absolutely pernicious "civil 'rights'" mandates of the 1960's as they apply to private businesses, clubs and other associations. I can dream.
The second clause is the key:
"...nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed."
I recommend that all Christians concerned about these issues read “The Benedict Option” by Rod Dreher.
If I understand your question correctly, agreements by states with foreign nations are unconstitutional under 1.10.1 imo.
“Classic liberalism was a stepping stone to modern liberalism.”
Maybe we have different definitions of Classic Liberalism. When I was younger, Liberalism was, essentially, what we now call Libertarian. That is, people were free to do whatever they want, provided that they didn’t infringe on the rights and property of others. The sole purpose of government was to protect the rights of individuals to do whatever they like while ensuring that the rights and property of others weren’t violated.
That is not a stepping stone to modern liberalism. It is the opposite of modern liberalism. One way in which it could be thought of as a stepping stone to modern liberalism is because the Socialist/Progressives stole the name “Liberal”, which used to mean minimal government and maximum individual freedom. They turned it on its head to mean maximum government and minimal individual freedom.
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.