Posted on 10/04/2017 9:15:42 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Two heated cases that are before the Supreme Court are Masterpiece Cakeshop (which the Court agreed to hear last June) and Arlene’s Flowers (for which the petition for certiorari is still pending). In both, the owners face punishment for having declined to do business with customers who wanted their services.
In the former, the owner of a cake shop was asked to bake and decorate a cake for the wedding of a gay couple. The owner, Jack Phillips, who is a committed Christian and believes that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, said that he would not enter into a contract to create a cake for a gay wedding. The angry couple filed charges with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It ruled that Phillips had violated the law, and ordered him to design cakes for same-sex wedding, go through a “re-education program,” and file quarterly compliance reports with the commission for two years, showing his obedience to the state.
In the latter, the circumstances were almost identical, except that instead of a wedding cake, it was flowers. Baronelle Stutzman was asked to prepare the floral arrangements for a gay wedding and she declined to do so because she believes that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
For having politely said “No, thanks” to the offer to contract for wedding flowers (she referred the men to other florists who would do the job), she was hauled into court for violating Washington state’s anti-discrimination law. She lost and was ordered by the Washington Supreme Court to pay the legal costs incurred by the American Civil Liberties Union in their suit against her.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Then people who have objections for other than religious reasons are out in the cold?
I think it is a 13th Amendment issue. If they sell general pre-decorated cakes, then they can be required to sell them to anyone who asks. However if the cake decorator does not wish to decorate a cake with some message they find repulsive, then forcing them by law to decorate that cake is involuntary servitude. Decorating a cake is art. You cannot compel an artist to violate his own conscience to make art that he finds repulsive.
The same goes for florists, photographers, preachers.
What other objections are you thinking of?
It is erroneously cast under ‘equal protection’ of the 14A.
What is left to such business owners as far as their right to object to what they find highly objectionable if the ultimate right to object, the ability to refuse to participate in such an objectionable action (and yes, these business owners most certainly ARE being conscripted into service which contributes), is denied them?
In other words, what would be the visible difference between a baker in whole-hearted agreement with "gay marriage" which contributes a cake and a baker who ardently objects to "gay marriage" as immoral which contributes a cake? Would they not be signaling the same message, one by force and one by eager concurrence?
Are you implying that the only objections to fake “same sex marriage” have to be religious?
What other objections are you thinking of?
The natural, rational objection as to the ontology of what marriage is.
In response to the tile:
The only raise issues if private citizens (The People) are forced by the government to assemble for the purpose of business, against their will.
Most of these "sexual orientation regulations" are also administered by unelected commissions, without the due process guaranteed by the Constitution of a trial-by-jury option. I'd like to see one of these attacked business owners demand to be tried in a duly authorized court OF LAW in a jury trial, with a high-powered attorney defending him and having a hand in selecting the jury. Even if one juror can't find him guilty, he walks, and the state has to foot the bill for the expenses. Maybe they'll think twice before they decide to prosecute again. It's all about money and guaranteed narrative victory (which a tribunal by commission guarantees) with these fascist goons.
Eliminate the religious aspects and how do you really define what marriage is or should be? The Bible defines marriage as the lifelong union of one man or one woman. Society redefined that as the union of one man and one woman until they decide to end it. Modern society has tried to define it yet again as a union of two adults. Remove religion as the bedrock and how can you say that only the first is a legitimate marriage and the other two are shams?
Other people throughout history have given up much more.
Most of these "sexual orientation regulations" are also administered by unelected commissions, without the due process guaranteed by the Constitution of a trial-by-jury option.
In most cases these are considered civil infractions and not legal ones, and the defendant is no more entitled to a jury trial than a speeding offender is. That may be for the reason you speculated - don't want to tie up the courts or the risk of jury nullification - but regardless of the reason it's the way it is.
Not willingly, and to the eye of making their posterity free of such oppression.
In most cases these are considered civil infractions and not legal ones, and the defendant is no more entitled to a jury trial than a speeding offender is.
I don't believe the Constitution makes a distinction. If a penalty is levied, than a conviction of a breach of law is in play. And a conviction must be adjudicated by trial by either a judge or a jury, not a tribunal.
I don't know where you live, but in my state, speeding and other traffic violations are criminal offences and the defendant has a right to a jury trial, even in a municipal case.
Then should every illegal alien caught by the authorities be accorded a jury trial? Every speeding driver? The Courts have long upheld the rights of states to restrict or deny jury trials under certain circumstances like misdemeanor crimes or civil offenses.
I don't know where you live...
I live in Missouri.
... but in my state, speeding and other traffic violations are criminal offences and the defendant has a right to a jury trial, even in a municipal case.
And how many times have you seen that happen?
- Illegal aliens are NOT citizens are are not entitled to the same rights and privileges as citizens.
- No court can deny the constitutional right to a trial by jury legally.
- Although traffic violations of any type can be tried in a court by jury, relatively few do when the overwhelming evidence is against the accused. That it doesn’t happen often doesn’t bolster your argument.
This case from South Carolina in 2015 had the South Carolina Circuit Court judge rule that “With the freedom to associate goes its corollary, the freedom to disassociate.”
This particular case involved The Diocese of South Carolina withdrawing from The Episcopal Church and taking all of its $500 million in assets with it. The Episcopal Church sued to block the disassociation.
The Court found that “the Constitution and Canons of TEC have no provisions which state that a member diocese cannot voluntarily withdraw its membership.” The ruling found that had there been such a provision, it would have violated the Diocese’s “constitutionally-protected right” to freedom of association. “With the freedom to associate goes its corollary, the freedom to disassociate,” Judge Goodstein said.
The challenge now is how to incorporate this South Carolina Circuit Court ruling with other state court rulings going the other way, so that the Supreme Court of the United States affirms that there is a "corollary freedom to disassociate" such that small businesses can choose to not associate in business contracts they find unacceptable.
Coerced or forced association is slavery.
-PJ
-PJ
There are plenty of leftist businesses who make cakes etc. Invade them with messages on cakes such as “homosexuality is wicked, repent”, “Jesus Christ is LORD and Judge, repent” etc. If we are uncomfortable with their weddings, it is nothing compared to their discomfort when having to be exposed to truth. Enough cakes, etc. and they will either be driven out of business or the Word of God will have caused them to repent. Make them come and cater religious events that say everything that they cannot stand to be even close to.
I agree. A homosexual couple is free to put whatever they want on their own cake, but they should not be able to force someone else to so. It is just like mandating the use of profane language.
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.