Posted on 12/02/2017 2:52:44 AM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
Should a gay baker be required by law to design a cake with the message, God hates fags? Should an African American t-shirt maker be required by law to design a t-shirt saying, Long live the KKK? Should a Muslim caterer be required by law to provide pork for a secular event? Should a Jewish photographer be required to shoot a wedding on the Sabbath? The answer to all these questions is: Of course not. Why, then, should a Christian baker be required by law to design a cake celebrating the wedding of two women (or men)?
That is the big question the Supreme Court will be answering next week when it hears the Masterpiece Cakes case involving Christian baker Jack Phillips.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending Phillips, has pointed out that: 1) Jack does not discriminate, and he was perfectly happy to sell the gay couple, who subsequently took him to court, cookies and brownies and anything else pre-made off of his shelves; 2) Jack has turned down other cakes in the past, including Halloween cakes and lewd cakes; 3) Jack has faced anti-religious bigotry as well as threats and intimidation simply because he declined to promote an event, so he is the one being singled out for unfair treatment; 4) Jack owns a private family business, and he doesnt give up his rights when he sells his art, and by calling his business Masterpiece Cakes, he is making clear that for him, they are works of art; 5) accordingly, Jacks shop has been called an art gallery of cakes; and 6) Wedding cakes made up about 40 percent of Jacks business, and these are all custom designed. But due to Colorados laws and legal rulings to date, he has had to drop this part of his business entirely.
Now, common sense would say that this case should be a no-brainer, a slam-dunk win for Jack Phillips and his attorneys. And in principle, I agree. The problem, however, is that gay rights have been exalted to such a degree that these rights trump all other rights and freedoms, including our freedoms of conscience, speech, and religion.
In the case at hand, because Phillips is a committed Christian, he doesnt make cakes mixed with alcohol (nor can he be required to), he doesnt make cakes for lewd bachelor parties (nor can he be required to), and he doesnt make cakes for horror-themed events (nor can he be required to). But when he cannot, in good conscience, use his artistic skills to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, he can be charged with violating the states anti-discrimination laws to the point that the state can now discriminate against him as a Christian.
Put another way, you can freely exercise your Christian beliefs unless those beliefs offend gays. In that case, youre breaking the law.
And what if a Hindu came in and wanted a, Krishna is Lord cake? Phillips could politely decline, without legal penalty or pressure. The same with a Muslim baker declining to bake a cake for a Christian with the words, Jesus is Lord.
But wouldnt that offend the Hindu and the Christian wanting to buy the cakes? Perhaps so, but the bakers are rightly protected by the law and cannot be penalized for refusing the business.
Why, then, are gays and lesbians treated differently? Why are they put in a special category?
The sympathetic answer would be that society has overcompensated for perceived past injustices. And so, the pendulum has swung from one side (mistreatment of gays and lesbians) to the other side (overprotection of gays and lesbians).
The more realistic answer is that some gay activists have always had as their ultimate goal the silencing of those who resist their cause.
As a Christian attorney once commented to me, Those who were once put in jail want to put us in jail.
In the days ahead, many on the left will argue that Phillips was guilty of discriminating against gay customers. But that is a complete misrepresentation of the facts, and if the Supreme Court finds him guilty, the implications for America will be massive.
It will mean that the highest court in the land has ruled that, in virtually all conceivable cases, gay rights trump religious rights. And it will mean that Christians in particular can be forced to violate their consciences and their deeply held, historic beliefs under penalty of law, with the real potential of losing their very livelihoods. And should they still refuse to comply, it could mean a jail sentence too.
While some on the left (including LGBT activists) will say, This is not what we intended, plenty of others will gloat. After all, if we deserved to be thrown to the lions in one generation, its no big deal to imprison us in another generation.
Im hoping that the Supreme Court does the right thing. If not, my leftist readers may mock my words today but you will mark them tomorrow.
I am truly not surprised to find you opposing natural law rights such as those articulated in our bill of rights. Forced association is a denial of "freedom of association."
Barry Goldwater was correct in his opposition and his reasoning.
The state of Colorado and their anti-discrimination laws say otherwise.
So what? At one time the laws of Mississippi said one human being could own another one. Did that make it right?
L
Prior to 1973, homosexuality was defined as a mental illness. This is how it has been regarded legally for most of the nation's existence. This is the normal way homosexuality was perceived by the law.
What we have had is activist courts changing the law, changing the meaning of long understood terms and precedents, and now incorporating this very sick and deadly ideology into our culture, and demanding everyone accept this "new" order whether they like it or not.
For most of this nation's existence, the Court's would not have batted an eye on a Christian telling a homosexual that they would not condone their behavior.
What we have now is sick. It is abnormal, and it should be defied.
I would expect you would normally be in favor of the 14th amendment shoving the bill of rights down states throats. Not in this case huh?
Utter bullsh*t. No one has a right to compel someone else's labor. I thought we had resolved this issue of forced labor with the consequences of the Civil War?
Sick perverted faggots have no right to compel anyone to do anything, and the state has no right to compel anyone to "serve" anyone they don't want to serve.
And I'm not surprised that you miss the entirely. I'm not speaking in favor of the law, merely acknowledging its existence and the conundrum it produces. Actually I have spoken in favor of freedom association on other threads. I have said before that businesses should be free to associate with whomever they wish, as long as they make that preference known publicly. A business doesn't want to cater to Muslims? Just say so. Don't want to cater to homosexuals? Just say so. Consumers can make their own decision on where to go and business owners have their rights protected.
I'm not saying the law is right or wrong, just that it exists.
Should a Muslim cabbie be able to refuse a woman a ride? A Muslim health care worker be able to refuse to use hand sanitizer? A Muslim shop owner refuse to allow legitimate service dogs entry to his premises?
A bit of a difference in slavery and engaging in commerce, isn't there? Or no, I guess you wouldn't see that.
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 Dioceses 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
Okay, here we agree on something. It was bound to happen eventually. :)
There is little difference between slavery and forced commerce, there is only a question of degree. In both cases, someone is compelling someone else to do their bidding.
Would you also agree with me that the businesses in question should be required to prominently display their preferences so that customers know ahead of time?
Now this I don't know about. It would be appropriate for them to do so, but to make it a requirement enforced by the Government would seem to go a little too far.
People have a right to be @$$holes, even though we wish they wouldn't. Trying to use the government to stop people from being @$$holes seems like a bad idea.
The government requires them to serve people they would rather not serve right now. I would think that the freedom to cater to whomever you want to would more than offset a requirement that you clearly identify those people ahead of time. Looking at it another way, it allows the market to decide who to patronize and who not to.
People have a right to be @$$holes, even though we wish they wouldn't. Trying to use the government to stop people from being @$$holes seems like a bad idea.
I don't see it as the government trying to stop people. I view it as a encouraging freedom of choice and promoting open markets where everyone has the same information. What you seem to want is to allow people to be @$$holes in secret and not bring it out until the consumer has already wasted their time coming to the shop in the first place.
That people aren't informed by signs doesn't make it a "secret." For most of this country's existence, the idea of refusing service to homosexuals would have been regarded as "normal." It was the default condition of every business.
I can see where a sign would simply invite harassment from homosexual groups, and the history of their movement has shown that they will get dangerously violent if necessary to push their agenda.
The only reason homosexuality has been removed from the list of psychiatric disorders was because of a campaign of threats and intimidation from homosexuals against the doctors making up the American Psychiatric Association for years leading up to their 1973 decision.
Doctors were threatened if they didn't vote to remove homosexuality from the list of disorders.
I do not believe homosexuals are entitled to know that their patronage would be rejected by the business owner, because this would make such businesses the targets of intimidation campaigns. (Ala Kim Davis in Kentucky)
Homosexuals should either be cured or go back in the closet. They absolutely should not be indulged.
For most of this country's existence the idea of refusing service to people based on race or religion was regarded as "normal". This would also allow a return to that.
I can see where a sign would simply invite harassment from homosexual groups, and the history of their movement has shown that they will get dangerously violent if necessary to push their agenda.
That can work both ways. Sure posting a sign that says you don't cater to homosexuals - or blacks or Muslims or fill-in-the-blank - might cause some people not to patronize your place of business. But it might also attract customers with similar beliefs who didn't patronize you before. And it won't impact people who don't care one way or the other. And freedom of association is guaranteed.
Homosexuals should either be cured or go back in the closet. They absolutely should not be indulged.
I don't see where my idea is indulging them in any way.
It might allow a return to that, but I very much doubt if the culture or the market would permit it.
That can work both ways. Sure posting a sign that says you don't cater to homosexuals - or blacks or Muslims or fill-in-the-blank - might cause some people not to patronize your place of business. But it might also attract customers with similar beliefs who didn't patronize you before. And it won't impact people who don't care one way or the other. And freedom of association is guaranteed.
None of that addresses the potential for harassment or violence that might occur as a result of such signs.
I have studied homosexuality since the 1990s, and while many homosexuals are able to function in our society without serious repercussions, there are a lot of them that are down right dangerous sociopaths. They don't have normal boundaries on the limits of their behavior, and they will act out, violently if necessary.
When they are "triggered" they often respond with acts far in excess of what a reasonable person would accept. I can recall any number of examples where they went hyper violent over very little in the way of provocation.
If you will study examples of when homosexuals are involved in murder, they are not simply content to kill someone. They must kill them with excessive brutality and violence. They won't stab someone once or twice, they will stab them 50 times. They won't bludgeon someone two or three times, they will beat their head into a paste.
Psychiatry rightly considered these people mentally ill, because their mental illness displays itself in ways beyond just engaging in sexual activities with other same gender people. (such as a propensity for suicide.)
You don't think establishments wouldn't put up "We do not cater to Muslims" signs? Some have already tried. Why shouldn't they be allowed to? Same with people who don't want to cater to other groups?
None of that addresses the potential for harassment or violence that might occur as a result of such signs.
OK so now establishments decides they don't want to cater to a particular group, they get taken to court, they get fined under current anti-discrimination laws. Where is that better than potential aggravation, which would be temporary and die out as this became the new norm? Long term it's the better solution.
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.