Posted on 06/04/2018 7:17:18 AM PDT by CFW
“To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs. His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages per- formed in the State and before this Court issued United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. 744, or Obergefell.”
It is unclear to my reading of the case that minus this fact in the Phillipis case - Phillips case arose before Colorado recognized “gay” marriage and before the U.S. SCOTUS U.S. v. Windsor case - if SCOTUS might have ruled differently where “the law” and a “civil rights” commission did not demonstrate outright hostility to religion but merely followed Colorado law against “discrimination” against “gays”.
I think that’s what they want
That’s not the way I took it.
They ruled to overturn the judgment against Phillips, on the grounds that the judgment was the result of a flawed process, in which Phillips’ religious beliefs were openly mocked, rather than given due consideration, by a neutral body. The opinion was written around that, and explains how they came to that decision.
Kennedy compared the way the State of Colorado handled Phillips’ case to the way they handled the other bakery cases, as an example of the bias displayed by the State of Colorado. Phillips was not given the same consideration as the other bakers, because of open hostility toward Phillips’ religious beliefs.
The other bakers were deemed to be acting on their belief of the law, by refusing to print anything on the cakes which they considered derogatory toward homosexuals. Phillips’ was acting within the confines of what was the law at the time, forbidding same-sex marriage, but they did not give his belief of the law the same consideration they gave the other bakers, because of their hostility toward his religious beliefs.
[[Really, think of a reason or reasons why the state should be able to force people to perform labor.]]
Let’s say a ‘religious cake business’ believes that black people should not be served and a black person comes in and asks for a special cake celebrating an african custom or something- The state will rightfully ‘force that business to perform labor’ for said black person. (Well, the business could still refuse, and be fined i suppose- but they are ‘being forced to work, or face a penalty’)
So....you believe a state has the right to tell you not to be a Christian. It is fine as long as the Federal Government does not say so.
Interesting approach. Not legally sound, but interesting.
[[The inference here is thus that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause.]]
I’m not understanding something- Was the above statement in relation to his treatment BEFORE gay marriage became ‘legal’? Or does it apply AFTER gay marriage ‘legalization’ as well? If the latter, then the decision is a victory for ‘religious objection’- if it only applies to the case based on gay marriage being illegal at the time, then it’s not such a big win for religious freedom today=-
[[I would either sell folks what they want or close up shop altogether, not resting the security of my economic future on the sanctity of my faith based decisions.]]
So Christian book stores should either be forced to sell Satanic, pornographic, sexually deviant material such as pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia content or close up shop? They shouldn’t be allowed to morally object and refuse to carry such material? They should just close up shop if they refuse to carry it?
I agree with you with one large exception and that is the ruling was based in great part on the existing law regarding same sex marriage at the time. Because of that the justices agreed Phillip’s belief that is actions were lawful was reasonable. But only in that time frame.
I do believe that the ruling allows for the state to find against similar cases provided their ruling is religiously neutral. As such it does not tell the state that they have to allow Christians and other people of faith to refuse services to same sex couples on religious/free expression grounds. It also does not say whether any baker may refuse any message to any group as the law now stands.
So the state can claim their interest in protecting the rights of gays is compelling enough to make Christians provide them services in objection to sincerely held beliefs. They just have to treat any appeals that come before them in a neutral manner.
So pretty much I believe this is letting us know that in the long run protected class beats out sincerely held religious or other beliefs. This was a loss for the commission not so much a victory for Phillip’s and his religious freedom. It told the commission what they must do. They did not Phillip’s what he was free to do.
There is a reason why sodomites and their allies oppose state religious freedom laws because they know without those the argument of compelling state interest vs religious freedom will almost always prevail.
We take what we can but don’t think this is a victory.
But the 14A is actually one of three Post-Civil War Reconstruction amendments limited to reinstating ex-slaves as full citizens. The Left has twisted (as they always do) and used the 14A to give the feds sweeping powers never contemplated by the ratifiers of the 14A. See the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873, decided five years after the 14A was ratified and which precedent the Leftist Court has utterly ignored.
Over the last 100+ years, we have allow the Lying Left to illegally amend the Constitution ALWAYS in favor of MORE AND MORE government power to the point where the Left basically ignores the Constitution and law schools teach the Constitution is NOT the Supreme Law of the Land. However, the Constitution is ABSOLUTELY the Supreme Law of the Land over the feds (U.S. Const., art. IV, cl. 2).
A HUGE goal we patriots have is to reinstate the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended, dismantling the 80%+ unconstitutional portion of the federal government, and restoring our Free Constitutional Republic.
Kagan and Breyer are bigots now and there will be a WAPO story coming out soon with newly discovered archival footage about how they were caught burning crosses in gay couples lawns back in the 70s.
Supreme Court is
1) not superior to the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land over the feds (US Const., Art IV, Cl. 2) and
2) not constitutionally authorized to make nation law which is reserved exclusively to Congress (Id., Art. I, Sec. 1).
An unconstitutional Court decision is constitutionally null and void.
Not if the state constitution forbids such and I'm willing to bet EVERY state constitution forbids such.
It is fine as long as the Federal Government does not say so.
Here, the feds have NO constitutional say so as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments clearly spell out.
Your example is inapposite. We are discussing the public accommodations act. You are free, within your license to sell what you want; you just cannot discriminate by refusing to sell to any particular group.
I don’t agree with this self-immolating one-time only read once and burn SC decision one bit. It is another example of how business owners are put at risk of ruinous liabilities for attempting to engage in trade. It stifles our economy, rights of free trade and free association.
The scope of the ruling was narrow, the vote totals don’t mean much.
Strange how Kennedy always fails to afford Christians the same “mysteries of life” beliefs and practices that he falls over himself to extend to sodomites.
It gave with one hand and took it away with the other noting that the legal circumstances have changed. And they rule against the commission on the grounds that their scoffing at religious arguments was antithetical to a neutral stance on religion. In other words had they simply ignored it and said, look, you violated the public accommodations law by refusing to bake a cake on the grounds that the client was a member of a protected class, and had this stance been consistent with other positions they had taken, they could have gotten away with it.
I don’t think that is such a narrow opinion but it does unfortunately put more onus on a shop owner to prove his religious rights are being violated when accused of being discriminatory!
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.