Posted on 06/06/2018 4:11:18 AM PDT by Kaslin
This week, the Supreme Court ruled on the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. That case involved a religious Christian man, Jack Phillips, who decorates cakes for a living. Two men came into his shop one day and demanded that Phillips decorate a cake for their same-sex wedding. Phillips refused. For this grave breach of civic duty, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission referred his case for prosecution, ruling that he had breached the customers' rights to receive service.
The Supreme Court ignored the key issues of the case. It refused to countenance whether First Amendment speech rights could be violated in favor of nondiscrimination laws -- whether, for example, a gay songwriter could be forced to perform work for an evangelical, Christian choir looking for a tune to liven up Leviticus 18. It refused to consider whether First Amendment free association rights could be completely overthrown by reference to nondiscrimination laws -- whether any business could be told to serve anyone for any reason at any time. Finally, it refused to consider whether First Amendment freedom of religion could be overturned in favor of nondiscrimination law -- whether religious practice stops at the front door of the home and the church.
Instead, the court ruled that the baker didn't have to bake the cake because the members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission were unduly mean. You see, the commission pilloried the man's religious viewpoint rather than giving it a respectful hearing; it compared his viewpoint to pro-slavery and pro-Holocaust viewpoints. This was extreme and nasty. Thus, Justice Anthony Kennedy concluded: "The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. ... The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts."
I must have missed the "be kind; rewind" section of the First Amendment.
Of course, the Supreme Court likely ruled on narrow grounds in order to achieve a 7-2 majority including liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. But the ruling bodes ill for the future: It doesn't protect religious Americans, nor does it protect freedom of speech.
In reality, the founders would have been aghast at this issue ever rising to the level of the judiciary. Freedom of speech, and, by extension, freedom of association, were designed to allow private individuals to live their lives as they see fit, free of the burden of an overreaching government. Freedom of religion was to be guaranteed by a small government unconcerned with the day-to-day matters of business. Free markets were considered enough incentive to prevent mass discrimination in public accommodations.
Now, however, the courts have decided that the government can tell you what to say, who to say it to and how to act out your religion. The only holdup is that they have to be nice about telling you what to do.
Your 1st Amendment rights can not and will never TRUMP mine. What you ‘want’ from me is irrelevant.
No one has the right to take away from me what my morals tell me is righteous in my life.
If you think you do, YOU ARE WRONG. Then I also choose to exercise my right of free assembly with whomever I choose, and I specifically choose not to associate with you.
GO AWAY from my private property or the Castle Doctrine will be enforced by me and my 2nd Amendment right.
Did I mention that what ever you ‘want’ from me is totally irrelevant.
Stop bellyaching and grow a pair.
This, exactly this. The upshot is that the State does indeed have a compelling interest to trample your First Amendment Rights in order to protect the alphabet deviants. Not just from neutral acts such as selling them a cupcake. But from being left out of acts which require personal time, talent, and close personal involvement.
It is not enough if saying no thank you does not create a hardship. It is not enough if you believe your involvement will be viewed as endorsing their behavior. It is not enough if you have had a good working relationship in the past. You must act to show you approve. Silence is not acceptable.
Well if the State can compel speech on the grounds silence is not acceptable in light of compelling interest, then it can certainly stop speech in that same interest. It’s coming.
Totally uncalled for. Grow up.
That is exactly the same takeaway I had after reading through the decision and all the various concurrences and dissent. The supreme court told us that Christians can be discriminated against as long as you don’t publicly, and on the record make your bias known.
No very called for! Too many of you are whiny wimps.
It's my constitutional right to not wear shoes!!
Way before this we had:
Genesis 19:9
Nothing really ever has.
How far are we willing to go to protect them ourselves?
I hope this is not precedent-setting in a way. Did they actually destroy the validity of the original claim by ruling this way? I’m not a legal scholar, so I don’t know.
From what I saw they avoided it.
Truth!
Your remedy has been suggested many times here, and I’m surprised anyone still thinks such a tactic would work. It would be simple to prove in court what you were doing, and how you were descriminating against homosexuals.
It’s really worse than that. It’s not that the commission was mean. It’s that they weren’t consistent. They let bakers refuse to put anti-gay messages on cake because of their secular values. But forced a Christian to bake a cake for a gay marriage in violation of his religious values.
Had the commission said bakers have to put whatever the customer wants, and applied it consistently. I’m not sure that SCOTUS would have overturned this. Or at the very least they would have had to take up the First amendment issue.
Genesis 18:20-21
20. Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21. that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."
Genesis 19:4-7
4. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.
5. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.
Leviticus niv
18:22 Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.
20:13 If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Isaiah 3:9 The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.
2 Peter 2:13b Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
Ezekiel 16:49-50
49. "`Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
50. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
1. But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
3. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
4. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;
5. if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
6. if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;
7. and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men
8. (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)--
9. if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.
10. This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings;
11. yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord.
12. But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
13. They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
But there IS hope!!!
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
9. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10. nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
11. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
If you could NOT change, you would be in most pitiful shape...
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.
