Posted on 06/06/2018 7:22:53 AM PDT by Kaslin
When you drove down California Street through San Francisco's Richmond District in the 1970s, one house made a stronger impression than most others.
This was not because the house was an architectural marvel. It was a small, cookie-cutter Victorian.
No, it stood out because it was painted black. From sidewalk to rooftop, every inch was coated in a uniform darkness.
Its owner in those days was Anton LeVey, author of "The Satanic Bible"; and, years later, when it was about to be torn down, the San Francisco Chronicle would refer to it as "the building that once housed San Francisco's sordid Church of Satan."
"The Black Pope, as (LeVey) liked to be called, was a self-proclaimed sorcerer with a devilish penchant for marketing," the Chronicle reported in a story published on March 22, 2001.
"While the nation's media, led by the San Francisco papers, regularly descended upon the 1905 Victorian to pen the latest weird act to emanate from (LeVey's) bizarre chambers," the Chronicle said, "his great contribution -- if that's the correct term -- to counterculture was a 1969 manifesto called the 'Satanic Bible,' which his followers and publicists claimed sold more than 1 million copies."
Anton LeVey died in 1997 and the black house was torn down in 2001.
But looking back there can be no doubt the house -- and its black paint -- were evidence of what the Chronicle called LeVey's "devilish penchant for marketing."
Now, suppose a new denomination, also presenting itself as Satanic, were to rise up today in Colorado. The leader of this hypothetical church buys a house in a prominent place -- with plans to paint it black in the hope of "marketing" his faith.
Could the state of Colorado force a Christian painter to do the job?
Following the reasoning presented in Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the answer would be yes -- so long as the Colorado state officials forcing the Christian to paint the Satanic church black were enforcing a "generally applicable law" and took a "neutral" approach to the painter's religion.
In Masterpiece, the question was whether Colorado could force a Christian baker to make a customized wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. The baker said this violated both his First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech.
Kennedy's majority opinion did not offer a conclusion on the baker's free speech claim.
But it did make clear that the court believes a state can force a Christian to act against his faith.
"The reason and the motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions," Kennedy concedes.
But then Kennedy says, "The court's precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws."
The reason the court reversed Colorado's action in this specific case was because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had not been neutral in its treatment of religions and had showed "hostility" toward the baker's Christian faith.
Specifically, the commission had allowed three other bakers to refuse to make cakes that would have featured religious arguments against same-sex marriage, and some of the commissioners had publicly made disparaging remarks about the Christian baker's religious convictions when they held hearings on his refusal to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.
Rather than enforcing the law in a neutral way, they had demonstrated bias against a particular religious view.
"Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of (the baker's) religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the state itself would not be a factor in the balance the state sought to reach," wrote Kennedy. "When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires."
The court let stand the Colorado law that makes it unlawful to deny someone "services" not only because of their "sexual orientation" but also because of their "creed" -- and the possibility this law can be enforced in a way that compels someone to act against their faith.
So, the founder of a self-styled Satanic church approaches a devoutly Christian painter and asks him to paint the house he uses as his church black.
The painter believes everything he does in life -- including his work -- must show reverence for Christ. He, thus, declines.
Could Colorado still force him to act against his faith? Under the standing Supreme Court precedent, it could so long as the law was applied to everyone with what Kennedy calls "the neutrality that the Free Exercise Clause requires."
We still have a court that believes that under the right circumstances, when done in the correct manner, the government can require Christians to act against their faith.
Doubtful.
I saw the headline, “Can State Force Painter to Promote Satan?” and asked myself, “How can he be promoted? He’s already running his place.”
Anton LeVey. What a POS he was.
Perhaps they can force him to paint, but they can’t make him do a good job, nor can they tell him how fast to paint...
(Adapted from an old Navy saying about chipping paint)
I agree with every point but one. They cannot force him/her to paint. They can jail, torture, fine, destroy, whatever they want.
But they cannot force that hand to paint.
It has nothing to do with religion or faith. It is a matter of freedom PERIOD. A person has the right to choose whom he will associate and with whom he will trade. There is also the issue of property rights. People have the right to control their property whether it be bake shops and ovens or paint brushes.
Not many conservatives or Christians will dare stand up for these fundamental rights. Good luck with trying to defend the right to practice one’s religion when all the other rights have been denied.
“You cannot conquer a free man. The most you can do is kill him.”
Heinlein
Perhaps.
The real issue is why do these people select someone who hates them to make their food and paint their stuff?
Surely there is a willing baker or a willing painter within 100 miles?
Isn’t there an illegal alien willing to do a job Americans won’t do?
The NO SMOKING really ran over that private property idea pretty hard.
The negatives of that law outweigh the positives a hundred to one.
Power, prestige and being the slaver.
They feel they are already powerful, now they want to feel like little tin gods.
Yep, we fought a very bloody war to end slavery once. We can do it again.
I disagree, there are plenty of Christians and conservatives who will stand up for those fundamental rights.
These people on pick on people in areas where they have control and they pick on people they think will back down.
That is why they never ask muslims to do these things.
In an eternal sense Jesus has already won the war but as we walk on a planet ruled by Satan, we should expect these attacks to increase as the end draws near.
I suppose a painter could just say “I’m too busy” or “I don’t want to do it” without specifying a reason.
A liberal ad agency or law firm can refuse a job for a client whose line of work it opposes, such as a tobacco company, and an entertainer can refuse a gig for an organization whose ideology it opposes. A Christian business person should have the same right to refuse business for purposes it has moral objections to.
Seems like they might not be able to force him to charge a reasonable price, which should get him off the hook. ??
“The court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws.”
Kennedy is a putz. From my non-lawyer understanding those generally applicable laws must show a compelling state interest and that interest is also weighed against the burden they place on the religious expression of the individual. The burden of proof is on the government in these matters. Kennedy writes as though it is on the individual. A Putz and again a Putz.
So does the State have a compelling interest to make sure that protected groups are granted participation in all business transactions? Or is any refusal to offer goods and services discrimination? Can the State force people to enter into a contract? Does a business have to make sure a certain percentage of its transactions are with protected groups? I mean why not? Surely a business should have to prove it does not discriminate. What about promotion of Pride events? Must all businesses participate? Why not? Such a public sin as antiquated religious beliefs must require public atonement. We should have nailed the closet door shut.
That too!
Black doesn’t show dirt. Just sayin’.
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.