Can State Force Painter to Promote Satan?

Townhall.com ^ | June 6, 2018 | Terry Jeffrey

[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.

[Jack Black]

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.

No, no, no. A person running a business DOES NOT have a right to choose who he will serve. That right, which may have existed previously, was abrogated with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal to refuse service to someone based on "race, color, religion, sex or national origin".

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.

Again, no. Under the same law it is, for instance, illegal to refuse to sell your house to a black person because they are black. It's illegal for a group of people to get together and say "this is a white neighborhood and no blacks can move in here".

This has been the law since 1964 in the USA, so 54 years and counting.

Not many conservatives or Christians will dare stand up for these fundamental rights.

You describe property rights, and the right to discriminate as fundamental, but the Civil Rights Act is pretty fundamental too.

There is no call for repealing it, or any part of it.

The last politician I am aware of who pointed out that by granting the civil rights cited above that certain other civil rights (the ones you consider "fundamental") were being reduced or abrogated was Rand Paul in a long-form interview with Rachel Maddow. She got him to admit his ambivalence towards the 1964 Civil Rights Act's "public accommodation" clauses. It was not a good look for Rand, and he spent about a month backtracking before he put it behind him. (1)

The issue was raised at the time the act was being debated. If you read Sen. Goldwater's campaign book "The Conscience of a Conservative" he goes after the issue hammer and tong. (Brett Bozell Sr. was the actual writer, apparently). So the issue had a full hearing, and even in 1964 people decided that the right not to be discriminated against in public accommodations was more important than the absolute property right to refuse service based on whatever consideration.(2)(3)

I don't think that there is much of a constituency to go back and re-litigate this, or that there are very many people supporting the "property rights above all" position. Those who do are usually Libertarians or even Anarcho-Capitalists, who view property rights as the most important (fundamental) rights of all. Perhaps you are one of them? Regardless of your personal beliefs, I agree with your sentiment that there is no push by most Conservatives to install property rights (back) on their throne. Only a small fringe minority of people on the Right, and virtually no one on the Left, take this position. .(4)

Good luck with trying to defend the right to practice one’s religion when all the other rights have been denied.

The practice of religion is bounded by law in America. It is not an unlimited right that trumps all others, in all cases, every time.

Christian Scientists are not free to deny treatment to their children, Rastafarians are not free to smoke dope (in most states, still), Moslems and Mormons are not permitted to legally marry 4 woman in the USA.

Some theorists on the Alt-Right would like to re-litigate this. They feel if the previous regime of lassie-faire free-association can be re-instituted that de-facto "ethno-states" (sometimes referred to as "PLEs" or Private Little Europes") can be created in the USA. Alt-Right leader Richard Spencer no doubt considers sacred property rights an important tool in the process he has described as "non-violent ethnic cleansing" which he advocates.

NOTES:

1. Rand Paul steps in it with Rachel Maddow. HERE.

2. Electoral College, 1964. Red States voted for the guy who wanted to support Property Rights over Anti-Discrimination Rights.

3.Barry Goldwater: Conscience of a Conservative (Full book, PDF format.)

4. Wikipedia article on Anarcho-Capitalism.

[I want the USA back]

So now they can throw your a$$ in jail if you refuse to paint a house black for a satanist.

But if a muzzy refuses to serve a human, he will not be arrested. You can bet your prayer rug on that.

[usconservative]

The real issue is why do these people select someone who hates them to make their food and paint their stuff?

Because they're out to destroy Christianity, period.

When they destroy Christianity, morality goes with it.

When morality goes, their abhorrent behavior is then "normalized."

That's what they're after.

[TheNext]

Many believe the 1964 Civil Rights act applied to Govt and not private people. That is the problem it addressed originally, State resources.

[TheNext]

Do the opposite. Paint your house with as many different colors as possible. I bet nobody has tried that yet.

[IronJack]

The state can compel the action, but the subject is always free to refuse to comply, as long as he is willing to accept the consequences of serving God before serving Man.

It’s been that way since Moses.

[Salman]

Liberals may be "Satanic" in a general way, but Anton LaVey's creepy little cult is not sacred to them.

Not like homosexual perversion.

[Bob434]

[[might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws.”]]

Therte is actually a reason for htis- Let’s say a group wants to form an organization based on human sacrifice- they can’t claim their right to practice human sacrifice is protected under the constitution. However, you can’t break the law and claim religious exemption

This whole issue is a tough issue- Like you asked, where does the religious freedom end and state law begin?- This will have to be determined in court.

One issue however was something Scalia brought up- that religious beliefs such as the Baker’s date back for centuries and is well established and reasonable- I might add that they do not discriminate against people but rather oppose people’s CHOICES to engage in sinful activity that goes against the belief system of the Christian in question. It —should be— illegal for the state to force a Christian to participate in a ceremony which celebrates something illegal- or which celebrates something that is ‘legal’ yet morally objectionable- This is the fine line that MUST be established by the courts

Many are trying to equate this to the slavery issue- but this is disingenuous- In the case of slavery, many people may have ‘believed it was ok’ to own slaves- and force them to work against their will- but it was actually morally wrong because it discriminated against a person (black folks) for something they have no control over- the color of their skin. In the case of homosexuality however, it is a CHOICE that religion and history have established as morally wrong- Even though the states now deem it morally legal- it is STILL religiously morally wrong as deemed by the majority of religions all over the world (Yes, some religions pretending to be Christians or whatever religion they follow are accepting gay people as morally ok- but the vast majority don’t because they aren’t going to ignore the word of God to placate4 sinners who desire to be thought of as non sinners-)

[jiggyboy]

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Once upon a time we had the right to refuse to take a job for any reason.

Now it seems that we do not have the right.

That is a thirteenth amendment violation.

[Amendment10]

"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.""

With all due respect to Justice Kennedy, regardless what anti-religious expression activist justices have previously claimed about religious expression, he seems to be ignoring that the 14th Amendment has already decided this case in the favor of the business owner imo.

”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

[Bob434]

[[The right to refuse service, then, means that public accommodations, such as restaurants, theaters, banks, gyms, and stores, can lawfully deny service to a customer if they feel that their business might suffer from engaging in such a transaction]]

From: https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/right-to-refuse-service/

This is a very interesting angle, and one that businesses might want to pursue- A Christian run business may suffer damage financially if they begin violating their religious beliefs and those of their customers by catering to groups who CHOOSE to practice something immoral (last i checked, we still have a right to declare homosexuality immoral according to our religious beliefs).

If catering to such groups would cause a decline in loyal Christian customers- or eve3n in customers who are not Christian but who object to gay marriage- then The business can claim that catering to homosexuals for the purpose of celebrating their sin (such as in making wedding cakes for them, or desserts celebrated gay pride month, or whatever) is hurting them financially as a matter of fact-

You said one can not ‘discriminate’ agaisnt peopel based on sexual orientation- however

[[However, a total of 29 states allow businesses to turn away a customer who is trans-gendered or homosexual under certain circumstances,]]

(From same link)

[[In short, the right to refuse service is controversial yet protected under the law because the act of refusing someone service—and the consequence of being refused—pit constitutional rights against each other.]]

(From same link)

For now- it is still legal in most states to deny service to people that Choose to practice lifestyles that are in direct opposition to a business’ moral beliefs, because, as the last quote states, it is pitting one constitutional right directly against another- and the courts have not yet determined who’s rights are ‘more important’ (Although we see the handwriting on the wall as states become more andb m ore hostile towards the constitutional rights of Christians and people of faith

[48th SPS Crusader]

You just say no thanks not interested.

[G Larry]

NO!

USSC ruling on MasterPiece Bakery “artistic freedom” declared the painter/artist can NOT be compelled!

[az_gila]

Hey, they were only following the Rolling Stones...:^)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4irXQhgMqg

[Pearls Before Swine]

Do the opposite. Paint your house with as many different colors as possible. I bet nobody has tried that yet.

Actually, my wife has done that in the living room, putting on swatches of different colors all over, each labeled with a post-it, in an attempt to pick "the one."

[Jack Black]

You said one can not ‘discriminate’ agaisnt people based on sexual orientation- however

Actually, I didn't say that.

I carefully cut and pasted the exact phrase from the 1964 Civil Rights Act in my explanation, which is: "outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin."

The gays were clever to tie their cause to civil rights, but as you and others have pointed out there is a big difference between being black, foreign, female or even a Hindu (for most their religion is the one they were born with) than being "gay" which is a set of behaviors.

Of course, part of their plan was to insist (only on this ONE thing) that it was Nature and not Nurture that makes one gay. These are the same people who will have a giant hissy fit if you start talking about Race and IQ and tell them that the "blank slate" theory of people is ridiculous, and that much of human behavior is genetic, and therefore groups of genetically related people will tend to behave in the same way regardless of the environment they are in (ie: black under-achievement in schools isn't the result of tests, teachers or bad parenting, it's a result of genetics).

Anyway, this one time they went all Nature, tossed the blank slate, to get their special rights into law.

There is much less evidence to support homosexuality being genetic than the links between race and IQ, though.

As for your larger point: you could try to use various pretexts to discriminate against a certain group, be they gays or blacks or women, but in the end the powers-that-be will get you.

One Federal Agency actually has fake home-buyers go around and try to buy houses. They will create a fake persona of a black professional with 15 years of continuous employment and a pre-approved mortgage and send them in to bid on a house, and then send a less qualified fake white buyer, and if the seller chooses the white they will be prosecuted.

Think about that.

Our obsession with "equality" has, in fact destroyed a lot of what was unique and great about America. The fear of being called "racist" is the main weapon that has turned the Conservative movement and all of it's principle actors into Cucks.

They would literally rather watch the country be destroyed than ever be accused of being "racist". And, it's not unique to the USA.

In England there are no several cities and tens of thousands of young girls that the society allowed to be raped, abused, drugged and bought and sold -- all because it would be *racist* to point out the obvious: Those Pakistani guys over their are raping 13 year olds and giving them heroin.

Cuck is actually a pretty polite word for standing by and watching that. And it didn't only happen once. It happened in several cities: the exact same thing.

Brown people can literally RAPE WHITE CHILDREN and get away with it, because: RACISM.

So,the gays were very clever to tie their cause to the third-rail of American society.

The problem for even conservative justices is that to rule in favor of the baker over the gay, they have to somehow preserve and honor the Civil Rights Act, which (in practice) is as or more important than the Constitution to modern America.

None of them are going to tear that down. None of them are really going to fight the "gay is behavior not genetic", they aren't scientists, and the science is unclear at this point. So, what are they left with?

That's why you saw this decision was so narrowly drawn. The Colorado Human Rights Commission was artless in their demonization and persecution of the Christian baker, so they lost.

A more even handed use of the same law would survive, and believe me the Left are very good at "lawfare" so future bakers will bake the cake.

In fact there is a nearly identical case in Oregon that is years old. Some State Commission fined the baker $140,000 for refusing to bake the cake.

It was upheld at the district level, and is now headed to the Oregon Supreme Court.

I bet they will uphold it too! That is the liberal lawfare move to make. Give the Supreme Court *another chance* to get it right and make Christians bow to the will of the colllective.

And, my guess, the Supreme's will choose not to hear the case, letting the punishment in Oregon stand. (Because: there is no history of the Commission like there was in Colorado, in part because it was a brand new Comission and the case was one of it's first acts, obvoiusly a set-up by the Gay Mafia to make an example of some random Christian).

So, if the SC chooses not to hear the appeal they get the best of both worlds. The tossed out some meaningless show-decision for the Conservative masses, but then quietly upheld what the homosexual activists want for most future cases.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that they all know about the Oregon case, and are planning on doing just what I'm describing. (some or most of the 7 who voted for the baker, that is).

[Jack Black]

America's King!
(Just ask Glenn Beck!)

[Bob434]

[[Actually, I didn’t say that.]]

I apologize- oversight/non-careful reading on my part- You did say ‘sex’ and not ‘sexual orientation’- brain fart on my part

[[And, my guess, the Supreme’s will choose not to hear the case,]]

I don’t know about that- IF i recall correctly, the state was hostile towards the defendant in that case as well- IF i recall correctly, the mayor or gov or someone higher up got involved and was ‘openly hostile towards’ the baker-

But if that is the case- then it’s going to be another narrow decision- We need to get cases heard by SC that don’t involve public hostility by the state to establish who’s constitutional rights are ‘more important/protected. This recent case did nothing to determine that unfortunately

(Actually- choosing a homosexual lifestyle —should not be— a ‘constitutional right’ because it is as immoral as any other deviant sexual lifestyle choice- but sadly society has devolved to see it as ‘not immoral’- but that is another argument)

[Hugh the Scot]

Again, I’m going to bring up the invisible elephant in the room...

This decision, and all others on the topic assume that the “buyer” is in the inferior negotiating position. (trading money for a service).

If the courts, or anyone else, can force you to do anything in exchange for money, just because you’re in business; then the power emanates from that to force you to exchange your money for anything (and with whomever they direct), whether you want that service, or would prefer to do business with another vendor, or not...

If this garbage can be termed “an otherwise valid exercise of state power”... Then you are slaves to your government, and no mistake about it.