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)
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.
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.
“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.
Black doesn’t show dirt. Just sayin’.
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.
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.
Not like homosexual perversion.
[[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-)
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.”
You just say no thanks not interested.
NO!
USSC ruling on MasterPiece Bakery “artistic freedom” declared the painter/artist can NOT be compelled!
14th Amendment bars enforcement of “specific performance” in contracts.