Posted on 06/29/2015 8:15:13 PM PDT by GregoTX
(CNSNews.com) – Former Solicitor General Ted Olson told “Fox News Sunday” that it is “not illegal” for a bakery for instance to refuse to participate in a gay wedding under last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
“It's not illegal under this ruling,” Olson said in response to Fox News host Chris Wallace’s question about how the ruling will affect religious freedom.
“There's the question – and it became hot this spring – of religious freedom. Can the proverbial baker or photographer who is selling his services openly, can he refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage because he or she believes that it violates their religious freedom or is that now illegal under this rule?” Wallace asked.
“There may be laws, statutes that cover it, but a bakery, if you walk into a bakery on the street and want to buy a pie or a doughnut or something like that, the bakery under federal law can't discriminate against you on the basis of your race or your religion. So, if there are laws that cover that kind of discrimination that might be illegal,” said Olson.
“It's different than someone being asked to participate in a wedding, to perform a wedding, to sing in a wedding, to participate and be a wedding planner, something like that. People have the right to refuse personal services with respect to things like that on a religious basis,” he said.
“I think some of that dispute is overblown and the courts have been dealing with that kind of an issue for many, many years with respect to religious rights and racial discrimination and discrimination on the basis of gender for a long time,” Olson added.
Olson successfully represented George W. Bush in the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore that ended the recount of the 2000 presidential election and eventually served as Bush’s solicitor general. He is also a same-sex marriage advocate.
Olson compared Friday’s Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges to the Loving. V. Virginia, the Supreme Court decision that legalized interracial marriage in 1967.
“Fourteen times the Supreme Court of the United States held that marriage is a fundamental right, including the right to interracial marriage in 1967,” said Olson. “They didn't call it the right to interracial marriage. They called it the right to marriage. They described it as a right to liberty, privacy, association, of being a part of this country, being a part of the relationship that matters most to most people in this country and to be a part of our community.
“So, it's a right to marriage. This is not something that the Supreme Court made up. It's the right to decide who you would get to be married, which the Supreme Court repeatedly said is a fundamental right. So, there's nothing new about this decision. It takes it one step further, because it haven't been recognized before, but it's the right of two individuals to marry to the person that they're most devoted to,” he said.
“The second criticism is that the political process was working, that states were changing laws, public opinion was shifting, and that the court in effect short-circuited that process. Here is a quote from the dissent of Justice Scalia. He called the ruling a threat to American democracy. Is Scalia wrong?” Wallace asked.
“Yes, with respect to Justice Scalia, who I do have great respect for, he is wrong. When we talk about civil rights, we don't wait for a plebiscite, we don't wait to put civil rights to a vote. The Supreme Court didn't put separate but equal schools to a vote. The Supreme Court didn't put the right to marry someone of a different race to a vote. We don't wait,” said Olson.
“And Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion talks about that. What is happening to the children while the Supreme Court would wait if it was to wait another few years? At the same time the Supreme Court decided the interracial marriage case there were still 16 states that made it a crime to marry someone of a different race. The Supreme Court did not wait then, and it was right not to wait now,” he added.
I do, too....as I know she was a FReeper. May she RIP.
He’s slippery ‘n a bucket ‘o Olsen-ine. He’s got his BS talking points well rehearsed. Glad he didn’t fool you.
BS. Hubert Humphrey said the Civil Rights Act could not possibly lead to affirmative action. He was a sponsor of the bill.
” This is not something that the Supreme Court made up. It’s the right to decide who you would get to be married, which the Supreme Court repeatedly said is a fundamental right.”
He’s not a dumb man. He knows he’s making an entirely circular argument.
How can a ‘fundamental right’ be such if one needs a state issued license to exercise it?? Does it not then become just a state granted ‘privilege’ who’s rules and concepts can change on the prevailing public opinion/conciseness?
Just like a state issued carry permits for hand guns, I see what you did there.
We need about 30 states to stand up and say they consider the rulings of SCOTUS this week and last week to be null and void, and I mean all of them.
BKO bump
We still miss you darling.....you were smart and beautiful
Your husband these days is off the rails
Metaphorical bump
I noticed that many of the people in favor of “same-sex marriage” rarely associate with people of another “race.” Sometimes they’re downright racist. At other times, they have a few token friends.
Yet they love to refer to “interracial marriage” to argue for their cause.
No one would ever say, “Marriage should be redefined as two people of any sex because, after all, someone who’s Irish can marry someone who’s Polish.” They know that wouldn’t make sense. And yet, for some reason, apparently they consider marriage between two “races” so shocking and maybe even abhorrent that, well, if that’s permitted, then ANYTHING should be okay. That’s what they’re really saying when they make that comparison, even if they don’t realize it.
Yes. I loved Barbara Olson and this Ted is irrational or Satanic and Evil. One or the other-—but the legal system has been so corrupted by the Progressives (Marxists) who have a tight hold on university brainwashing curricula, to embed Lies, pseudo-science (German psychology of drugging to kick out God) and convoluted “logic” to actually flip Good and Evil which they started with abortion and euthanasia——making doctors actually kill human beings.....it is really, really SICK and God is punishing us for not forcing the courts to abolish Nazi ethics which are antithetical to UNALIENABLE Rights-—which NO STATE can have the MAJORITY abolish since they come from GOD.
He has no ability to use Logic-—or he is one of the hard core Marxists trying to destroy this nation and our Individual Natural Rights from God-— and take it back to Ancient Greece after their Age of Pericles, when they collapsed-—partly because the males were sexists and pagans and preferred boys for sex so didn’t reproduce much.
Can’t stand Ted Olson-—he is sooooooooo creepy.
The Civil Rights Act violated Constitutional Guarantees to Freedom of Association.
It should have only pertained to Government entities, not Private Businesses.
The slippery slope goes back much further than People want to admit.
America has lost sight of what true Freedom entails.
The point is, baking AND DELIVERING AND SETTING UP a wedding cake is indeed a personal service. It’s not the same as selling a regular cake to someone who walks in off the street. Same with wedding flowers: there’s a lot of planning and consultation involved between the florist and the client, and then the flowers must be brought to the wedding site and installed there. I suppose you could just order a cake or flowers, go pick them up and take them to the wedding site yourself, but mostly the baker (or rather, the baker’s employees) and the florist bring them to the site and make sure they’re put in properly. That is a VERY personal service. (And anyone who sits there and tells you it’s not has never planned a wedding! Jeesh!)
Olson’s wife died in the attack on the pentagon. She was a big conservative and frequently on TV
be careful, you have not the slightest idea who will go to hell. Only God knows that...my girlfriend had a death bed conversion...her brother was a minister and was with her every day she was sick and dying..
She was also a FReeper and frequent poster — BKO
Excellent point. Good post.
He’s saying—not very articulately—that refusing to sell a donut or pie to a homosexual is discriminatory, while refusal to bake a wedding cake is not.
He is correct.
The first would be refusal to serve a person based on what he is, or what he is perceived to be (which could even be erroneous). Business people typically do not inquire into their customers’ sexual preferences prior to every transaction. A wedding cake, however, requires some degree of endorsement of a particular event or activity.
Black customer / rap concert.
Person / activity. Sinner / sin. Not the same.
Years ago, I was traveling cross country, car full of luggage. Late at night, exhausted, podunk town. Motel vacancy, $39 on sign. Manager tells me women must pay for two nights, due to prostitution. He said this was allowed by city ordinance.Did the proprietor have the right to refuse to allow prostitution on his premises? Absolutely.
Did he have the right to characterize all females as potential prostitutes, refusing me a room or charging me double? That was discrimination, and I should have sued the crap out of the motel chain and the town. But I was too tired to argue and just drove to the next town. Later, couldn’t even remember name of the town.
And why couldn’t I marry my cousin or father? (The father example would be a twofer: GAY INCEST!)
His statements make zero sense. What???
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.