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.
It will become illegal soon. When real rights conflict with fake rights, the far left always sides with fake rights.
I admit I felt Olson was telling half the story. Maybe I need my ears cleaned.
I must have missed Olson saying there are protections for bakers, caterers, seamstresses ***in their shops.***
I didn’t notice any protection for bakers who don’t want to bake a gay wedding cake in their shop.
Or protection for seamstresses who don’t want to make gowns in their shops for lesbian brides.
It’s true that Olson seemed to be saying that participation in the celebration itself (ceremony, reception) may not be required by law.
Can you be forced to make decorations, bake a cake, or cook a meal, but opt out of physically distributing it to guests at the event?
I’m curious if there were powder burns typical when a handgun is an inch or two from the skin/skull.
He is correct
He’s not correct in Oregon or Colorado or New Mexico....
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/12/12/christian-baker-willing-to-go-to-jail-for-declining-gay-wedding-cake/
http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2013/09/gresham_bakery_that_refused_to.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2013/august/nm-supreme-court-photographers-cant-refuse-gay-weddings.html
He speaks BS.
Olson is a tool, his wife must be spinning in her grave over some of the embarrassing statements he makes.
Earth to Ted:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2015/0428/Oregon-bakery-fined-135-000-for-refusing-to-make-gay-couple-s-cake
So Ted, then why was the baker fined $135,000 for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding even BEFORE this ruling.
she was a beautiful woman
The word ‘exercise’ is deliberately missing.
You can advocate and teach, but when you exercise it then the courts will decide the toss up.
You’re right about the current situation re: Oregon, Colorado, NM. I’m familiar with those cases. What I’m trying to say is that I believe he is correct in principle, and that the principle he is using is a distinction between people and activity or events. IMO this distinction should have been applied to the 3 cases. If these cases are appealed, and this distinction is applied at the appellate level, then the current decisions should be overturned, hopefully.
You’re right though, what should be, isn’t, right now.
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.