Posted on 05/30/2018 9:24:06 PM PDT by DeweyCA
I find it interesting that he framed it as a free speech issue. I’ve always seen it as a free exercise of religion issue.
OTOH,an ambulance service should not be allowed to refuse a pervert's request to be taken to a hospital.
The difference? One is an *essential* service and the others most assuredly are not.
The baker,florist or photographer hired by a pair of perverts should just make sure that the cake somehow falls to the ground,the flowers are all wilted or the photographs are all mis-framed,poorly lit and out of focus.Obviously the pervs will demand their money back which should be immediately granted without question.In addition,a humble apology (which the owner obviously wouldn't mean) should be issued.
Problem solved.
So Dick Cheney and his wife abused and neglected their daughter?
I think I'll stick with choice.
[Protecting such speech would be]...“an affront to the gay community,”
Sounds like a principle that belongs in a current production of Animal Farm rather than in any consideration of the nation's highest court.
“All of these gaystapo legal actions against Christians are pure BS. As long as the kwheers have an alternative source for what they want made, they have no reason to complain.”
It’s all about force. Forcing decent people to go along with perversion.
Nope.
In a competitive market it would be contrary to consistently demonstrated human behavior, for the economic "void" not to be filled by other market players.
How would the supposed "cartel" be able to prohibit entry into the market, by others, seeing a money-making opportunity and therefore willing to bake the cake for gay weddings?
Or photograph the event? Or cater it?
I'm with you. I think that trashing the right to refuse service is tantamount to mandating involuntary servitude to politically selected groups.
There's also a freedom of association issue. If you don't want to have anything to do with someone, the government shouldn't be able to compel you to.
I also understand the "public accommodation" issue, but it's been stretched too far. A bakery shouldn't be able to decline to sell you bread; but it shouldn't be forced to make a cake that is outside of its normal public supply. If you want the cake to have a couple of kissing homos and a suitable inscription, the baker should be able to give you a standard cake and an icing kit, just as he would to anyone else.
“You see, in the Supreme Court, neither the Left nor the Right believes that religious freedom trumps anti-discrimination law.”
From the article, very disturbing
The doofus judge that ruled on the guy thrown out of the bar for wearing a MAGA hat a few weeks ago just made all future baker/photographer cases disappear.
Someone comes into your establishment and wants a homosexual themed cake. Ask them a political question. Any question. Say “I vehemently disagree with that political position (regardless of whether you do or not) get out of my establishment and never come back.”
Done!
Roger that, but the whole argument the author is making is that this is a “doing” vs. “being” thing. Christians believe, and rightfully so, that homosexuality is a “doing” thing, that it’s a sinful act they do that we don’t want to support. But homosexuals say that this is a “being” thing, that it’s not what they do but who they are, that homosexuality is immutable. The author cites study after study disproving this supposed immutability in no uncertain terms.
Moron Reagan-appointed Kennedy sided with them because he was captured by the DC cocktail circuit and weak-minded to begin with. In doing so he had to ignore the former homosexuals because they don’t fit the narrative. There are a lot of these former homosexuals, blowing the immutability argument out of the water, because for anything to be immutable, there can’t be a single exception. Odd, but there’s not a single former black, which actually IS immutable.
Sometimes I think our nation has gone completely bonkers on this subject. I was helping prosecute and imprison homosexuals just a few years ago.
We as a nation have decided that smoking just isn’t worth it because of the cost in abbreviated lives and health care costs. Odd that we haven’t come to the same conclusion about homosexuality. We spend more on their self-inflicted diseases that any number of other diseases combined. And, since medical research is a zero sum game, that research on their diseases isn’t being spent on diseases that normal people will die of. Their lives are being extended, but ours are being shortened from what they would’ve been because of the money being spent on them.
Goat-Cheese Cake?
Even if Gorsuch is on Team Constitution, there is still Kennedy who has a “perfect” record of voting with the faggies 100% of the time.
I’m afraid this case will be no different.
The “immutable” argument also fails with many Conservative “gays” who accept that “being gay” is not and cannot be proven to be a “given”.
Many accept that the process of making what become many lifetime “choices” (what’s your favorite color comes to mind), in tons of small and some big ways, are not “single one time choice” events, psychologically, but are a series of many small choices starting very early that may not in the earliest stages be recognized as part of value X. The process goes “under the radar” for a long time, until by late teen to adulthood, there is no identifiable single act of “choosing” and the bearer assumes that value in the personality has always been there. That is actually a process from infancy of “nurture”. Even then, one side assumes even the “building block” choices along the way in nurture were genetically predetermined even though no such evidence exists.
That’s a long way of saying some Conservative “gays” can have a belief that “accepts they are gay” and still honest enough to admit there is no proof, logically or in science, that it was genetically predetermined, and thus not an immutable trait of personality. Being that honest goes along with accepting there is an honest and worthy moral distinction between tolerance, within natural Liberty, and a legal mandate of acceptance, of many things.
“We as a nation have decided that smoking just isn’t worth it because of the cost in abbreviated lives and health care cost.”
Abortion and the LBGT agenda both break the legal and moral mold about the distinction between legally “O.K.” and a governments pursuit & support of “acceptance”, compared to smoking, gambling and pornography.
Smoking, gambling and pornography are generally considered morally controversial, but, due to our respect for Liberty considered legal, regretfully. But you will not find acceptance of that legality as part of a moral agenda of a demand for their acceptance on the part of the government.
Yet while abortion and the LGBT agenda have also been given statuses of “legal”, out of the same dimension of Liberty with which we legalize smoking, gambling and pornography, that legal acceptance in their case has morphed into a government backed demand they be morally and socially supported and promoted as well. That half of their agendas is wrong, if it is Liberty and not government coercion we are supposed to have operating.
True. If people come into a bakery and light up cigarettes and cigars, the owner can throw them out, because it's his business and he wants to protect the flavors and aroma within.
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.