‘We Still Stand by What We Believe’: Bakers Who Refused to Make a Gay Wedding Cake Double Down

The Blaze ^ | January 20, 2014 | Billy Hallowell

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

This is a First Amendment issue. Time, and past time, to point out that Jesus is mentioned in the Constitution:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.

Note that the date is not specified as “1787 CE,” but “in the year of “our Lord” 1787. And just who does “our Lord” refer to? Why, the One whose birth was conventionally dated as having occurred 1787 years prior to the signing Constitution.

The Constitution is also written in English, and whatever accommodations might be made for speakers of other tongues, you cannot go to court and say, “I have a Spanish translation of the Constitution - and according to it my interpretation of the Constitution is right and your interpretation of the English version is wrong.” The language is part of the culture, and some things just don’t translate perfectly. English Common Law continued to hold sway in America after the Declaration of Independence and after the Constitution itself, unless specifically overturned by legislation.

The First Amendment, read in the light of that reference to Jesus, says that before the law all religions are equal - especially Christianity. You can say all you want about other religions being respected - but if there comes an issue where you have to choose between competing claims, failing to respect the rights of Christians is no more consistent with the understanding of the framers and ratifiers of the Constitution than holding a trial in which Spanish translations of the laws was held to be superior to the originals of those laws, which were written in English.

[CatherineofAragon]

Thank you, wardaddy

When it comes to MLK, the adultery is the least of it. But I guess as long as a person gets to pat himself on the back while feeling all warm and self-satisfied about his “enlightened” racial attitudes, none of it is vital.

I really like Mark Levin, but I have yet to see any conservative on radio or TV with the nerve to get real about King.

[Amendment10]

As posted in related threads, not only have the states amended the Constitution to expressly protect religious expression as evidenced by the 1st Amendment, but the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights. So the state of Oregon is actually in violation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, imo, for making a law which unreasonably abridges the enumerated freedom of religous expression.