Posted on 07/29/2014 8:14:09 AM PDT by xzins
If this ruling stands (and I don’t believe it will), will our right to Christian worship be next?
It should be patently obvious that this “gay” couple intentionally targeted this bakery (it’s not as if it was the ONLY bakery in town) and they went there knowing they would be denied and they could make a federal case out of it. Opening a business shouldn’t cause you to lose your freedom of religion and speech or any other freedoms we are guaranteed by the Constitution. I hope the family prevails in court and refuses to be cowed by the bully gay mafia! Someone has to stand up to them.
Therein lies the problem. sigh
You miss the point, it isn't about cake.
It doesn’t matter that it’s an order. This wedding cake incident happened a year or more ago when gay wedding was clearly illegal in Colorado....and that still hasn’t been overturned.
Talk about re-education. This is what the Feds were going to do at Oak Ridge.
That is current and amazing.
You should post it as a thread on extended news.
I would like to, but I will be gone today. I am out to do some things for my 88 year old parents.
Busy day
Possibly.
I did just outline how it majorly violated the State's own Constitution three ways.
Do you not think this would eventually happen in a human government where Repubs. held two or even three branches of gov’t?
....”Do you not think this would eventually happen in a human government where Repubs. held two or even three branches of govt?”......
Well, first of all our government is human so I’m not sure what your referencing there.
But yes, it could happen even if the majority of our branches were all Republicans....because the trajectory congress, on both sides, is taking this country is toward Global Governance. It’s one thing to have this over trade and business...but even then you will have regulatory matters of great difference...such as what countries regulations will they adopt. But it’s not going to stop at trade....Insurances and Banking and such will all come under that umbrella.....and eventually so to the religions will be represented. There’s too much money flowing to not have them in it....
He will probably lose. Jack entered a contract with several government agencies. He obtained a business license, he pays SSI taxes, etc...
A license is a permit to do that which is otherwise forbidden, and in his entry into the “benefits” of being a good corporate government employee, he’s required to follow the rules they make, however arbitrary they may be.
Perhaps they should have made a cake resembling a steaming pile of cow dung.
Hobby Lobby didn’t lose. The justices currently in the majority decided that a business can have beliefs, and in this case it sounds like a closely held corporation or sole proprietorship or something like that.
The authorities will want this to be a case about discrimination against a class of people. They’ll say that opening doors for business implies equal treatment of all.
The owner will see it as a case of freedom of speech and religious freedom, that he doesn’t discriminate against anyone. First, he doesn’t do things that violate his faith...his religious belief is real and long-standing. And, second, he shouldn’t be forced to produce things that are by their nature a violation of his faith. Third, as an artist, his art is a manner of speech, so he shouldn’t be forced to violate his free speech by being forced to speak things he doesn’t want to speak.
The justices will look to see if the government has a truly substantial reason for actually violating the owner’s faith and speech. The Religious Freedom Act says the government must have a truly pressing reason for doing so. In this case, maintaining order and equal treatment in the market place will be seen as a substantial reason.
Then they’ll look at whether this is the least action they could have taken considering that the owner truly does have speech and religious rights that are being set aside.
That’s where I think the owner has a case. I think ‘capitulate or close” is not the least restrictive action they could have taken. I don’t think they even tried to find a way to accommodate his religion and speech rights.
They could have ordered him only regarding wedding cakes...that he stop offering those. (A conclusion he came to himself, I believe.) They could have instructed him to operate as a ‘members only club’ in which any patron had to join and sign off on a statement of principles. They could have instructed him that as a non-profit Christian ministry, his profit after expenses going to some religious cause, his goods available in the same way that monesteries sell cake, ale, etc., that he would be out of jeopardy.
These are just ideas off the top of my head, but I don’t think ‘capitulate or close’ is the least restrictive answer at which they could have arrived.
Then you are blind.
Spoken like a true unabashed STATIST.
The government cannot implement rules that violate a person's first amendment rights nor can they implement rules that are arbitrary or capricious.
Further the government cannot command you to perform acts which violate your religious beliefs unless there is a compelling reason to do so.
Making a wedding cake is Art. Just as an artist cannot be forced to paint a picture of Satan pissing on a cross, a cake baker cannot be forced to use his artistic talents to create a cake that "celebrates" an unholy union.
I only wish that someone from Westboro Babtist Church would go into a homosexual cake baker and ask them to bake them a cake for one of their weddings with the words "GOD HATES FAGS" prominently displayed on the cake.
You seem to think that being granted a business license by an all powerful totalitarian state is a contract to surrender your God Given liberties. It isn't. It would be the same thing as if a newspaper dedicated to reporting on Christian events was required to report on non-Christian events or even required to accept advertising from pornography or liquor distributors.
Sometimes I am amazed at some of the neo-statist comments I see on Free Republic. Here is a forum where we are dedicated to fighting against tyranny and yet we have posters here who defend it. Amazing.
Amen! Fight BIG GOVERNMENT!
Personally, I think businesses should just be left alone. If they make a dumb business decision, then they’ll suffer. And if one succeeds being a bigoted place, then that means where you do end up going won’t have all the bigots. They’ll be down the road at the other place.
Let them rise or fall based on their business decisions.
This bakery will find a way not to bake gay wedding cakes, and apparently, the owner is such an exceptional artist, that he will succeed.
Just leave him alone.
I’m describing how the STATE will argue the case.
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.