Posted on 04/05/2015 5:22:15 PM PDT by Talisker
Haven’t heard this stuff in a long time. great to hear it again. ie. right to travel in your personal conveyance or license to operate a vehicle.
I’m waiting for the first gays to walk into a Muslim bakery, and order a cake with Mohammed and Mohammed kissing as groom and groom adorning it. What will the metaphors and legal arguments be then? And what is the sense of yielding principles and conscience to one law, just to prevent having to yield principles and conscience to another law?
You can lead a horse to water, but it is easier if the horse isn’t tripping over too much metaphor. By the time the horse gets to the water, he will be too tired to drink.
That is a very interesting treatise. Thanks for writing and posting it.
It has happened I have read a title on FR.
Bml
PFL
If a hospital performs abortions, I think nurses have the right to not partake in the murderous surgery, for religious reasons, right?
So, the business could say that they would be glad to make that gay-wedding cake, but that everyone who works there has the individual right, for religious reasons, to not make the cake?
Brilliant!
So, the business could say that they would be glad to make that gay-wedding cake, but that everyone who works there has the individual right, for religious reasons, to not make the cake?
Exactly. It's a matter of differentiating between the corporation and the human being. The corporation may well have to offer gay wedding cakes or abortions. But the human beings working within that corporation can invoke their religious freedom rights - rights, mind you, not privileges - to not violate their consciences in this matter.
The workaround being attempted is the idea of employment contracts being a voluntary agreement to obey the requirements of the corporate entity. It's tricky, because what is being said is not that corporate privileges trump human rights, but that the human right of private contracting was already used to accept employment, and so, in effect, nurses already voluntarily agreed to do abortions, or bakers already agreed to make cakes for gay weddings, when they voluntarily agreed to work at their respective corporations.
The answer to that, however, is that there are two separate issues going on - employment in general, and specific acts that a person finds unconscionable. And agreement to the former is not agreement to the latter.
Especially, corporate law is positive law - everything must be spelled out in detail So that's another level of argument against corporate authority, because it's not a matter of of "general employment" being assumed to include abortion or gay marriage, but rather specifically including a clause concerning the surrendering o the right of refusal due to religious conscience - and NO employment contract touches that.
Bottom line is that corporations cannot make acceptance of personally unconscionable acts as part of the their general employment contracts precisely because it is a violation of religious rights and would therefore reverse the relationship between rights and privileges. Rights, remember, pre-exist - no claim is necessary for them to exist, they exist because the human being exists. Privileges, on the other hand, are ALWAYS contractual. So it's never the issue of what the offending issue is, but rather the TYPE OF LAW being invoked to enforce it - rights versus privileges.
The biggest problem - by far - is that you don't see this fundamental issue argued ANYWHERE. Courts don't allow the discussion because they are sitting in their "corporate (administrative, regulatory, statutory) capacity." And so they simply will not allow ANY discussion of "rights" because corporations don't have rights. And outside of Courts, people literally don't even know that there is a difference in the laws - and the MSM refuses to acknowledge it as an issue. In fact, everyone goes to far as to say that corporations have "rights" - and that is the most fundamental lie of all.
But if you pay attention, it creeps out sometimes. Like in the OJ trial, they mentioned the "privilege to remain silent" when Furman was testifying. Who ever hear of that phrasing? After all, isn't it a "right" to remain silent? But Furman was a cop - a government employee, and the government entity was an incorporated City. So he had no rights in that capacity as a police officer regarding his official duties that he accepted - only government granted privileges as a "human extension" of that corporation. So there it was, right there, in front of the whole world, but zip - it was missed by everyone.
So clearly, American Christians have been lazy about this issue. They just have, and that's an observation, not a judgement. But now it's coming back to bite them. No one cared when it was the OJ trial - or anything else, really. Because it was always someone else, or something else. But now it's the Bible on trial - and with it, ALL Christians.
So if you want to have a say, you MUST understand "who" you really are before the Court - and who you're not. Because if you accept the Court's presumption (and that's officially what it is, a presumption, and further, no judge will tell you they made it about you) - the presumption that you are a corporate "person," or a corporate "individual," instead of a non-corporate "man" or "woman" - you can just hand over your Bible right now for government editing. Because only real human beings can demand their religious rights.
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.