Posted on 04/28/2015 6:51:29 AM PDT by 11th_VA
Homoeroticism uber alles.
Just wait until the consanguinity advocates use the exact same arguments as the homosexual mafia.
Yes, because there is already a clear legal precedent that art is “speech” for purposes of the 1st Amendment.
It’s one of only two rights that are broadly known by American voters. The courts simply reflect the will of the people. Judges aren’t gods.
To win, we need to teach people about the rest of their rights, particularly the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
No American school teaches about the fourth branch of government, namely the states. Do schools teach about jury nullification, small government, etc.?
It seems that this should also follow in cases of making a cake or floral arrangement with the same sort of message. Those who have declined their services did not do so because of the sexual tendencies of the customers, but because of the message involved. The Left will not acknowledge this because it causes them real concerns when Freedom of speech is allowed to even those with a moral compass...
Boycotting a business because it sells crappy products or doesn't stand behind its products is perfectly OK.
However, boycotting a business because the owners have political positions I disagree with is a form of shunning that makes no sense. I don't have to hang out with Tim Cook the scumbag CEO of Apple, but the main reason I don't buy Apple products is that they are way more expensive than other products that do the same things just as well or better.
Here on FR we are subjected to rants by people who will no longer see a film with so-and-so in it because so-and-so is a socialist or supports Obama. The only reason I will stop seeing movies by a particular actor is because he stinks.
If we love the sinner, but hate the sin then it makes no sense to deny the sinner the means to make a living in this world.
I wish the liberals would be as tolerant as they claim and be as willing to support Christians who just want to run simple bakeries and wedding service companies, but I realize that's asking too much.
The problem is simply that the US Constitution has been ignored so many times in the past, that we’re literally in uncharted territory.
Consider just the 10 Commandments. I dare anyone to tell me what standard is currently used to specifically determine which 10 Commandment displays are OK and which ones are unconstitutional. It’s all a ridiculous mess. Instead of drawing a clear line based on what the constitution actually says, the courts have injected personal opinion and shifting standards, aka no standards at all.
The 10 Commandments is just one small way in which the courts have went from the rule of law to the rule of men (or women...you get the drift). What’s written and agreed to, the country’s contract between We the People and government, is meaningless. What does the constitution mean? That depends on who can stack it with enough votes.
The concept of public accommodations really isn’t in the constitution (correct me if I’m wrong). The constitution wasn’t written to restrain the rights of private individuals. It was written to restrain government. That’s a clear standard. Government cannot discriminate or show preference based on race, religion, sex, etc (even though it constantly does exactly that).
Again you can get fired for your Politics, why not refuse to engage in Commerce with said sub-group(s).
I would love a Legal Eagle Fr-er to opine on this...
Who would have thought that lawyers would have turned such a disgusting thought into a way to line their pockets?
In the case that led to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, it was never alleged that the Native American defendants' religious peyote use was harmful to others but simply that it was a violation of drug laws - and Scalia wrote the majority opinion that drug laws trumped First Amendment freedom of worship.
Freedom of Conscience will win in the end. The question is whether it will win peacefully, but freedom will win.
Does a Muslim T-Shirt printer have to print “Allah is the Devil” T-Shirts?
And mine.
Almost shocking to see a judge get one right these days
How is printing a message on a t-shirt different than putting statues of two women on top of a wedding cake? In the wedding cake scenario you’re actually expected to deliver the cake to the wedding.
Today Scalia expressed concerns that ministers might have to refuse all marriage ceremonies rather than risk the state’s ire when they refused to perform same sex marriage. They tried to assure him that a religious minister would have the right to refuse on religious objections.
How is a minister different than a baker. Why does the minister get to discriminate based on his beliefs but a baker does not?
I used to think Congress should impeach judges after they demonstrated bad judgement by overturning laws instead of interpreting them. Now I think Congress should impeach them all in one blow, and let them be reinstatged only if there is no instance of bad judgement.
If Clinton could fire all the US Attorneys at once, why can’t Congress and the President replace all the judges?
Congress has the power to impeach judges. They don’t need the President’s approval for that.
Congress/President can also limit the purview of the federal courts without a Constitutional amendment
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.