Even a blind squirrel will find a but.
“Some fear a slippery slope, arguing that anything can be expressive. What if someone refused to rent out folding chairs for the reception? Or what about restaurant owners who exclude blacks because they think God wills segregation? If we exempt Mr. Phillips, won’t we have to exempt these people from anti-discrimination law?”
First off, go to someone who does satisfy your needs. As for segregation, that is a bullcrap argument. In my opinion, this is about choice and unless you are Rachel Dolezal, you don’t have much choice whether you are black or white.
The real slippery slope was criminalizing discrimination rather than working to change societal attitudes. The attitudes have changed but the laws institutionalize racism and resentment. There is no risk of gays not being able to get wedding cakes. None.
I applaud the NYT, but the entire debate is absurd. If a man in a coma for the last 50 years suddenly woke up, he would not be able to comprehend this case. He would rightly ask “What the heck is a gay wedding?”.
Tell you what.
Go to islamic halaal bakeries in Dearborn, MI and demand they bake a Bar/Bat Mitzvah cake.
Place the ones who refuse under arrest.
There used to be freedom of association, but that ended during the 60s Civil Rights era. Slippery slope indeed.
Pigs do fly!
If I were arguing this case, I’d frame it as a “free exercise” issue. One cannot practice one’s religion when one is forced by accommodation law to tacitly endorse behavior that is repugnant to that religion.
First Amendment rights only apply to a well regulated militia, decided by the government.
Question for George Will and the others: What if someone walked in and asked for a cake featuring a human and a dog? Or walked into a Muslim shop and asked them to cater to an event featuring a human and a pig?
Unless Will’s and the others’ answers are the same. They are hypocrites.
For later...
Don’t forget about PROPERTY RIGHTS. A business owner should have the right to sell or not sell to whomever he or she wishes. The FREE MARKET will take care of the rest.
Three times (Colorado) has declined to force pro-gay bakers to provide a Christian patron with a cake they could not in conscience create given their own convictions on sexuality and marriage. Colorado was right to recognize their First Amendment right against compelled speech. It’s wrong to deny Jack Phillips that same right.
Basically, the left is now worried about the Leviathan they empowered to cripple "right-wing" freedom, now coming after their "left-wing" freedom.
Of course, freedom is freedom...it's not a left or right thing. Notwithstanding the demonetization in the MSM, I've found Deplorables' personal views of what's moral and immoral do not override their "live and let live" sensibilities, as long as the law isn't being broken. Not so much with the Antifa losers and other globalist types.
Notice that the statists had to lose an election and feel what it's like to have the government tell you what you can't and can't do, to suddenly discover The Founders' intent and (sort of) become Originalists on the Bill of Rights. That said, I'll take each instance of WINNING one success at a time.
They think the baker is going to win the case. It’s all about damage control now.
bump
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf