That is the crux of the problem.
The law should never be made from the bench.
Homosexual acts should have never been legalized. Had the Court behaved lawfully in the matter of Lawrence we might not have the Poofters and Gaystapo running amuck now.
When your objective is expanding social engineering, reason and the law have to take a back seat.
Let's see... Constitutional rights versus politically-motivated protected class. Which wins?
Obergefell was, at the end of the day, nothing more than the court using it’s power to redefine a word. It cracked me up at the time. Actually it still does. I fiddle as Rome burns.
>> conflicts between religious freedom and same-sex marriage on its hands
1. Freedom and liberty are the foundation of our republic. Those should be the top priorities.
2. Same-sex “marriage” is a figment of the liberal imagination. For THOUSANDS of years, people knew what the word “marriage” meant. When the court starts redefining not only laws, but the definition of words that used to have a well-understood meaning, they create chaos, confusion, and the breakdown of society.
All those on the court who were STUPID enough to vote in favor of same-sex “marriage” should be removed from the bench for total incompetence. Even a 5-year-old would have more common sense than that.
This is (another) problem caused by government pretending something to be true that isn’t. In this case, pretending that homosexuality is normal.
Other examples where governments pretending that have caused horrendous problems:
-pretended that black people aren’t people.
-pretended that Jewish people aren’t people.
-pretending that pre-born people aren’t people.
HEY GOVERNMENT, STOP PRETENDING!!!
The situation "of their own doing" here that is most applicable is the legal standard whereby governments can compel any individual engaged in any business activity to serve clients/customers against his well. The whole idea of a "public accommodation" is nothing more than a legal fiction that gives the state the authority to exercise power that it should never have in a free society.
If a baker doesn't want to make a cake for someone, then he has every right to tell that person to "'eff off" for any reason whatsoever.
The question is, if someone offers me a job am I obliged to take it as long as they offer pay me?
If I choose not to take the job for whatever reason then can I be sued and told that I must take the job by force of law?
This goes far beyond religious freedom and artistic creativity and runs right into who owns me.
If the SCOTUS decides that the government can force me to work for someone then it is time to cut the ties that bind period.
They are violating one of the most basic natural rights of man.
I think that the court will “split the baby” and give both sides something to claim victory about. But in the process they rein in the “super rights” no granted to gays, and point out that there is a Bill of Rights that trumps gay rights.
The first part of the questions indicate to me that they are going to have a really hard time drawing a line, which is their preference so they won't have to wallow in the muck. They'll probably find one somewhere, but it is clear to me that whatever they decide is going to be an unholy mess.
One of the exchanges that I thought was really interesting, that I've seen little reportage on, is the questions regarding the bias of the commission that brought the charges. Two separate commissioners (out of 7) were singled out for their biased comments by the justices.
Then there was this:
JUSTICE ALITO: One thing that's disturbing about the record here, in addition to the statement made, the statement that Justice Kennedy read, which was not disavowed at the time by any other member of the Commission, is what appears to be a practice of discriminatory treatment based on viewpoint.
The -- the Commission had before it the example of three complaints filed by an individual whose creed includes the traditional Judeo-Christian opposition to same-sex marriage, and he requested cakes that expressed that point of view, and those -- there were bakers who said no, we won't do that because it is offensive.
And the Commission said: That's okay. It's okay for a baker who supports same-sex marriage to refuse to create a cake with a message that is opposed to same-sex marriage. But when the tables are turned and you have the baker who opposes same-sex marriage, that baker may be compelled to create a cake that expresses approval of same-sex marriage.
...
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Counselor, tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it's mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs.
MR. YARGER: And, Your Honor, I -
JUSTICE KENNEDY: And -- because accommodation is, quite possible, we assume there were other shops that -- other good bakery shops that were available.
I found Kennedy's questioning on this interesting. He's basically calling out their hypocrisy.
Roberts needs a way to split the baby because that’s how he seems to operate.
I think they will determine that some level of prior notice must be given.
Another option would be to consider it contract law. Contracts must be drawn up satisfactory to both sides?
bump
There are lots of gay cake makers. This isn’t a tough case.
The test case I want to see will come when a Christian news outlet declines to publish an announcement for a gay wedding.
Do you think the SJWs will pause for a second when a newspaper is hauled into court so the state can dictate what is printed in their pages?
If you think so, you don’t know SJWs.