Posted on 02/06/2018 4:33:28 PM PST by RevelationDavid
No, he's really not: you see, the free speech
thing just isn't applicable, at all. (The first amendment, as written, ONLY applies to Congress.)
By calling this a free speech
issue, which it isn't, he's setting up more precedent for ignoring the previous fact; also, because free speech
is irrelevant to the case, he's setting it up as easy to appeal.
No, it would be far more straightforward to cite the Thirteenth Amendment (prohibition of involuntary servitude) and simply acknowledge that forcing the services from the man would indeed be involuntary servitude.
Upholding freedom and the 1st Amendment isn't really a Christian thing. It's an American thing.
Yes, I had to read the header twice!!
The ninth circuit will flip this pancake in about 5 seconds after it hits their desk.................then on to Gorsuch et al !!!
Yup. If I was forced to bake a cake for gays, it would have healthy organic ingredients - like prunes, vinegar and salt. If they complain about the taste, they're welcome to find another baker. Lots of ways to discourage repeat customers that you don't want.
Of course it’s the right call.
Should a Jewish baker be forced by law to bake a cake for a Nazi picnic?
Should a black baker be forced by law to bake a cake for a KKK meeting?
Of course not.
The libs will get it put up as a referendum at election time, so they can manufacture enough votes to get it passed.
“Freedom of Religion” “No State-funded Church” 1st Amendment is 1st courtesy of the Christian contingent of our founding fathers.
The ones who didn’t want their worship or relationship with God and church interrupted by tyrants and kings or corrupt popes even. Thank them.
Keep State out of church.
It doesn’t say keep God out of State or public life.
Great Point.
Beginning of the first...”Congress shall make no law.”
I know that free speech is an inalienable right but I missed the legal nuances. Thank you.
I’ve been listening to Levin lately. His show on Hegel was fantastic.
Time to listen to Hillsdale’s coarse on the Constitution again. It’s been awhile.
That in no way addresses my comment. I’m simply saying that upholding this baker’s rights is not a religious thing. He has his rights because he’s American, and whether the judge is Christian or not he ought to come to the same proper conclusion.
Because the case isn't about a standard, pre-made cake which of course the baker would be obligated to sell to anyone who came in to buy it.
Instead, the Court noted that in this case the baker designs a custom cake based on their own creativity and design ideas. That is a form of expression, just like making a sculpture or writing an article. The 1st Amendment protects the right of everyone to not engage in speech that they do not want to engage in, just as it allows people to say what they want, or create the art that they want to create.
It is a thoughtful ruling based on the particular facts of the case, and it is consistent with 1st Amendment law.
You’re right. Even if the baker was a Buddhist who only makes vegan cakes or something...it would still apply LoL.
Judge David Lampe, Superor court judge. Apptd by Terminator 2005
Earthshaking (for California). If that doesn’t trigger the San Andreas Fault, maybe nothing will.
It's not consistent with the 1st Amendment — the 1st constrains Congress from enacting certain classes of law. This is not any of those prohibitions, but it is prohibited by the 13th.
The Court ruling applies the 1st Amendment to a California anti-discrimination law that has the effect of forcing a baker to engage in speech they do not want to. There is a long history of applying constitutional provisions to state laws which violate them.
So, in fact the ruling fits in the very category you identified. Here is the opinion
You aren't listening: the 1st Amendment CANNOT apply to any other governmental entity than Congress
without itself being amended; no such amendment exists. The courts claim that the 14th Amendment does so (called incorporation
) but here's the thing: If the 14th applies the 1st to the States, Counties, and Municipalities… then there is no effect because these entities have no Congress
— to make such application have some sort of effect the 1st must be altered in some manner other than merely applying the text to those entities.
Thus we see that this incorporation
is really the ad hoc alteration of the 1st Amendment (and the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights) — and thus we see that the Courts have usurped power away from the Constitution, rebelling against their appointed place, which DOES NOT INCLUDE LEGISLATION OR AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION. As per Art. 1, Sec. 1: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
So, no — this ruling, though it has an end result you agree with, only serves to further erode the Constitution.
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.