Skip to comments.Supreme Court: Be Polite When You Violate Others' Rights
Posted on 06/06/2018 4:11:18 AM PDT by Kaslin
This week, the Supreme Court ruled on the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. That case involved a religious Christian man, Jack Phillips, who decorates cakes for a living. Two men came into his shop one day and demanded that Phillips decorate a cake for their same-sex wedding. Phillips refused. For this grave breach of civic duty, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission referred his case for prosecution, ruling that he had breached the customers' rights to receive service.
The Supreme Court ignored the key issues of the case. It refused to countenance whether First Amendment speech rights could be violated in favor of nondiscrimination laws -- whether, for example, a gay songwriter could be forced to perform work for an evangelical, Christian choir looking for a tune to liven up Leviticus 18. It refused to consider whether First Amendment free association rights could be completely overthrown by reference to nondiscrimination laws -- whether any business could be told to serve anyone for any reason at any time. Finally, it refused to consider whether First Amendment freedom of religion could be overturned in favor of nondiscrimination law -- whether religious practice stops at the front door of the home and the church.
Instead, the court ruled that the baker didn't have to bake the cake because the members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission were unduly mean. You see, the commission pilloried the man's religious viewpoint rather than giving it a respectful hearing; it compared his viewpoint to pro-slavery and pro-Holocaust viewpoints. This was extreme and nasty. Thus, Justice Anthony Kennedy concluded: "The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. ... The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts."
I must have missed the "be kind; rewind" section of the First Amendment.
Of course, the Supreme Court likely ruled on narrow grounds in order to achieve a 7-2 majority including liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. But the ruling bodes ill for the future: It doesn't protect religious Americans, nor does it protect freedom of speech.
In reality, the founders would have been aghast at this issue ever rising to the level of the judiciary. Freedom of speech, and, by extension, freedom of association, were designed to allow private individuals to live their lives as they see fit, free of the burden of an overreaching government. Freedom of religion was to be guaranteed by a small government unconcerned with the day-to-day matters of business. Free markets were considered enough incentive to prevent mass discrimination in public accommodations.
Now, however, the courts have decided that the government can tell you what to say, who to say it to and how to act out your religion. The only holdup is that they have to be nice about telling you what to do.
Last I heard, was that the constitution enjoined our government from violating our rights. Liberty demands we have the ability to associate and choose for ourselves.
I’d close my shop and sell cakes on the black market before I’d bake a cake for a gay marriage.Its against my religion
to work for gays on a Sunday, and every day is a Sunday IMHO.
Besides, you must understand that the branding of “hate speech” is the method to silence 1st amendment speech.Soon you will not be able to speak “meanly,” that is to say comment on political race and sex issues in public.
We are in for a kinder and gentler ( totalitarian) America, unless things change.
The court is establishing a ground for censoring speech deemed to be “mean”. Bad news.
This seems on the surface to be a nothingburger issue. If a certain baker won’t bake your cake for whatever reason, then go to another baker who will.
However, reality says the point wasn’t to get a cake baked, rather it was to create an issue that could be taken to the courts. I’m sure these militant homosexuals scoped out Jack the Baker, knowing what his response would be, for the very purpose of instigating an issue.
That's EXACTLY what they did and you and I can expect to see a whole lot more of this in the wake of the USSC's ruling in this case. It was a very narrow ruling for this baker ONLY. The court said his personal religious beliefs were trampled on, the Colorado "commission" trampled on his religious rights in their ruling (as well as their behavior and comparisons of his beliefs to Nazi's) and stopped there.
You can bet the farm that right now militant homosexuals are looking for religious businesses to create a similar situation with and put each and every one of those business owner's on trial for their beliefs.
This has NEVER been about anything other than destroying Christianity in this country, period. That is the end goal of all these militant homosexual (and other "LGBTQ") organizations.
Their entire intent is to tear away at the moral fabric of this country to normalize their abhorrent behavior.
Been saying this for over 20 years here on FR (as have others.)
Still sets a legal precedent no matter how narrow.
Closet is the proper queer depository
If Kennedy could have found a way to rule against Jack Phillips he would have. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission was too blatant with their open disdain for Phillips’ religious beliefs. The message has been sent to any future litigants: If you want Kennedy’s help supplanting religious rights with homosexual rights you need to meet him halfway and not be so damned obvious about it.
If a prospective buyer came in asking for a custom cake design and there was something about that person that made me uncomfortable, I’d show him some subtly-unattractive, amateurish designs that he would be almost certain to reject. And quote an equally unattractive price.
Jack serves each and every person who comes in the door of his establishment. He told the gay couple they could buy anything on his shelves. No discrimination whatsoever.
When they asked him to design their "wedding" cake, he politely declined but gave them references to other bakeries that would be glad to oblige.
In appreciation for his fairness and civility, they sicced the CO Human Rats (oops) bureaucracy to persecute him and reduce him to bankruptcy.
Used to mean "happy".
Thank goodness SCOTUS ruled as they did. I was worried that “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service” was out the window henceforth... gone the way of “No Loitering” Has legally disappeared as of just a week or so back. But cooler heads prevailed.
I never use that word in the context of homosexuality. It was a perfectly fine word that was perverted (pun definitely intended) to mean something never intended. By the way, check out most homosexuals, usually there is nothing “gay” about their life or their demeanor. Without God or Jesus Christ, in their life, hate is all they have.
I don't disagree with your statement at all. My main point is that narrow legal precedent is going to be used by the militant homosexuals to put Christian belief on trial.
Matthew 16:15 comes to mind for me: "But what about you? Jesus asked. Who do you say I am?
This ruling was just the beginning for the militant homosexuals. The court opened Pandora's box and they know it, especially Kennedy who said that additional cases are necessary to be brought forth to further refine religious liberty in this country (paraphrasing what he said.)
We haven't seen anything yet.
Of course, the Supreme Court likely ruled on narrow grounds in order to achieve a 7-2 majority including liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. But the ruling bodes ill for the future: It doesn’t protect religious Americans, nor does it protect freedom of speech.
Yep. That’s John Robert’s style.
And they will get hit back because by doing what you suggest they are violating rights and freedom of choice.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued this limited ruling because the justices know damn well that most “public accommodation” laws are unconstitutional from top to bottom.
Do you think that will stop them? How well financed are they? Who's financing them? Who's on their side? (Evil) This is a war of attrition. They're going to keep going to see how many they can simply wear down and get to renounce their faith.
Good people of faith know this story well, it's been written about. We know how it ends, we know who wins, that still doesn't mean evil stops and simply gives up. Evil wants to take as many of us as they can with them. Evil is definitely on the march.
What happened to live and let live. Just spend your money else where after a while an overly discriminating business will go out of existence and die.
The media always frame their failure as limited and itrelevant.
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.