Posted on 08/16/2018 5:15:09 PM PDT by marshmallow
“This has become so absolutely ridiculous there are bakers on DAMNED NEAR every street, why in the HELL do these BASTARDS insist on terrorizing this Baker!!!!”
Because this baker, like Trump does, fought back. And won. That is unacceptable to the left
Yes, let’s bake a cake to celebrate self-mutilation of one’s body due to the denial of one’s obvious physical attributes and the emotion and physical misery until the end of life. No wonder the Leftists are such fans of this. It is sadistic in the extreme!
Discrimination,based on ideological views is allowed, refusing to provide service to promote what the owners find offensive, but such denial of service to promote what the owners find offensive is not allowed if the persons requesting service are of a protected gender, color, race or or country.
A baker, florist or photog, sign maker, etc. cannot refuse to provide service to homosexual wedding on the basis of not wanting to be a party to what they disapprove of, but the media can refuse to host ads for a conservative conference on the same basis.
However, the difference with banning InfoWars (won't miss them myself) etc. is that the denial is for a free service, even if money is made by allowing them to report what they will.
If a media company was forced to report news, or accommodate those who want free service (like as in fair speech laws), then Free Republic could be forced to allow liberal posters to do that he re.
Thanks for reply danieal1212.
If I understand you correctly, you seem to be disagreeing with the 14th Amendment’s clear language that the states prohibited themselves from abridging rights that they amend the Constitution to expressly protect, 1st Amendment-protected religious expression and speech in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Is that correct?
”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Also regarding protected classes, note that the Founding States made the Constitution’s Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 to prohibit the states from establishing protected / privileged classes which is what they are effectively doing by making policies protecting LGBT people imo.
"Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility [emphases added]."
I was showing the double standard of discrimination based on ideological views being allowed, while denial of service to promote what the owners find offensive is not allowed if the persons requesting service are of a protected gender, color, race or or country.
In the Masterpiece case, he was actually acting consistent with the highest state law, in refusing to contract to create a work which was for the express purpose of celebrating a union which was unlawful according to the CO state constitution, and above all, God's law.
But the interpreters of the constitution are indirectly elected by the people.
Thanks for that clarification.
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.