Boldly Committed to Truth Telling in the False Face of Fakery
Phillips v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission: Will the Supreme Court Leave the First Amendment Intact?
Sparing people such as Phillips from the sword does not undermine the valid purposes of antidiscrimination law - eliminating the public effects of anti-gay bigotry - because support for conjugal marriage isn't anti-gay. Protecting freedom here sends no message about the supposed inferiority of those identifying as gay; it sends no message about sexual orientation at all. It does say that citizens who support the historic understanding of sex and marriage are not bigots. It ensures their equal social status and opportunities. It protects their businesses, livelihoods, and professional vocations. And it benefits the rest of society by allowing these citizens to continue offering their services, especially social services, charities, and schools."
During oral arguments, Chief Justice Roberts asked the solicitor general of Colorado how the state would apply its antidiscrimination law to the particular case of a pro-bono Catholic legal organization serving the poor. He asked what its fate would be under the law if it withheld services for same-sex couples that they would provide for husbands and wives. "So Catholic Legal Services would be put to the choice of either not providing any pro-bono legal services or providing those services in connection with the same-sex marriage?" The Solicitor General replied: "I think the answer is yes, your honor."
Anderson concluded in his article with these thoughts:
"Catholic Legal Services, Catholic Charities, Catholic adoption agencies - and the faith-based social services of any religion that believes we are created male and female, and that male and female are created for each other - are at stake. A line of questioning on the comparisons to interracial marriage brought up the case of Bob Jones University, a school that lost its nonprofit tax status because it prohibited interracial dating and marriage. But do we really want to live in a country where acting on a belief about marriage that people have held throughout all of recorded history - that it's a union of male and female - is treated as the functional and legal equivalent of racism?
All of us should work to prevent such an outcome. Which is why Phillips need not have ended up in court. We must refuse to use antidiscrimination laws as swords to impose sexual orthodoxy on the nation. As Americans continue to disagree about sex, we must refuse to weaponize the redefinition of marriage. Even Justice Kennedy seemed alert to this this in oral arguments for Masterpiece. 'Tolerance is essential in a free society,' he said. But, he continued, 'It seems to me that the state in its position here has neither been tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips's religious beliefs.'
Anti-gay bigotry exists and should be condemned. But support for marriage as the union of husband and wife isn't anti-gay. Just as we've combatted sexism without treating pro-life medicine as sexist, we can combat anti-gay bigotry without treating Orthodox Jews, Roman Catholics, Muslims, Evangelicals, and Latter-day Saints as bigots.
Not every disagreement is discrimination. And our law shouldn't say otherwise."
[Reference: Ryan T. Anderson, "The Christian Baker Need Not Have Ended Up at the Supreme Court"]
IX. CONCLUSION
Matt Walsh wrote in a DailyWire article ("The Gay Couple In The Masterpiece Cakeshop Case Are Vindictive Bullies, Not Victims") on the day of oral arguments:
The First Amendment is on trial, not Jack Phillips. If Phillips loses, free speech is effectively finished in this country. If a Christian business owner can be forced by the state to create something that goes against his deeply held religious beliefs - beliefs shared by a majority of the world, by the way - then what function does the First Amendment really serve?
Phillips doesn't need the First Amendment when he makes a birthday cake. He doesn't need it when he cooks a batch of brownies. He doesn't need it when he's doing innocuous things that no one - not even the LGBT lobby - could possibly find offensive or upsetting. He needs it precisely when he's faced with the dilemma that Mullins and Craig presented. He needs it when he makes a decision, grounded in his religious convictions, which will be upsetting to a powerful group like the LGBT lobby. If he doesn't have it then, he doesn't have it at all.
If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the gay lobby, what next? If gays have a mystical right to force their fellow citizens to participate in their gay weddings, where does that right end? I'll tell you: it doesn't. If Phillips goes down, the churches will be next. And why not? If we've just established that gays are a special and superior class of human beings, and their desire for a cake decorated a particular way now must supersede everyone else's First Amendment rights, why should the churches be exempt? Indeed, if Phillips doesn't have the right to withhold his cake, why should the local priest have the right to withhold his church? He doesn't, in that case. He won't. Mark my words.
Phillips is not claiming any special rights. He is simply saying that he, like anyone, is entitled to use his artistic abilities in a way consistent with his personal and religious convictions. He doesn't want to advance a message he doesn't believe. It is his fundamental human right - not his Christian right, or his baker's right, or any other kind of right - to refrain. It is his First Amendment right.
When First Amendment rights are pitted against LGBT rights, First Amendment rights should always win.
Mullins and Craig, on the other hand, are saying that a special exception must be made for them, specifically, because they're gay. Notice how nobody is challenging (for now) Phillips' right to continue turning down Halloween cakes and divorce cakes and lewd bachelorette party cakes, etc. Mullins and Craig are arguing that their situation is different because they're gay. Whereas a man's love for Halloween does not entitle him to special privileges and protections, a man's sexual attraction to other men does. That's the argument. It's deranged, arbitrary, and un-American.
Let's be clear about the real victim in this situation. Phillips - the decent, hardworking Christian business owner, who employed members of his community and provided a valuable service - is the victim. He did not seek out this notoriety. He did not want to be at the center of a national controversy. He just wanted to make his cakes and live his life. He was a decent, normal man, living a decent, normal, inconspicuous life. Until Mullins and Craig walked in the door. Their behavior is this case has been truly despicable.
There were many bakeries they could have chosen. They just so happened to walk into the one bakery run by an openly devout Christian, asking for a flamboyantly decorated cake for their impending gay wedding. Was this just a coincidence? Did these two gay men accidentally stumble into the one bakery in Colorado that would refuse to make their cake?
Well, if that's the case, then their response to Phillips can only be described as psychotic. If all they wanted was a cake, and their request was completely innocent, and they truly did not expect to be turned away, then their behavior over the following five years is inexplicable and deranged to an unbelievable extreme. They have, by this version of events, spent half a decade angrily exacting revenge on a man because he didn't want to put gay-themed decorations on a dessert pastry. They have put their whole life on hold to pursue legal penalties against the guy who politely declined to adorn a cake with a rainbow and two plastic grooms. It's vengeful and spiteful to an unfathomable degree. These are possibly the pettiest human beings to have ever walked the face of the Earth.
OR, this was all calculated. They sought out Jack Phillips hoping to get exactly the response he gave them, and then they proceeded to use him as a pawn to advance their political agenda and destroy the rights of Christians in America. They are activists parading themselves around as an aggrieved and innocent married couple. I think this is the more accurate characterization. And it is entirely in keeping with how the gay lobby usually operates.
The LGBT community and the LGBT advocacy Left believes that religious freedom is a true threat to their "so-called" rights and it makes sense that they need to destroy the traditional notion that an individual has the right and the freedom in this country to exercise his or her religious beliefs outside of his or her home or church and even into the public square and marketplace. We all know that tolerance has never operated in both directions in the LGBT community.
Ben Shapiro wrote: "Freedom lives in the spaces where we acknowledge that we have no right to another's labor or approval." Freedom also lives in those spaces where we have no right to coerce one's conscience, to silence one's speech, or to require viewpoint compulsion. "Tyranny grows when we refuse to acknowledge those spaces."
Shapiro makes a dire prediction depending on the outcome of this case. "If Masterpiece Cakeshop goes the wrong way, the country will only grow more polarized. That's because religious people across America will be compelled to leave states in which anti-religious anti-discrimination regulations are promulgated, and move instead to red states. Red states will grow redder; blue states will grow bluer. The divide throughout the country will grow. And religious observance - and freedom of speech - will continue to wither on the vine."
If the Court renders an "opinion" that upholds the decisions of the lower courts and requires that Christians refrain from their deeply-held beliefs when it comes to products and services in the marketplace, then we have an America without freedom of speech or the free exercise of religion. Our once precious "Freedom of Religion," enshrined in the very first guarantee listed in the Bill of Rights, will be whittled away to mean only that individuals have the right to exercise their religion only while confined to their home and to their place of worship - that's all. And our absolute essential "Right of Free Speech," the very cornerstone of a free society and the most essential of tools to alert one another to abuses of government, will mean nothing more than speech that the government allows. We all know that if we are compelled by government to violate our conscience, and particularly the religious values that shape our lives and as we understand will further our communion with our Creator, and set us up for life eternal, then we live a life burdened by that conscience. America was founded on the very freedom to prevent that from happening. The Pilgrims and the Puritans settled Massachusetts on that very ideal.
Jack Phillips petitioned the Supreme Court for validation of our nation's founding principles. He believes that in America, a man like himself has the right to freely practice his religion (Free Exercise), the right to have his conscience shaped by his beliefs (the Right of Conscience), the right to live his life according to the dictates of his conscience, and the right to be free from government-compelled speech (Free Speech). He believes these rights are the cornerstone of our liberties. And he wants the Supreme Court to acknowledge and remind us - all of us - of this. The question is, will the Supreme Court agree with his vision of America.
Matt Walsh wrote: "Jack Phillips is an innocent man fighting for his right to live and work in peace, and in accordance with his faith. May his cause prevail, for his sake and ours."
- 2018 (new hair styke, March 8, 2018)
References:
Ryan T. Anderson, "The Christian Baker Need Not Have Ended Up at the Supreme Court," National Review, Dec. 7, 2017. Referenced at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454423/christian-bakers-refuse-bake-gay-wedding-cake-are-not-bigots [Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and the co-author of Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination]
Phillips v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Petition for Certiorari - http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-cert-petition.pdf
Transcript of Oral Arguments, Supreme Court - https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf
Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-556/opinion3.html
Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), dissenting opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-556/dissent4.html
Jack Phillips, "Here's Why I Can't Custom-Design Cakes for Same-Sex "Weddings, USA Today, Dec. 4, 2017. Referenced at: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/12/04/supreme-court-masterpiece-why-jack-phillips-wont-custom-design-cakes-same-sex-weddings-column/917631001/
Dennis Prager, "Tolerance Now Means Government-Coerced Celebration," Real Clear Politics, Dec. 17, 2013. Referenced at: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/12/17/tolerance_now_means_government-coerced_celebration__120970.html
Robert Barnes, "The Spurned Gay Couple, the Colorado Baker and the Years Spent Waiting for the Supreme Court," The Denver Post, Aug. 14, 2017. Referenced at: http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/14/colorado-gay-wedding-cake-case/
Emilie Kao, "4 Highlights from Christian Baker's Wedding Cake Case at Supreme Court," The Heritage Foundation, Dec. 6, 2017. Referenced at: http://www.heritage.org/religious-liberty/commentary/4-highlights-christian-bakers-wedding-cake-case-supreme-court
Jack Phillips video (In his own words) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qssajSYRPGU
Stephen A. Miller and Leigh Ann Benson, "Masterpiece Cakeshop v. CCRC: A Difficult Balance for Justices," The Legal Intelligencer," Jan. 11, 2018. Referenced at: https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/sites/thelegalintelligencer/2018/01/11/masterpiece-cakeshop-v-ccrv-a-difficult-balance-for-justices/?slreturn=20180123122736
Ben Shapiro, "One Of The Most Important Cases In Recent Supreme Court History Will Be Argued Tomorrow. Here's What You Need To Know," DailyWire, Dec. 4, 2017. Referenced at: https://www.dailywire.com/news/24267/one-most-important-cases-recent-supreme-court-ben-shapiro
Matt Walsh, "Walsh: The Gay Couple In The Masterpiece Cakeshop Case Are Vindictive Bullies, Not Victims," DailyWire, Dec. 5, 2018. Referenced at: https://www.dailywire.com/news/24333/walsh-gay-couple-masterpiece-cakeshop-case-are-matt-walsh
Adam Liptak, "Justices Sharply Divided in Gay Rights Case," NY Times, Dec. 5, 2017. Referenced at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/us/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-cake.html
Go Back
During oral arguments, Chief Justice Roberts asked the solicitor general of Colorado how the state would apply its antidiscrimination law to the particular case of a pro-bono Catholic legal organization serving the poor. He asked what its fate would be under the law if it withheld services for same-sex couples that they would provide for husbands and wives. "So Catholic Legal Services would be put to the choice of either not providing any pro-bono legal services or providing those services in connection with the same-sex marriage?" The Solicitor General replied: "I think the answer is yes, your honor."
Anderson concluded in his article with these thoughts:
"Catholic Legal Services, Catholic Charities, Catholic adoption agencies - and the faith-based social services of any religion that believes we are created male and female, and that male and female are created for each other - are at stake. A line of questioning on the comparisons to interracial marriage brought up the case of Bob Jones University, a school that lost its nonprofit tax status because it prohibited interracial dating and marriage. But do we really want to live in a country where acting on a belief about marriage that people have held throughout all of recorded history - that it's a union of male and female - is treated as the functional and legal equivalent of racism?
All of us should work to prevent such an outcome. Which is why Phillips need not have ended up in court. We must refuse to use antidiscrimination laws as swords to impose sexual orthodoxy on the nation. As Americans continue to disagree about sex, we must refuse to weaponize the redefinition of marriage. Even Justice Kennedy seemed alert to this this in oral arguments for Masterpiece. 'Tolerance is essential in a free society,' he said. But, he continued, 'It seems to me that the state in its position here has neither been tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips's religious beliefs.'
Anti-gay bigotry exists and should be condemned. But support for marriage as the union of husband and wife isn't anti-gay. Just as we've combatted sexism without treating pro-life medicine as sexist, we can combat anti-gay bigotry without treating Orthodox Jews, Roman Catholics, Muslims, Evangelicals, and Latter-day Saints as bigots.
Not every disagreement is discrimination. And our law shouldn't say otherwise."
[Reference: Ryan T. Anderson, "The Christian Baker Need Not Have Ended Up at the Supreme Court"]
IX. CONCLUSION
Matt Walsh wrote in a DailyWire article ("The Gay Couple In The Masterpiece Cakeshop Case Are Vindictive Bullies, Not Victims") on the day of oral arguments:
The First Amendment is on trial, not Jack Phillips. If Phillips loses, free speech is effectively finished in this country. If a Christian business owner can be forced by the state to create something that goes against his deeply held religious beliefs - beliefs shared by a majority of the world, by the way - then what function does the First Amendment really serve?
Phillips doesn't need the First Amendment when he makes a birthday cake. He doesn't need it when he cooks a batch of brownies. He doesn't need it when he's doing innocuous things that no one - not even the LGBT lobby - could possibly find offensive or upsetting. He needs it precisely when he's faced with the dilemma that Mullins and Craig presented. He needs it when he makes a decision, grounded in his religious convictions, which will be upsetting to a powerful group like the LGBT lobby. If he doesn't have it then, he doesn't have it at all.
If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the gay lobby, what next? If gays have a mystical right to force their fellow citizens to participate in their gay weddings, where does that right end? I'll tell you: it doesn't. If Phillips goes down, the churches will be next. And why not? If we've just established that gays are a special and superior class of human beings, and their desire for a cake decorated a particular way now must supersede everyone else's First Amendment rights, why should the churches be exempt? Indeed, if Phillips doesn't have the right to withhold his cake, why should the local priest have the right to withhold his church? He doesn't, in that case. He won't. Mark my words.
Phillips is not claiming any special rights. He is simply saying that he, like anyone, is entitled to use his artistic abilities in a way consistent with his personal and religious convictions. He doesn't want to advance a message he doesn't believe. It is his fundamental human right - not his Christian right, or his baker's right, or any other kind of right - to refrain. It is his First Amendment right.
When First Amendment rights are pitted against LGBT rights, First Amendment rights should always win.
Mullins and Craig, on the other hand, are saying that a special exception must be made for them, specifically, because they're gay. Notice how nobody is challenging (for now) Phillips' right to continue turning down Halloween cakes and divorce cakes and lewd bachelorette party cakes, etc. Mullins and Craig are arguing that their situation is different because they're gay. Whereas a man's love for Halloween does not entitle him to special privileges and protections, a man's sexual attraction to other men does. That's the argument. It's deranged, arbitrary, and un-American.
Let's be clear about the real victim in this situation. Phillips - the decent, hardworking Christian business owner, who employed members of his community and provided a valuable service - is the victim. He did not seek out this notoriety. He did not want to be at the center of a national controversy. He just wanted to make his cakes and live his life. He was a decent, normal man, living a decent, normal, inconspicuous life. Until Mullins and Craig walked in the door. Their behavior is this case has been truly despicable.
There were many bakeries they could have chosen. They just so happened to walk into the one bakery run by an openly devout Christian, asking for a flamboyantly decorated cake for their impending gay wedding. Was this just a coincidence? Did these two gay men accidentally stumble into the one bakery in Colorado that would refuse to make their cake?
Well, if that's the case, then their response to Phillips can only be described as psychotic. If all they wanted was a cake, and their request was completely innocent, and they truly did not expect to be turned away, then their behavior over the following five years is inexplicable and deranged to an unbelievable extreme. They have, by this version of events, spent half a decade angrily exacting revenge on a man because he didn't want to put gay-themed decorations on a dessert pastry. They have put their whole life on hold to pursue legal penalties against the guy who politely declined to adorn a cake with a rainbow and two plastic grooms. It's vengeful and spiteful to an unfathomable degree. These are possibly the pettiest human beings to have ever walked the face of the Earth.
OR, this was all calculated. They sought out Jack Phillips hoping to get exactly the response he gave them, and then they proceeded to use him as a pawn to advance their political agenda and destroy the rights of Christians in America. They are activists parading themselves around as an aggrieved and innocent married couple. I think this is the more accurate characterization. And it is entirely in keeping with how the gay lobby usually operates.
The LGBT community and the LGBT advocacy Left believes that religious freedom is a true threat to their "so-called" rights and it makes sense that they need to destroy the traditional notion that an individual has the right and the freedom in this country to exercise his or her religious beliefs outside of his or her home or church and even into the public square and marketplace. We all know that tolerance has never operated in both directions in the LGBT community.
Ben Shapiro wrote: "Freedom lives in the spaces where we acknowledge that we have no right to another's labor or approval." Freedom also lives in those spaces where we have no right to coerce one's conscience, to silence one's speech, or to require viewpoint compulsion. "Tyranny grows when we refuse to acknowledge those spaces."
Shapiro makes a dire prediction depending on the outcome of this case. "If Masterpiece Cakeshop goes the wrong way, the country will only grow more polarized. That's because religious people across America will be compelled to leave states in which anti-religious anti-discrimination regulations are promulgated, and move instead to red states. Red states will grow redder; blue states will grow bluer. The divide throughout the country will grow. And religious observance - and freedom of speech - will continue to wither on the vine."
If the Court renders an "opinion" that upholds the decisions of the lower courts and requires that Christians refrain from their deeply-held beliefs when it comes to products and services in the marketplace, then we have an America without freedom of speech or the free exercise of religion. Our once precious "Freedom of Religion," enshrined in the very first guarantee listed in the Bill of Rights, will be whittled away to mean only that individuals have the right to exercise their religion only while confined to their home and to their place of worship - that's all. And our absolute essential "Right of Free Speech," the very cornerstone of a free society and the most essential of tools to alert one another to abuses of government, will mean nothing more than speech that the government allows. We all know that if we are compelled by government to violate our conscience, and particularly the religious values that shape our lives and as we understand will further our communion with our Creator, and set us up for life eternal, then we live a life burdened by that conscience. America was founded on the very freedom to prevent that from happening. The Pilgrims and the Puritans settled Massachusetts on that very ideal.
Jack Phillips petitioned the Supreme Court for validation of our nation's founding principles. He believes that in America, a man like himself has the right to freely practice his religion (Free Exercise), the right to have his conscience shaped by his beliefs (the Right of Conscience), the right to live his life according to the dictates of his conscience, and the right to be free from government-compelled speech (Free Speech). He believes these rights are the cornerstone of our liberties. And he wants the Supreme Court to acknowledge and remind us - all of us - of this. The question is, will the Supreme Court agree with his vision of America.
Matt Walsh wrote: "Jack Phillips is an innocent man fighting for his right to live and work in peace, and in accordance with his faith. May his cause prevail, for his sake and ours."
- 2018 (new hair styke, March 8, 2018)
References:
Ryan T. Anderson, "The Christian Baker Need Not Have Ended Up at the Supreme Court," National Review, Dec. 7, 2017. Referenced at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454423/christian-bakers-refuse-bake-gay-wedding-cake-are-not-bigots [Ryan T. Anderson is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and the co-author of Debating Religious Liberty and Discrimination]
Phillips v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Petition for Certiorari - http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-cert-petition.pdf
Transcript of Oral Arguments, Supreme Court - https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf
Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-556/opinion3.html
Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), dissenting opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-556/dissent4.html
Jack Phillips, "Here's Why I Can't Custom-Design Cakes for Same-Sex "Weddings, USA Today, Dec. 4, 2017. Referenced at: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/12/04/supreme-court-masterpiece-why-jack-phillips-wont-custom-design-cakes-same-sex-weddings-column/917631001/
Dennis Prager, "Tolerance Now Means Government-Coerced Celebration," Real Clear Politics, Dec. 17, 2013. Referenced at: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/12/17/tolerance_now_means_government-coerced_celebration__120970.html
Robert Barnes, "The Spurned Gay Couple, the Colorado Baker and the Years Spent Waiting for the Supreme Court," The Denver Post, Aug. 14, 2017. Referenced at: http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/14/colorado-gay-wedding-cake-case/
Emilie Kao, "4 Highlights from Christian Baker's Wedding Cake Case at Supreme Court," The Heritage Foundation, Dec. 6, 2017. Referenced at: http://www.heritage.org/religious-liberty/commentary/4-highlights-christian-bakers-wedding-cake-case-supreme-court
Jack Phillips video (In his own words) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qssajSYRPGU
Stephen A. Miller and Leigh Ann Benson, "Masterpiece Cakeshop v. CCRC: A Difficult Balance for Justices," The Legal Intelligencer," Jan. 11, 2018. Referenced at: https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/sites/thelegalintelligencer/2018/01/11/masterpiece-cakeshop-v-ccrv-a-difficult-balance-for-justices/?slreturn=20180123122736
Ben Shapiro, "One Of The Most Important Cases In Recent Supreme Court History Will Be Argued Tomorrow. Here's What You Need To Know," DailyWire, Dec. 4, 2017. Referenced at: https://www.dailywire.com/news/24267/one-most-important-cases-recent-supreme-court-ben-shapiro
Matt Walsh, "Walsh: The Gay Couple In The Masterpiece Cakeshop Case Are Vindictive Bullies, Not Victims," DailyWire, Dec. 5, 2018. Referenced at: https://www.dailywire.com/news/24333/walsh-gay-couple-masterpiece-cakeshop-case-are-matt-walsh
Adam Liptak, "Justices Sharply Divided in Gay Rights Case," NY Times, Dec. 5, 2017. Referenced at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/us/politics/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-cake.html
Comments
|
Hello Antoinette, Hello Stan,
We need to get away from the mindset that the Supreme Court has the power to render decisions that are correct and that MUST be respected and enforced. As we all know, the federal judiciary, just like the other two branches of the federal government, occasionally abuses its power and interprets the Constitution incorrectly [usually for three reasons: (1) to give the federal government more power, as the government always believes it needs more power; (2) to make law from the bench when Congress refuses to do so; or (3) to effect the social change that voters are unwilling to vote for, or to effect it faster]. All of these reasons are unconstitutional. Technically, legally, constitutionally, an act of government (legislative, executive, or judicial) made in excess or abuse of delegated authority is null and void, and unenforceable. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and NC's James Iredell made this point very clear. The problem is this: The States and We the People give in. In the post-Lincoln era, in the post-Civil War era, the reigning sentiment is that the federal government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants to, and to whoever it wants. Government knows best. "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." (attributable to Thomas Jefferson, although it is said that no one can actually find that statement among his papers). I am VERY critical of the Supreme Court and have written many articles on Judicial Activism and the many decisions from the federal courts that are clearly unconstitutional. In fact, I wrote a recent article (March 201  on the Obergefell v. Hodges decision (which is the gay marriage decision, emphasizing the dissenting opinions of the 4 conservative justices - Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts - to prove that the decision is unconstitutional. Each explains WHY the decision is unconstitutional. The article is titled "OBERGEFELL v. HODGES: An Example of the Very Real Tendency of the Federal Courts to Render Unconstitutional Opinions," and can be found on my blogsite - www.forloveofgodandcountry.com. The direct link to the article is here:forloveofgodandcountry.com In the Phillips case, I'm pretty sure Kennedy will side with the conservatives. The conservatives do NOT analogize the plight and the discrimination of gays and lesbians to that of African-Americans during the Jim Crow and anti-civil rights era, thank God. You are absolutely right that the analogy is intellectually dishonest and fatally flawed. I think Kennedy will side with the conservatives for 2 reasons: (1) The Obergefell v. Hodges decision, written by Kennedy himself, made it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, that people who have deeply-held religious beliefs about the definition of marriage must be respected and tolerated. (The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, as well as Colorado's Solicitor General, should have shown discretion according to the Obergefell case and recognized an exception to the Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), just as it recognized exceptions for atheists, Muslims, and African-Americans; and (2) Kennedy made it clear through his questioning that "tolerance goes two ways" and that the homosexual couple, as well as the state of Colorado, were completely intolerance of the Christian baker, Jack Phillips. In fact, Kennedy pointed out that the Commission went out of its way to punish and prosecute Phillips. Thanks for your wonderful comments. Diane Rufino |
|
Well said: Wonderful summary of an outstanding summary.
I pray that this Supreme Court will understand that the rights of all people are at stake here; not just those of this extra-protected class. |
|
This is an excellent article laying out the facts and outcomes depending on how the SCOTUS rules in this case. To be quite honest, I don't think they have what it takes to render a just decision in this case because they either don't understand the full ramifications of a ruling against the baker, or they are unwilling to put their own political activism and bias aside to advance an agenda that will challenge the truth. I say this because I listened to the Oral Argument and surprisingly the justices kept comparing race to homosexuality as if they are equal and that is false. One is an immutable trait and the other is behavioral. They kept making the mistake again and again. This is also a court that found a right to same sex marriage in the Constitution when it is not even remotely part of the Constitution. I think they want Christians to be just as deceived as they are but that is not going to happen. Christianity is all about the truth and The People must hold SCOTUS accountable to the truth if they try to force people to accept lies as truth. I think at least five of the justices should be impeached for lying to America.
|
| Local Author's Book Huge Success Among Area Residents | Local News & Expression, Editorials, For Love of God and Country, Op-Ed & Politics | A Time to Be Still |
Home
Contact
About
Service Rates
Privacy Policy
Follow on Facebook
Subscribe to Newsletters
Rss Feed
Keywords
Eastern NC Now & ENC NOW © Copyright 1998-2024 All Rights Reserved.
Come to think on it, that should take a rather long post indeed.