Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
I'm not sure it matters what it was they were purchasing. What matters is that what they were asking, was interpreted by this man as contradictory to his religious views.
"Can you explain how ordering a cake from a baker is forcing ones beliefs on another?"
The courts are telling this guy that he must provide the cake, or face fines. The court is ordering this man to participate in that which violates his religious beliefs. I'm not sure I see how that's different from courts ordering Catholic OBGYN's to provide abortions. I'm not saying a cake is the moral equivalent of an unborn baby, I'm saying that these would both be examples of the government ordering someone to act in a way which violates their religion. If that's not a violation of the Freedom Of Religion, I don't know what is.
And remember I support gay marriage. But I also support the Bill Of Rights, and I don't like it when the courts pretend those protections don't exist when it serves their personal agenda to do so.
|
I agree with you that it is OBVIOUS the only party being forced upon in this dispute is the baker. Even if he were trying to convert the gays, which he wasn't, he wouldn't have been forcing them or "cramming" anything on them. While it is true the gays were also not forcing the baker to become gay, or even to tolerate or accept the "gay life style," they used the government to force him to their wishes or face a penalty.
Those who accept government mandates such as prohibition of discrimination by private citizens fail to see the problem of Constitutional "slippage." Or they don't care about it. And, after all, it only seems fair that we should not "discriminate." Even if we are forced not to. But the slippage has been happening, at first gradually, now quickly, over time, and various rights have slipped away with it. We have not noticed that what was once referred to as the "vast residuum" of rights beyond those in the Bill of Rights, we individuals once had possessed are now gone. We don't notice because it happened in pieces over time and only seemed to affect a few folks when government mandates backed by SCOTUS decisions forced a farmer here or there not to grow more than a certain amount of a crop, or a cheaper healthy alternative to whole milk during the depression era was eradicated because it competed with the dairy industry, or the thousands of little closures or restrictions of business were forced by the misuse of Commerce Clause, and transfers of wealth and creation of huge bureaucracies which imposed their will on the people were created by Commerce and Welfare Clauses. They happened bit by bit, with the announced purpose of helping us all to a better life. That was easy enough for us to say OK . . . that's good. The whole process has expanded to such a mass/mess that more and more are beginning to take note. We woke up one morning and were astounded to learn that we had to buy something, not for the privilege of receiving some right, but because the government wanted it so. Oh yeah, there was the usual rationalization about the public good. But the public was finally being told on a massive scale, not just a little here or there, that it could not decide its own good. Government would do that.
Oh yeah, Jim, we still have the Bill of Rights, don't we? Well, apparently we have not been noticing, those are slipping away as well. Amendments have been "interpreted" to mean other than they were intended. Most have little force if the government can get five judges to agree. The most sacred First and Second have been under assault for some time. And anti-discrimination laws have slipped from prohibition of government to prohibition of citizens from discriminating.
Your protection of speech and practice of religion have been severely assaulted by anti-discrimination laws. Once only government was prohibited from those discriminations. That has now crept into prohibition of individuals doing so in places of "public accommodation." What does that do to your first amendment rights? They have been narrowed. And as the drum beats for the continuous expansion of the concept of "equality" the definition of a place of public accommodation can very well, and probably will, expand. Do you accommodate public airwaves into your home? Do you receive letters and circulars into your home? So when you must accommodate the public as the government dictates, do you really own your business? Can you really own your property? If what you ostensibly "own" can be taxed and regulated at will, do you really own it. If you cannot freely have a right to your expression of speech in your public place because it "discriminates" against someone who enters who does have that right, do you really have freedom of speech? Oh, and there is something new called the "doctrine of government speech" which the court has conjured out of the usual thin air which can supersede your individual right to free speech when the two are in conflict. But that has not reared its ugly head in a major noticeable way for the larger public to notice. It may well do so down the road when the government needs to apply it in larger portions.
None of this bothers most folks. They don't notice it. Or don't care because it doesn't seem to affect them in any bad way . . . so far as they can tell. We're all busy working (most of us) and playing and don't want to be bothered by the little laws and such the government passes. We trust it's all for the good, and necessary.
I still find it hard to wrap around the idea that the federal government can force us to buy health insurance. I am certain the Founders would have thought that was cause for another revolution. But they would have thought that well before this. But so long as we think this is all for the good, we accept it . . . and the Constitution slips away.