Discussion:
This Is a Fight for the First Amendment, Not against Gay Marriage
Add Reply
Leroy N. Soetoro
2017-07-01 21:31:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449135/scotus-christian-bakers-gay-
weddings

No, the Supreme Court is not revisiting gay rights.

This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Masterpiece
Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, the man who refused to create a specialty
wedding cake for a same-sex couple in Colorado in 2012. The stories that
are dominating the coverage distort the public’s understanding of the case
and its serious implications.

For one thing, no matter how many times people repeat it, the case isn’t
about discrimination or challenging gay marriage. But when the news first
broke, USA Today tweeted, “The Supreme Court has agreed to reopen the
national debate over same-sex marriage.” The headline (like the story) on
the website was worse; it read, “Supreme Court will hear religious liberty
challenge to gay weddings.” Others similarly framed the case. (And don’t
worry, “religious liberty” is almost always solidly ensconced inside
quotation marks to indicate that social conservatives are just using it as
a façade.)

There is an impulse to frame every issue as a clash between the tolerant
and the closed-minded. But the Masterpiece case doesn’t challenge,
undermine, or relitigate same-sex marriage in America. Gay marriage wasn’t
even legal in Colorado when this incident occurred.

There is an impulse to frame every issue as a clash between the tolerant
and the closed-minded. But the Masterpiece case doesn’t challenge,
undermine, or relitigate same-sex marriage in America. Gay marriage wasn’t
even legal in Colorado when this incident occurred.

Therefore, the Associated Press’s headline, “Supreme Court to Decide If
Baker Can Refuse Gay Couple Wedding Cake,” and the accompanying story are
also wrong. As is the New York Times headline “Justices to Hear Case on
Baker’s Refusal to Serve Gay Couple,” which was later changed to the even
worse headline “Justices to Hear Case on Religious Objections to Same-Sex
Marriage.”

A person with only passing interest in this case might be led to believe
that Phillips is fighting to hang a “No Gays Allowed” sign in his shop. In
truth, he never refused to serve a gay couple. He didn’t even really
refuse to sell David Mullins and Charlie Craig a wedding cake. They could
have bought without incident. Everything in his shop was available to gays
and straights and anyone else who walked in his door. What Phillips did
was refuse to use his skills to design and bake a unique cake for a gay
wedding. Phillips didn’t query about anyone’s sexual orientation. It was
the Colorado Civil Rights Commission that took it upon itself to peer into
Phillips’s soul, indict him, and destroy his business over a thought
crime.

Like many other bakers, florists, photographers, and musicians — and
millions of other Christians — Phillips holds genuine longstanding
religious convictions. If Mullins and Craig had demanded that Phillips
create an erotic-themed cake, the baker would have similarly refused for
religious reasons, just as he had with other customers. If a couple had
asked him to design a specialty cake that read “Congrats on the abortion,
Jenny!” I’m certain he would have refused them as well, even though
abortions are legal. It’s not the people; it’s the message.

In its tortured decision, the Colorado Court of Appeals admitted as much,
contending that while Phillips didn’t overtly discriminate against the
couple, “the act of same-sex marriage is closely correlated to Craig’s and
Mullins’s sexual orientation,” so it could divine his real intentions.

The state can substantially burden a Christian because he’s hurt the wrong
person’s feelings.

In other words, the threshold for denying religious liberty and free
expression is the presence of advocacy or a political opinion that
conflates with faith. The court has effectively tasked itself with
determining when religion is allowed to matter to you. Or, in other words,
if SCOTUS upholds the lower-court ruling, it will empower unelected civil-
rights commissions — which are typically stacked with hard-left
authoritarians — to decide when your religious actions are appropriate.

How could any honest person believe this was the Constitution’s intent?
There was a time, I’m told, when the state wouldn’t substantially burden
religious exercise and would use the least restrictive means to further
compelling interests. Today, the state can substantially burden a
Christian because he’s hurt the wrong person’s feelings.

Judging from the e-mails and social-media reactions I’ve gotten regarding
this case, people are instinctively antagonistic not only because of the
players involved but also because they don’t understand the facts. In this
era of identity politics, some have been programmed to reflexively side
with the person making accusations of status-based discrimination, all in
an effort to empower the state to coerce a minority of people to see the
world their way.

Well, not all people. In 2014, a Christian activist named William Jack
went to a Colorado bakery and requested two cakes in the shape of a Bible,
one to be decorated with the Bible verses “God hates sin. Psalm 45:7” and
“Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22,” and the other cake
to be decorated with another passage. The bakery refused. Even though
Christians are a protected group, the Colorado Civil Rights Division threw
out the case. The American Civil Liberties Union called the passages
“obscenities.” I guess the Bible doesn’t “correlate” closely enough with a
Christian’s identity.

Or perhaps we’ve finally established a state religion in this country: one
run on the dogma of “social justice.”
--
Donald J. Trump, 304 electoral votes to 227, defeated compulsive liar in
denial Hillary Rodham Clinton on December 19th, 2016. The clown car
parade of the democrat party has run out of gas.

Congratulations President Trump. Thank you for ending the disaster of the
Obama presidency.

Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp.

ObamaCare is a total 100% failure and no lie that can be put forth by its
supporters can dispute that.

Obama jobs, the result of ObamaCare. 12-15 working hours a week at minimum
wage, no benefits and the primary revenue stream for ObamaCare. It can't
be funded with money people don't have, yet liberals lie about how great
it is.

Obama increased total debt from $10 trillion to $20 trillion in the eight
years he was in office, and sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood queer
liberal democrat donors.
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-07-02 00:03:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449135/scotus-christian-bakers-gay-
weddings
No, the Supreme Court is not revisiting gay rights.
This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Masterpiece
Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, the man who refused to create a specialty
wedding cake for a same-sex couple in Colorado in 2012. The stories that
are dominating the coverage distort the public’s understanding of the case
and its serious implications.
For one thing, no matter how many times people repeat it, the case isn’t
about discrimination or challenging gay marriage. But when the news first
broke, USA Today tweeted, “The Supreme Court has agreed to reopen the
national debate over same-sex marriage.” The headline (like the story) on
the website was worse; it read, “Supreme Court will hear religious liberty
challenge to gay weddings.” Others similarly framed the case. (And don’t
worry, “religious liberty” is almost always solidly ensconced inside
quotation marks to indicate that social conservatives are just using it as
a façade.)
There is an impulse to frame every issue as a clash between the tolerant
and the closed-minded. But the Masterpiece case doesn’t challenge,
undermine, or relitigate same-sex marriage in America. Gay marriage wasn’t
even legal in Colorado when this incident occurred.
There is an impulse to frame every issue as a clash between the tolerant
and the closed-minded. But the Masterpiece case doesn’t challenge,
undermine, or relitigate same-sex marriage in America. Gay marriage wasn’t
even legal in Colorado when this incident occurred.
Therefore, the Associated Press’s headline, “Supreme Court to Decide If
Baker Can Refuse Gay Couple Wedding Cake,” and the accompanying story are
also wrong. As is the New York Times headline “Justices to Hear Case on
Baker’s Refusal to Serve Gay Couple,” which was later changed to the even
worse headline “Justices to Hear Case on Religious Objections to Same-Sex
Marriage.”
A person with only passing interest in this case might be led to believe
that Phillips is fighting to hang a “No Gays Allowed” sign in his shop. In
truth, he never refused to serve a gay couple. He didn’t even really
refuse to sell David Mullins and Charlie Craig a wedding cake. They could
have bought without incident. Everything in his shop was available to gays
and straights and anyone else who walked in his door. What Phillips did
was refuse to use his skills to design and bake a unique cake for a gay
wedding. Phillips didn’t query about anyone’s sexual orientation. It was
the Colorado Civil Rights Commission that took it upon itself to peer into
Phillips’s soul, indict him, and destroy his business over a thought
crime.
Like many other bakers, florists, photographers, and musicians — and
millions of other Christians — Phillips holds genuine longstanding
religious convictions. If Mullins and Craig had demanded that Phillips
create an erotic-themed cake, the baker would have similarly refused for
religious reasons, just as he had with other customers. If a couple had
asked him to design a specialty cake that read “Congrats on the abortion,
Jenny!” I’m certain he would have refused them as well, even though
abortions are legal. It’s not the people; it’s the message.
In its tortured decision, the Colorado Court of Appeals admitted as much,
contending that while Phillips didn’t overtly discriminate against the
couple, “the act of same-sex marriage is closely correlated to Craig’s and
Mullins’s sexual orientation,” so it could divine his real intentions.
The state can substantially burden a Christian because he’s hurt the wrong
person’s feelings.
In other words, the threshold for denying religious liberty and free
expression is the presence of advocacy or a political opinion that
conflates with faith.
Nope. The threshold is whether the conduct you object to is closely
correlated with being gay (or straight, or black, or white, or
Christian, or Jewish), ...). Moreover, the same standard applies to
bakers who won't serve a gay wedding for secular reasons. So, religious
beliefs aren't being targeted.
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
The court has effectively tasked itself with
determining when religion is allowed to matter to you. Or, in other words,
if SCOTUS upholds the lower-court ruling, it will empower unelected civil-
rights commissions — which are typically stacked with hard-left
authoritarians — to decide when your religious actions are appropriate.
How could any honest person believe this was the Constitution’s intent?
There was a time, I’m told, when the state wouldn’t substantially burden
religious exercise and would use the least restrictive means to further
compelling interests. Today, the state can substantially burden a
Christian because he’s hurt the wrong person’s feelings.
Judging from the e-mails and social-media reactions I’ve gotten regarding
this case, people are instinctively antagonistic not only because of the
players involved but also because they don’t understand the facts. In this
era of identity politics, some have been programmed to reflexively side
with the person making accusations of status-based discrimination, all in
an effort to empower the state to coerce a minority of people to see the
world their way.
Well, not all people. In 2014, a Christian activist named William Jack
went to a Colorado bakery and requested two cakes in the shape of a Bible,
one to be decorated with the Bible verses “God hates sin. Psalm 45:7” and
“Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22,” and the other cake
to be decorated with another passage. The bakery refused. Even though
Christians are a protected group, the Colorado Civil Rights Division threw
out the case. The American Civil Liberties Union called the passages
“obscenities.” I guess the Bible doesn’t “correlate” closely enough with a
Christian’s identity.
Or perhaps we’ve finally established a state religion in this country: one
run on the dogma of “social justice.”
Pincher Martin
2017-07-04 19:18:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449135/scotus-christian-bakers-gay-
weddings
No, the Supreme Court is not revisiting gay rights.
This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Masterpiece
Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, the man who refused to create a specialty
wedding cake for a same-sex couple in Colorado in 2012. The stories that
are dominating the coverage distort the public’s understanding of the case
and its serious implications.
For one thing, no matter how many times people repeat it, the case isn’t
about discrimination or challenging gay marriage. But when the news first
broke, USA Today tweeted, “The Supreme Court has agreed to reopen the
national debate over same-sex marriage.” The headline (like the story) on
the website was worse; it read, “Supreme Court will hear religious liberty
challenge to gay weddings.” Others similarly framed the case. (And don’t
worry, “religious liberty” is almost always solidly ensconced inside
quotation marks to indicate that social conservatives are just using it as
a façade.)
There is an impulse to frame every issue as a clash between the tolerant
and the closed-minded. But the Masterpiece case doesn’t challenge,
undermine, or relitigate same-sex marriage in America. Gay marriage wasn’t
even legal in Colorado when this incident occurred.
There is an impulse to frame every issue as a clash between the tolerant
and the closed-minded. But the Masterpiece case doesn’t challenge,
undermine, or relitigate same-sex marriage in America. Gay marriage wasn’t
even legal in Colorado when this incident occurred.
Therefore, the Associated Press’s headline, “Supreme Court to Decide If
Baker Can Refuse Gay Couple Wedding Cake,” and the accompanying story are
also wrong. As is the New York Times headline “Justices to Hear Case on
Baker’s Refusal to Serve Gay Couple,” which was later changed to the even
worse headline “Justices to Hear Case on Religious Objections to Same-Sex
Marriage.”
A person with only passing interest in this case might be led to believe
that Phillips is fighting to hang a “No Gays Allowed” sign in his shop. In
truth, he never refused to serve a gay couple. He didn’t even really
refuse to sell David Mullins and Charlie Craig a wedding cake. They could
have bought without incident. Everything in his shop was available to gays
and straights and anyone else who walked in his door. What Phillips did
was refuse to use his skills to design and bake a unique cake for a gay
wedding. Phillips didn’t query about anyone’s sexual orientation. It was
the Colorado Civil Rights Commission that took it upon itself to peer into
Phillips’s soul, indict him, and destroy his business over a thought
crime.
Like many other bakers, florists, photographers, and musicians — and
millions of other Christians — Phillips holds genuine longstanding
religious convictions. If Mullins and Craig had demanded that Phillips
create an erotic-themed cake, the baker would have similarly refused for
religious reasons, just as he had with other customers. If a couple had
asked him to design a specialty cake that read “Congrats on the abortion,
Jenny!” I’m certain he would have refused them as well, even though
abortions are legal. It’s not the people; it’s the message.
In its tortured decision, the Colorado Court of Appeals admitted as much,
contending that while Phillips didn’t overtly discriminate against the
couple, “the act of same-sex marriage is closely correlated to Craig’s and
Mullins’s sexual orientation,” so it could divine his real intentions.
The state can substantially burden a Christian because he’s hurt the wrong
person’s feelings.
In other words, the threshold for denying religious liberty and free
expression is the presence of advocacy or a political opinion that
conflates with faith.
Nope.
Yep.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
The threshold is whether the conduct you object to is closely
correlated with being gay (or straight, or black, or white, or
Christian, or Jewish), ...).
Those are religious beliefs you just cited.

Religion is not color or sexual coding.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Moreover, the same standard applies to
bakers who won't serve a gay wedding for secular reasons. So, religious
beliefs aren't being targeted.
Lying secular shitbag!

Go eat some ass.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
The court has effectively tasked itself with
determining when religion is allowed to matter to you. Or, in other words,
if SCOTUS upholds the lower-court ruling, it will empower unelected civil-
rights commissions — which are typically stacked with hard-left
authoritarians — to decide when your religious actions are appropriate.
How could any honest person believe this was the Constitution’s intent?
There was a time, I’m told, when the state wouldn’t substantially burden
religious exercise and would use the least restrictive means to further
compelling interests. Today, the state can substantially burden a
Christian because he’s hurt the wrong person’s feelings.
Judging from the e-mails and social-media reactions I’ve gotten regarding
this case, people are instinctively antagonistic not only because of the
players involved but also because they don’t understand the facts. In this
era of identity politics, some have been programmed to reflexively side
with the person making accusations of status-based discrimination, all in
an effort to empower the state to coerce a minority of people to see the
world their way.
Well, not all people. In 2014, a Christian activist named William Jack
went to a Colorado bakery and requested two cakes in the shape of a Bible,
one to be decorated with the Bible verses “God hates sin. Psalm 45:7” and
“Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22,” and the other cake
to be decorated with another passage. The bakery refused. Even though
Christians are a protected group, the Colorado Civil Rights Division threw
out the case. The American Civil Liberties Union called the passages
“obscenities.” I guess the Bible doesn’t “correlate” closely enough with a
Christian’s identity.
Or perhaps we’ve finally established a state religion in this country: one
run on the dogma of “social justice.”
Loading...