A baker not wishing to be compelled to make a cake for a homosexual wedding might as well be a member of the SS according to Diann Rice a member of the hilariously misnamed Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Left merrily continues on its mission to stamp out every one of the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights in the name of tolerance:
“I would also like to reiterate what we said in the last meeting [on Mr. Phillips]. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust,” Ms. Rice said at the July 25 hearing.
“I mean, we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination,” Ms. Rice said. “And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use — to use their religion to hurt others.”
Jeremy Tedesco, ADF senior legal counsel, said in a statement that Ms. Rice’s comments reveal an “anti-religious bigotry” that “undermines the integrity of the entire process and the commission’s order as well.”
Go here to read the rest. Reductio ad Hitlerum was coined by philosopher Leo Strauss back in 1951. He noted that it was an associational fallacy tactic in argument which seeks to foreclose discussion and debate on a topic by linking it, no matter how tenuously, to Hitler. Ms. Rice’s ill concealed contempt for religious liberty that she hilariously associates with the Holocaust demonstrates that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission might wish to first make certain that their members have the foggiest notion about what civil rights are before attempting to hold others guilty of violating them.
Down that merry road…If a proprietor of a business refuses to allow anyone into her countenance and personal space, there can never be an informed consent contract for any exchange of goods or services. Every individual has a right to privacy to her countenance and personal space. If this liberty is denied by the state, then every individual citizen is a beast of burden to the state and a taxpayer without representation.
.
“Who am I to judge?”
.
I judge that I am the person who judges my soul. I am the person who is conceived in liberty. I am the person who is denied his existence by atheism. How can I exercise my freedom when the atheist refuses to acknowledge my existence in body and soul with conscience and free will? If my conscience is negated, how then, can I exercise my free will to acknowledge my Creator, my talent, ability or desire to love my neighbor? Such judgment by the atheist is unconstitutional; …“or prohibit the free exercise thereof”.
.
The individual must be allowed to define who he is and how he will proceed with his salvation. Atheists do not believe in salvation or God, for that matter, so why should the atheist care about my salvation when he has discarded his? The atheist has devoured his children and now the atheist is seeking to devour my children.
.
The Patent leather relationship, or pseudogamy, as Athony Esolen describes gay-marriage, is a lie and perjury in a court of law. There is no legal power in heaven or on earth to define a woman as a husband or even a spouse to another woman, or a man as a wife or a spouse to another man.
Liar, liar, pants on fire…needs to be added.
“Freedon of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history.”
.
The only discrimination throughout history that freedom of religion and religion is used to justify is the denial of the human person as having a conscience, that faculty of a rational immortal human soul.
.
Atheism is unconstitutional. The atheist must be tolerated. Toleration of the atheist does not constitutionally include the atheist’s denial of the human person, with conscience, as citizen,…as taxpaying citizen. If Obama gives a non-taxpaying citizen the means to survive, Obama does not under any circumstance automatically own that person. The taxpayers support the survival of their neighbor as the taxes Obama is giving, still are owned by the taxpayer.
I guess from a legal perspective, it is a rather odd situation. Suppose your sincerely held religious belief is that a second marriage after divorce where the first marriage has not been annulled and the first spouse is alive is not a valid marriage. Yet, it is a legally sanctioned marriage. Should you be able to decline baking a wedding cake for the second marriage based upon religious objection to the second marriage? Or even if you object that marriages outside the Church are nothing more than secularly solemnized fornication? Personally, I believe you should be able to object, but legally, I am not sure. Granted, I am not that well versed in the latest anti-discrimination jurisprudence.
I guess that argument for a baker objecting to a “gay marriage” might be stronger if said baker is consistent in his religious objection practices.
“Should you be able to decline baking a wedding cake for the second marriage based upon religious objection to the second marriage? Or even if you object that marriages outside the Church are nothing more than secularly solemnized fornication?”
Yes, for two reasons. First, religious freedom is one of our highest freedoms as indicated by its presence in the First Amendment and it should be accommodated whenever possible. When a service is being rendered that could easily be supplied by many other vendors, there is no reason to compel the vendor to compromise his beliefs, since there is no rational basis to do so except in order to punish him for those beliefs. That should never be the objective of the government in this country, and that is precisely what is going on in these type of cases where a vendor faces fines and costs for not supplying a service or product that could be easily supplied by another vendor.
Miss Rice and all Cutural Marxists are what Isabel Paterson properly called Humanitarians With A Guillotine.
Yet, it is a legally sanctioned marriage. Should you be able to decline baking a wedding cake for the second marriage based upon religious objection to the second marriage?
==
It’s called freedom of contract, an essential component of a society which does not use labor in bondage. If the judges making these rulings want these people to have their bloody cakes, they can bake them themselves out of their own private resources.
The reason same-sex “weddings” are problematic whereas for the most part, adulterous male-female unions are not, is that the baker ordinarily has no interest in the specifics of the intended union, and has no reason or duty to inquire. However, in the headline making stories of same-sex events, the dear couple often make it a priority that the baker ( or wedding hall, or photographer) be well aware of what they are up to. And, considering the nature of wedding related businesses it would be hard in any event for the business owner not to know what he/she is being asked to participate in, at which point they have to make a decision of conscience; do I become a party to something that is gravely immoral or not? That likely will seldom be the case with other wedding scenarios.
Art Deco: “It’s called freedom of contract, an essential component of a society which does not use labor in bondage.”
.
“labor in bondage” would eradicate informed consent.
.
Our informed conscience tells us two things. 1) people are not owned by the state. 2) people have a right of privacy to repudiate, rebuff and repel invaders and trespassers. Since self-defense from coercion does not come from the state but comes from our personhood, if a business proprietor needs self-defense, it is the duty of the state to enable self defense for the proprietor. Declining an informed business contract because of coercion makes the nation free for all people.
.
chris c.: “That likely will seldom be the case with other wedding scenarios.” but if these scenarios becomes prevalent, will the adulterous couple have the legal ability to sue for their adulterous wedding cake, photos, etc.? I think not. In fact, the court will find for the proprietor.
Art Deco wrote, “It’s called freedom of contract, an essential component of a society which does not use labor in bondage.
Yet, the acts 1537 c 61 and 1587 c 91 oblige an advocate to plead causes whether he chooses or not if, in the one case a client and in the other the court, pleases to insist on it yet it is not believed that statutes were ever urged as inductive of slavery. Of course, “An Advocate in undertaking the conduct of a cause in this court enters into no contract with his client, but takes on himself an office in the performance of which he owes a duty, not to his client only, but also to the Court, to the Members of his own profession, and to the public…” (Batchelor v. Pattison & Mackersy (1876) 3 R. 914, 918)
Similar rules applying to innkeepers, carriers and other public callings are as old as the Prætor’s edict (Nautae Caupones Stabularii) [D 4. 9. 0]. Like the advocate, they hold themselves out as offering their services without special contract to anyone willing to pay a reasonable sum.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The statisttotalitarians running amuck here have nullified the words “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Our religion’s practice includes evangelizing the whole world, to paraphrase the Gospels and Ephesians, fearlessly proclaiming the mystery of the gospel to all nations. There is no pubic proclaiming if as the statisttotalitarians are attempting to enforce, if the exercise of religion is limited to proclaiming to others who already believe behind closed doors in our churches. And “Proclaimiing” is not simply speaking – we proclaim by our actions and our actions, to be virtuous, must be based on God’s Law, not the laws of any City of Man. Our forefathers guaranteed the free exercise of religion; our present rulers deny it. Guy McClung, San Antonio
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.” From Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Connecticut Baptist Church.
.
Thomas Jefferson placed his “wall of separation of church and state” after “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”…the First Amendment. Atheists are to be tolerated. Atheism is unconstitutional.
.
“Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience”.
“…the supreme will of the nation was recorded “in behalf of the rights of conscience”. This criminalizes the HHS Mandate which was added after Congress passed the ACA, never voted on by the people, imposing business regulations to incite mob rule; to incite invaders, to prohibit the self-defense of souls to keep their morals, nothing less than soul murder.
.
“I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”
.
“It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.”
Thomas Jefferson
.
The freedom to be American, “his social duties” and the freedom to be Catholic, “his natural right(s)” are not “in opposition”.
Guy McClung and Mary DeVoe.
God bless you both.
You have brightened this post.
One could say that your patriotism and love for God has flavored a tasteless pot of rice. Good on ya!
. If the service can be seen as not essential, can I turn away a customer if I don’t like the cut of his job?
.
How does this relate ( or does it) to sit ins at lunch counters
Ha- jib. Cut of his job…
.
But to the reductio point. – shaming is so powerful as long as the errant person accepts the same standards as the rest of society and struggles under judgment . But it doesn’t work when there is no judgment, no standards. No worst.
Yet, the acts 1537 c 61 and 1587 c 91 oblige an advocate to plead causes whether he chooses or not if, in the one case a client and in the other the court, pleases to insist on it yet it is not believed that statutes were ever urged as inductive of slavery.
—
We do not employ barristers in this country and I cannot figure why you would fancy anyone on this board would consider British guild law some sort of gold standard.
—
An attorney and counselor at law is not compelled to take civil cases, and a great many attorneys have specialized practices. There are jurisdictions which have assigned counsel plans in lieu of employing public defenders. Assigned counsel can be troublesome for the accused. Those are criminal cases where the accused is compelled to retain counsel; the only alternative is what amounts to mandatory pro se representation.
—
Unlike a criminal defendant, cake consumers are not under any compulsion, nor are they facing penalties more onerous than additional shopping time. As has been remarked in these discussions before, bakers are not monopolistic common carriers.
—
Again, prior to about 1946 in this country, the default state was freedom of contract. Southern states abused their merchants and consumers by mandating all sorts of rubrics be followed in the course of service provision. More generally, there were legal provisions which allowed for the placement of covenants on property deeds binding on prospective owners (though I think in some circumstances you could have them removed). We did not just chuck the state compulsion. Since the objects of restricted custom were an impecunious minority routinely subject to abuse by law enforcement and local rabble, it did not seem contextually injurious. It’s not that we were not warned that legal provisions of this sort could prove metastatic. Look up the work of Gottfried Dietze.
By the way, MPS, segregation laws were not antique, Russell Kirk’s imagination to the contrary. My great-grandfather practicing law in Tennessee was of an age to see the whole edifice erected and the early stages of it’s demolition. His son my great uncle was an adolescent during the last stages of its imposition and lived a generation after its demolition.
Art Deco wrote, “An attorney and counselor at law is not compelled to take civil cases”
Granted. The position of an agent [i.e. law agent or solicitor] is quite different from that of an advocate. There is a contract of employment between him and his client. The general rule may fairly be stated to be that the agent must follow the lawful instructions of his client (An advocate, by contrast, may conduct the cause without any regard to the wishes of his client, so long as his mandate is unrecalled). Accordingly, an agent can choose his clients.
The law agent does not hold himself out as willing to serve all comers without special contract. The advocate does, as does the innkeeper, the ostler, the ferryman, the cabbie. Now, the question is, are these special cases, or does the edict Nautae, Caupones, Stabularii embody a general principle of “common calling”? The analogy between the lunch counter and the caupo is pretty close.
Philip: “Good on ya!”
.
Good on ya, too. Honored to be on board.
.
Art Deco: “labor in bondage.” is slavery. Free will and the execution of conscience in man allows him to submit himself to Justice, to profess Justice, to be called “Justice”. It is like marriage, a wedding of realities.
.
Other professionals as bakers, cabbies, florists submit themselves to state regulations in Justice through the execution of free will and the execution of conscience. Imposing a deregulation on the exercise of conscience, evacuating conscience by the state regulation, here, is the problem. There are no vacuums in creation. Eliminating the free exercise of conscience denies the sovereign personhood of the individual citizen, who by his free will chooses to be and remain a citizen.
.
In fact, bakers and florists who choose to exercise their freedom of conscience are the only true citizens as the state by its very vice has annihilated itself.
.
In Justice, we, the people, deliver equal Justice. Equal marriage is not a duty of Justice. Equal personhood, equal citizenship is Justice. Those who demand equality of sodomy and the martial act cannot be serious. It has occurred to me that the state is using a faction of its people to impose tyranny over the mind of man. Brute force cannot contain the mind of man, nor his heart, nor man’s soul.
.
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Thomas Jefferson.
.
Again, equal Justice is not marriage equality. Marriage equality subsists in a man and a woman consenting to become a husband and wife as the child makes of a husband and a wife, a mother and a father. The Supreme Court is now being asked to redefine the human being, the whole human race, as having no conscience, nor free will, nor common sense.
Mary de Voe, Don’t know re: “whole human race”, but the majority of US voters, and alas the majority of US voters who call themselves “catholic” have proven over and over they have no common sense. All-have a fullofwonder weekend and God bless us, everyone. Guy McClung, San Antonio
Philip-right back at ya! Guy
Social Justice is giving a person what he needs to survive, a day’s wages to a day worker. When the vineyard owner gave a day’s wages to those whom he had hired at the end of the day, the vineyard owner was giving the day worker what he needed to survive until the next day. The workers hired earlier in the day thought that they would get more than the contracted amount and complained. The vineyard owner asked them why he had to answer to them for his generosity… because they begrudged the last hired workers what they needed to survive, they, they like the good son from the parable of the prodigal son who refused to rejoice but hugged his selfishness tightly to himself, ought to have been glad that the last hired workers were provided for and did not die on the way home bringing social guilt on all. That is social Justice: giving a man what he needs to survive and thereby sparing all of society for judgment at his death. Giving a man what he demands is not Social Justice. Giving a man what he demands only encourages delinquency, spoiled brattyness (sp) and chaos. Next he will come with an illegal gun.
If man cannot fear God, then let him fear the stocks.
.
Neither the vineyard owner nor the father of the prodigal son relented and gave in to the demands of either the complainers or the killjoy because by complaining they cast aspersions of unjustness on the vineyard owner and the father.
.
Meeting the demands of another are simply another way to enslave a free man.
Now, the gay agenda is to cast aspersions of unjustness on bakers, florist and photographers for not giving in to their demands. Equal Justice is not good enough for them they want equal marriage for not performing the marital act and without forming a union with the opposite sex. While the rest of us struggle to be good people, to love our neighbor as ourselves, the gay agenda incites perjury, (calling a man a wife or even a spouse is perjury in a court of law) character assassination and condemnation of everyone who cannot, in good conscience, cave to their demands.
.
If the court caves to the gay agenda and persecutes decent, honest, hardworking business men and women, the court will have inflicted social unjustness on all of society. Usurpation of the culture, language and law will not turn a man into a woman, or sodomy into the marital act.
.
So, the men opened the roof of the house and lowered the cripple man…to Jesus. Social Justice revisited.
Next slide down the slope?
How about the need to widen the field of prey. Look for lowering the consent age. Once the vipers get their fangs into so-called Marriage Rights it may not to far fetched to see a push to expand the marketplace. Pedophilia will be the next disorder to be reclassified as a lifestyle choice.
Well, this is one way to hasten the Day of the Lord. Let’s hope many will change their hearts and trade lust for life. Prayers are needed for all of us..humanity. These days are defining the masses. God be with us.
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” – Thomas Jefferson
.
to furnish funds or cakes, photos and/or flowers