It looks as though the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is finally going to hear about one of those cake controversies. Can a baker legally refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding or not?
If refusing to sell goods & services for a same-sex marriage celebration because of one’s personal beliefs should be illegal, then other similar refusals to other similar events should also be illegal, right?
I wonder if SCOUTS will ever hear the case of the black baker. Have you heard about it? It’s a doozy. A baker, who happens to be black, was asked to bake a nice white cake to help celebrate a successful rally for a local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. The baker refused to do it. Should he be punished?
The baker is a Christian and does not personally hate the Klan members or white people. He just does not want to be part of this celebration in any way. It’s not that the baker would never bake anything of any Klan member at any event. For example, if a Klan member was celebrating his or her birthday, he would gladly bake the birthday cake. It’s the meaning of a particular event that is the concern; the problem is the ideology behind the “successful Klan rally” and what it represents.
Actually, there is no black baker case that I know of (I made it up), but I suppose there could be such a case one day. The linked article above mentions the following about this kind of issue, “It’s about the rights of gay people to receive equal service in business and not be afraid of being turned away because of who they are. It’s about basic access to public life.”
But could we not say the same about anyone “being who they are” and having “access to public life”? How about a feminist photographer who won’t take pictures at a strip club event? Should she be punished? The photographer believes that strips clubs are immoral and does not want to patriciate in the event. If a particular stripper wanted a professional headshot photo done, the photographer would gladly do it, but nothing for the strip club event. Could we not say the strippers are just being who they are and the photographer is unjustly denying them public access to photographic services?
In the end, it’s about the principle, not the person. The difference is vast. The more our society accepts transcendent things, like right vs. wrong, as only opinions, the more we will accept a kind of soft tyranny where the government takes on the role of “moral compass”. Tragically, this false compass now tells us that homosexual inclinations and actions are part of ones intrinsic identity, just like race or gender.
They will tell us what is just and what is unjust, fair or unfair and you will comply or be punished. Religious liberty is a founding principle of the U.S. and watching its own citizens leading the charge against people of faith into this oppression may be the saddest part of the whole mess.
“The more our society accepts transcendent things, like right vs. wrong, as only opinions, the more we will accept a kind of soft tyranny where the government takes on the role of ‘moral compass’”
It won’t be soft tyranny for much longer. If Trump loses the Presidency in 2020, then it’ll become hard tyranny because after having lost in 2016, the vengeance of the liberal progressive feminist left will know no bounds. Employment will be predicated on signing at the dotted line that gay marriage and the right to choose are intrinsic human rights and must be protected. In a previous company such a training course was actually rolled out (at the time I was working in a German company – Europe is going to hell in a hand basket). The training course was computer based. Needless to say, I always “wrongly” answered the questions about gay marriage and the right to choose – it was obvious what the “right” answers were. I eventually gave up and the training course was retracted (at least here in the States). But it’ll happen. Mark my words. It’ll happen. We will be sued in the courts, our churches will be taxed, we will be maligned and marginalized at work, our annual performance reviews will decline, etc. Unless we toe the liberal line, there will be no room for us. Near the end (maybe in 10 years, maybe sooner) it’ll be jail time for being offensive and hateful to non-Christians. Eventually the Nazi and Communist solution will be imposed – execution to make examples of us.
Indeed, one person – a co-worker at a previous company – saw the Crucifix at my desk one time and asked me if I really believed Communion was Jesus’s Body and Blood. I immediately responded yes. He said that people who believe in such “myths” are deranged and should not work in nuclear power. His kind are coming to dominate in industry as more and more millennials indoctrinated by atheist Academia are arriving. They sincerely believe that pro-lifers praying outside abortion clinics are terrorists – I was told this by one of them. I explained what we did – simple Rosary and Divine Mercy prayers as we walked the sidewalk at the distance specified by the city permit we had to get to do a protest. The person told me that maybe I am non-violent but not the rest. That kind of attitude breeds civil war. And it reflects what every single atheist and agnostic millennial in my company thinks right now.
Whatever Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey might have intended, the body of anti-discrimination law has decayed into a series of tools for the legal profession to abuse merchants, landlords, and employers. It’s increasingly clear that the Democratic Party is the electoral vehicle of those occupational segments (the bar, the media, the faculty, the educational apparat, the mental health trade, and the social work apparat) who fancy the population is under their tutelage, who fancy that elected officials are a student council and they are the school administration. (Richard Posner makes this explicit). Free men earning a living with their skills, freely contracting with each other, and governing their families according to their lights is a vision foreign to them. Justice Thomas, I’ll wager, subscribes to this vision. Out of legal professionalism, I’ll wager Messrs. Alito, Gorsuch, and perhaps Roberts will accede to it. As for the rest, ha ha.
==
Re Anthony Kennedy, Thomas Sowell offered some years ago an account of a dinner he’d had in 1987 with friends who knew Kennedy personally (recall that Kennedy and Sowell were both then residing in the Bay Area). Per Sowell, they told him Kennedy was a man without a chest, quite other-directed and submissive to prevailing winds in the elite bar. He certainly seems to conceive of himself as the tribune of the homosexual population. The amiably cynical Steven Sailer has offered that you should look at the extended family of the Justices to understand some of their decisions; I assume there’s a pooftar in Mr. Justice Kennedy’s woodpile.
Lucius,
Why so optimistic? You’ll give readers a false sense of security. 😉
Ha! Ha! Point well made, Ben! 😉
Seriously speaking, though, Christ did say in Matthew 10:21-22
“Brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.”
While that statement was issued to the disciples as a partial foretelling of the persecution that they would receive under the pagan Roman Empire, it is nevertheless applicable to us today. If Jesus the Head of the Church went through His passion and crucifixion, then why would His Body the Church be exempt? In John 15:20 Jesus states:
“Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also.”
But in the end Jesus wins. Revelation 19:19-21 makes that very clear:
“And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who sits upon the horse and against his army. And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone. And the rest were slain by the sword of him who sits upon the horse, the sword that issues from his mouth; and all the birds were gorged with their flesh.”
DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT GOP REALLY MEANS,,,,if you were in the dc club you would know,,,,revisit the youtube LARRY CRAIG,,,BILL CLINTON NAUGHTY BOY,clip,,,then think about slade gorton,,,,bill frist,,,,trent lott,,,lindsey graham and their personae,,,,the joke is on you…..these sissies aren’t gonna stand up to the junk yard dog bullies of the democrat party,,,,jeff sessions always reminded me of a 60 year old cub scout, mcconnel and butch munster paul ryan,,,,,the only alpha male is trump and he is a new democrat not a populist dem or rep,,,but a corporate dem that ran against the maniac from park ridge illinois,,,,ALINSKY’S DAUGHTER,,,,you know she does look alot like saul’s offspring in her teen years photos,,,,how did she hook up with him…..hmmmmmmmm.
He said that people who believe in such “myths” are deranged and should not work in nuclear power.
Like the myth that a man can be woman by simple fiat? In a crazy world, it’s the sane person who appears deranged.
Should a Muslim cab driver be allowed to refuse service to a blind woman wearing a short skirt with a guide dog? No. Should LDS (or Muslims) be allowed multiple wives? No. Should girls be circumcised as part of some religious or cultural initiation (this supposedly cuts accross all cultures and religions.) No.
.
Religious freedom may be a founding principle, but if people have wildly different ideas about what is acceptable and moral/immoral and just, there are going to be major fights.
.
As I understand it, the Church pre-Vatican II was not too happy with the principle of religious freedom, but I do not understand all the theology and philosophy behind the pros and cons. All I see is that it does not appear to work anymore (maybe it never did), and we Christians are in quite a bit of trouble.
Should a Muslim cab driver be allowed to refuse service to a blind woman wearing a short skirt with a guide dog? No.
If he owns the cab or has a dispensation from his employer, yes.
Should LDS (or Muslims) be allowed multiple wives? No.
Marriage in law is about extending recognition, not liberty. (And, while we’re at it, neither Mormonism or Islam require polygamy).
Should girls be circumcised as part of some religious or cultural initiation (this supposedly cuts accross all cultures and religions.) No.
By whose choice?
Many Christians were martyred in Pagan Roman for refusing to offer a pinch of incense at Caesar’s alters to acknowledging him as god. Christianity was threatening when seriously believed.
Recently we have seen a senator, who claims to be a Roman Catholic, oppose the confirmation of a Judge for taking her Roman Catholic faith too seriously. I recall a Health and Human Resources Secretary, also a Roman Catholic, state that a Christian Physician who refuses to prescribe emergency contraception should not be practicing emergency medicine.
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has issued a statement that a gynecologist who refuse to perform an abortion is obligated to refer the patient to someone who will. The American Academy of Pediatricians has also weighed in favoring abortions for adolescence.
Although there is not the lethal persecution of Christians as we see in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, there are consequences for a Christian who opposes the Secular Humanist Agenda. An example is forcing Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor to purchase contraception insurance.
This is a crucial time in our history with an opportunity to slow the secularist agenda by changing the nature of the Supreme and Federal Courts through the appointment of conservatives. The margin needed to be able to continue appointing conservative Christians is razor thin. I’m suspicious of liberals who claim that they are moderates seeking compromise for the good of the nation. The contrast between the candidates is very clear in our Alabama election next week and I’ll be there when the poll site opens.
https://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Ethics/The-Limits-of-Conscientious-Refusal-in-Reproductive-Medicine
https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/AAP-Preserve-the-Rights-of-Confidental-Care-for-Adolescents-Seeking-Abortion-Services.aspx
Discrimination is defined as refusing to support another person’s right to life, to survive with food, clothing and shelter. Jack Phillips offered the sodomites anything and everything in his bakery, except his freedom to be compelled to say or do what is repugnant to him. It is self -defense since all contracts are made through informed consent of the free will of the soul. Inviting persons into the soul without vetting the harm can be dangerous to the innocence of the person. Self-defense is confirmed by the Second Amendment. Freedom from coercion is confirmed by the First Amendment: “or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” Sodomy is abuse. Our constitutional Posterity must be protected from indoctrination into abuse and addiction to lust.
“Discrimination is defined as refusing to support another person’s right to life, to survive with food, clothing and shelter.”
Partly right. Discrimination is infringing on a person’s right to life, liberty or his justly acquired property due to some special characteristic like race or cultural origin or religion or gender. Discrimination is NOT failure to provide food, clothing and shelter. It could be denial of access to those things (e.g., a person has money to buy food, clothing and shelter, but is denied due to race or cultural origin or religion or gender – that would be discrimination). But avoiding discrimination does NOT mean I must pay for my neighbor’s food, clothing and shelter (or health care as the USCCB seems to suggest). My neighbor is responsible for his own food, clothing and shelter; and I am responsible to stand out of his way.
Now that said, because of Christian charity I may be compelled to help a neighbor who is destitute in terms of food, clothing and shelter. That would constitute a corporal work of mercy. But the commandment for me to love my neighbor as myself does NOT give my neighbor a right to me providing him with food, clothing and shelter free of charge. My Christian duty and his human rights are two very different things. And these things need to be perfectly clear.
Attitudes toward and treatment of folks dealing with Gay/LGBT situations is likely still a hot-button topic. It’s good to see a reasoned and calm discussion of one aspect.
I think you’re right – – – but suspect that we will not see a truly reasonable legal system any time soon: in America or anywhere. We keep learning, though. Slowly.
I think you are right: the hypothetical baker’s willingness to bake a birthday cake for a Klan member, but unwillingness to help celebrate a Klan event is reasonable. There’s truth in the old cliche: hate the sin, love the sinner.
Sexual orientation issues isn’t one of my top topics, but I talked about it toward the end of this year’s Gay/LGBT month. Also good intentions and an less-inflammatory issue I deal with: http://brendans-island.com/catholic-citizen/renewed-and-expansive-hope/
“Like the myth that a man can be woman by simple fiat? In a crazy world, it’s the sane person who appears deranged.”‘
There is only neutering. Eunuchs have been around forever. The Emperor’s New Clothes have been neutered and those neutered have been deceived.
LQC: While it is incumbent upon a citizen to provide for the necessities of life for all persons, it is not incumbent to provide for another person’s choice of an alternate lifestyle, especially an alternate artificial lifestyle that is contrary to the common good as is the addiction to sodomy for our innocent constitutional Posterity. The obvious difference is that one is reality and good for the person, the other is only part reality. In the refusal to sublimate our natural humanity to “their Creator”, the sodomite refuses to render unto God anything but blame for his own choices to an alternate lifestyle. A same sex attracted person, or homosexual may be created by God. Descending into hell by the sodomite is not God’s will for him nor any other.
No person living in reality as Jack Phillips can be seduced into his own hell by the sodomite.
Discrimination against what is good for the sovereign person in all things is evil.
“But avoiding discrimination does NOT mean I must pay for my neighbor’s food, clothing and shelter (or health care as the USCCB seems to suggest). My neighbor is responsible for his own food, clothing and shelter; and I am responsible to stand out of his way.”
Here we have the principle of separation of church and state. This is important because here we have the reality of man’s conscience superiority over the state and even the church in his ability to participate.
Supreme Court.
I believe the definition of Supreme Court is important to the bakers debate.
The homosexuals belief is that the highest court, the Supreme Court, is going to make a decision on discrimination v. religious freedom relating to the so-called wedding cake.
The take from the Baker is different.
He has a belief that Supreme Court, the highest court, is not located in D.C., rather in an everlasting city, Heaven. Hence his decision.
Interestingly, the couple who disregard this concept of Heavenly Court are only interested in respect and acceptance of their union.
Even if that union becomes the fall of their eternal souls into an endless hell.
My guess is that SCOTUS will favor the homosexual couple. The baker however will be forever remembered as the man who gave God a voice, a reminder that our lives and ability to make a living are God’s gifts to us. His creativity, his artistic ability is rooted and correctly acknowledged as being from God. His testimony will survive the heat of the fire that will come. Our testimonials will help or harm us when all will be tested in the furnace of divine love.
The homosexuals that refuse God’s mercy and forgiveness, and proudly partake in sodomy, will find in the end that the Supreme Court only has one judge. Jesus Christ.
Matthew 10:32,33
“32Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. 33But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.”
God bless those who trust in the Lord.
To Mary De Voe:
“While it is incumbent upon a citizen to provide for the necessities of life for all persons, it is not incumbent to provide for another person’s choice of an alternate lifestyle.”
I emphatically agree that providing for an alternate life style is NOT incumbent on a person. Indeed, mandating that I must provide for another person’s choice of an alternate and sinful lifestyle infringes on my right to life, liberty and justly acquired property. But it goes further than that. Therefore, I repeat:
“But avoiding discrimination does NOT mean I must pay [perhaps I should say, ‘I must be coerced to pay’] for my neighbor’s food, clothing and shelter (or health care as the USCCB seems to suggest). My neighbor is responsible for his own food, clothing and shelter; and I am responsible to stand out of his way.”
Now yes, out of Christian charity we are responsible to love our neighbor as ourselves. But our neighbor (and each of us for that matter) has NO intrinsic “right” to that love (or to God’s love for that matter since His love is a free gift). Neither you nor government has ANY rightful authority to compel me provide for your needs because that steals from my life, liberty and / or justly acquired property, and hence infringes on my rights. But I may have a responsibility to voluntarily give to your for your need out of my ability.
You see (and this is related to a previous post by Ben Butera), the ONLY things we have a right to are life, liberty and our justly acquired property. That’s it. And God at His whim can take all of those away at any time He so desires. Fortunately for us, He is not given to such capriciousness. However, no man has any authority to take away another person’s life, liberty and justly acquired property. There is however an exception: punishment for a crime where one person infringed on someone else’s life, liberty or justly acquired property may result in removal of that person’s life, liberty or property.
There is way too much confusion here. Alternate sinful life styles are NOT rights. Choosing abortion is NOT a right. Homosexual marriage is NOT a right. In fact, I disagree with the whole idea of civil rights, women rights, minority rights, etc ad nauseam. Regardless of race, religion, cultural origin, age, even (God forbid!) sexual preference, a human being has ONLY three rights: Life, Liberty, Justly Acquired Property. Things like marriage are a sacrament and a responsibility. A man and a woman may by virtue of their right to liberty agree to marry each other. But while liberty is a right, marriage is not. A man and a man or a woman and a woman may NOT by virtue of their right liberty agree to marry each other because the inherent definition of marriage requires the two sexes able to procreate. It doesn’t matter what fiction same sex people create for themselves; they cannot marry and procreate period. Now on the other hand a man and a man or a woman and a woman by virtue of their right to liberty can enter into a mutual support contract with each other. But that isn’t marriage. And if they engage in sexual relations, then it’s sick and depraved.
Absolutely. I agree with you LUCIUS QUINCTIUS CINCINNATUS.
“But I may have a responsibility to voluntarily give to your for your need out of my ability.” But only if I am deserving. Undeserving individuals have forfeit their sovereign personhood through crime.
Discrimination against the vice of lust and the addiction to sodomy is a virtue and Patriotism. Unjust taxes for abortion, pornography and sodomy is extortion by the state.
Incumbency is what a sovereign person OUGHT to do. Extenuating circumstances often prevent a citizen from doing what he ought to be doing. For instance, If a prostitute throws herself at a gentleman, it is incumbent upon the gentleman to do what he can for the prostitute, but he may be rebuffed or even ridiculed. Give her money and lets say we did, (but did not). As an aside. I had considered going into the street when my husband left me with five little children and no means of support. My pastor, Father August Neuman counseled me. I learned that LOVE demands nothing in return. (like the Good Samaritan) I tell my children to go to heaven. I have an appointment in hell and I am bringing my pitchfork.
The sodomites have no claim to infringe on any person’s civil rights, innate, unalienable civil rights, endowed by “their Creator”. The Supreme Court has no authentic authority to infringe on any sovereign person’s conscience or freedom of religion. “or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” In the free will act of sodomy, the person deceives himself, the Court and the community and thereby encroaches on his sovereignty, even to forfeiting his sovereignty. That is why Justice Anthony Kennedy’s definition of “dignity” may be insufficient to define the so called rights of sodomites. The good will for the common good, our constitutional Posterity, does not inhere in sodomites. Homosexuality is an act of nature. Sublimation of our sexual tendencies are required in the discipline over ourselves that is called sovereignty. The sovereign person institutes the sovereign nation from conception to death. Those outlaws who forfeit sovereignty deconstruct our sovereign nation and pollute the community.
[…] The Case of the Black Baker […]