Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DennisTheMenace

Religious liberty falling to LGBT tyranny thanks to courts and GOP

Recommended Posts

Sexual-rights-vs-religious-rights-e14737

 

This is what happens when the republicans are in charge. 

 

One year ago, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Jack Phillips (Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission), a Christian baker who refused to bake a custom wedding cake for a homosexual couple, based on the grounds that doing so would violate his religious liberty.

 

Trumpservatives and the Fellowship of the Pharisees — my apologies if that sounded redundant — praised the decision as a victory for religious liberty, but it was nothing of the sort. The Court left the First Amendment question unanswered, and in the end, religious liberty was no safer than it was before the ruling. Even the ACLU was happy.

 

Writing for the majority, Anthony Kennedy confirmed this sad reality when he noted how the case had created a “difficult situation” between the LGBT agenda and its impact on religious liberty and how the issue “must await further elaboration” in the courts before being settled.

 

Since the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling, we’ve seen a little bit of what Kennedy’s “further elaboration” looks like, and let’s just say things haven’t been all that “difficult” for the anti-religious-freedom/pro-LGBT agenda.

 

Just weeks after Jack Phillips’ so-called victory, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission went after him again — this time for refusing to bake a “gender transition” cake for a transgender lawyer. Though this cake was recently dropped by mutual agreement, the mentally ill lawyer has filed a new lawsuit in Denver District Court making the same accusations.

 

A few days ago, the Washington Supreme Court ruled in favor of a homosexual coupleand against Barronelle Stutzman (Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers), a Christian florist who refused to created custom designed floral arrangements for their wedding based on the grounds that doing so would violate her religious liberty.

 

Due to the similarities with to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the SCOTUS vacated an earlier ruling made by the Washington court against Arlene’s Flowers and sent it back to the state for further review. But since the SCOTUS Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling focused more on state behavior than it did religious liberty, the Washington Supreme Court concluded the state didn’t engage in the same anti-religious behavior evident in Colorado, so it ruled as it did before.

 

While it remains to be seen whether the SCOTUS will revisit the Arlene’s Flowers case, any hope in the court is misplaced because, as the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling clearly proves, high court “victories” are rarely as they appear.

 

We should remember a few other facts concerning the judiciary. Despite McConnell’s claims to the contrary, Trump and the Republican Senate aren’t saving the courts. Brett Kavanaugh has become a solid ally of the leftist wing of the court, and recent decisions not to hear cases involving Planned Parenthood funding, gun rights (bump stock and silencer bans), and transgender bathrooms indicate the courts have become an unreliable defender of the Constitution.

 

The signs are everywhere that we’re living in a post-Constitutional America where LGBT tyranny is destroying religious liberty … and Republicans and the courts they claim to be “saving” are making it worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DennisTheMenace said:

Sexual-rights-vs-religious-rights-e14737

 

This is what happens when the republicans are in charge. 

 

One year ago, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Jack Phillips (Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission), a Christian baker who refused to bake a custom wedding cake for a homosexual couple, based on the grounds that doing so would violate his religious liberty.

 

Trumpservatives and the Fellowship of the Pharisees — my apologies if that sounded redundant — praised the decision as a victory for religious liberty, but it was nothing of the sort. The Court left the First Amendment question unanswered, and in the end, religious liberty was no safer than it was before the ruling. Even the ACLU was happy.

 

Writing for the majority, Anthony Kennedy confirmed this sad reality when he noted how the case had created a “difficult situation” between the LGBT agenda and its impact on religious liberty and how the issue “must await further elaboration” in the courts before being settled.

 

Since the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling, we’ve seen a little bit of what Kennedy’s “further elaboration” looks like, and let’s just say things haven’t been all that “difficult” for the anti-religious-freedom/pro-LGBT agenda.

 

Just weeks after Jack Phillips’ so-called victory, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission went after him again — this time for refusing to bake a “gender transition” cake for a transgender lawyer. Though this cake was recently dropped by mutual agreement, the mentally ill lawyer has filed a new lawsuit in Denver District Court making the same accusations.

 

A few days ago, the Washington Supreme Court ruled in favor of a homosexual coupleand against Barronelle Stutzman (Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers), a Christian florist who refused to created custom designed floral arrangements for their wedding based on the grounds that doing so would violate her religious liberty.

 

Due to the similarities with to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the SCOTUS vacated an earlier ruling made by the Washington court against Arlene’s Flowers and sent it back to the state for further review. But since the SCOTUS Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling focused more on state behavior than it did religious liberty, the Washington Supreme Court concluded the state didn’t engage in the same anti-religious behavior evident in Colorado, so it ruled as it did before.

 

While it remains to be seen whether the SCOTUS will revisit the Arlene’s Flowers case, any hope in the court is misplaced because, as the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling clearly proves, high court “victories” are rarely as they appear.

 

We should remember a few other facts concerning the judiciary. Despite McConnell’s claims to the contrary, Trump and the Republican Senate aren’t saving the courts. Brett Kavanaugh has become a solid ally of the leftist wing of the court, and recent decisions not to hear cases involving Planned Parenthood funding, gun rights (bump stock and silencer bans), and transgender bathrooms indicate the courts have become an unreliable defender of the Constitution.

 

The signs are everywhere that we’re living in a post-Constitutional America where LGBT tyranny is destroying religious liberty … and Republicans and the courts they claim to be “saving” are making it worse.

yes you are correct, they compromised the behavior into staying part of social results standing against natural displacement as a society thinking it conquered being spaced apart is only limited to existing now.

 

everyone follows the 24/7 rules rather than adapt or become extinct limitations of getting eternally sorted apart in biological order of the populaiton living in the atmosphere currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DennisTheMenace said:

The signs are everywhere that we’re living in a post-Constitutional America where LGBT tyranny is destroying religious liberty … and Republicans and the courts they claim to be “saving” are making it worse.

Well, I don't know about the signs being "everywhere".  Seems to me that the court ruled that the baker had been treated unfairly by Colorado, so that's one issue.  The SC has not yet definitively ruled on whether or not a bake shop that makes and sells wedding cakes can deny service to homosexuals.  The whole "I am an artist" thing has yet to be decided.  For now, the SC has opted to allow the lower courts to lay the groundwork.  

 

Ultimately they're not going to rule that a business can deny service to somebody based on their sexuality.  They're just not.  Where the "I am an artist" line gets drawn is up for debate, but it certainly doesn't protect selling somebody a standard wedding cake that you advertise for sale to the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, splunch said:

Well, I don't know about the signs being "everywhere".  Seems to me that the court ruled that the baker had been treated unfairly by Colorado, so that's one issue.  The SC has not yet definitively ruled on whether or not a bake shop that makes and sells wedding cakes can deny service to homosexuals.  The whole "I am an artist" thing has yet to be decided.  For now, the SC has opted to allow the lower courts to lay the groundwork.  

 

Ultimately they're not going to rule that a business can deny service to somebody based on their sexuality.  They're just not.  Where the "I am an artist" line gets drawn is up for debate, but it certainly doesn't protect selling somebody a standard wedding cake that you advertise for sale to the public.

 

If I remember correctly, the bake shop did not refuse to sell a "stock" cake...one that would be shown in a photo book at the shop for example (which could be done by any decorator on staff).  The baker simply refused to use his talent at cake decorations to create something unique.  I seems to me, that is a reasonable place to draw the "I am an artist" line.

 

If not, would you agree that a gay painter should be forced to create a painting of white supremacist taunting people in a "gay pride parade"?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

If I remember correctly, the bake shop did not refuse to sell a "stock" cake...one that would be shown in a photo book at the shop for example (which could be done by any decorator on staff).  The baker simply refused to use his talent at cake decorations to create something unique.  I seems to me, that is a reasonable place to draw the "I am an artist" line.

 

If not, would you agree that a gay painter should be forced to create a painting of white supremacist taunting people in a "gay pride parade"?

 

No, I think there is a line.  But you cannot decide not to sell a cake to somebody that you would sell to somebody else, something very much "stock".  I think you could probably refuse to add custom writing to the cake.  The courts will hash it out.  It will end up being a compromise between the rights of the consumer to not be discriminated against, and the right of the baker to not actively participate in something they are religiously opposed to.

 

Neither side would be happy with that, which is a good sign that you've done it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

If I remember correctly, the bake shop did not refuse to sell a "stock" cake...one that would be shown in a photo book at the shop for example (which could be done by any decorator on staff).  The baker simply refused to use his talent at cake decorations to create something unique.  I seems to me, that is a reasonable place to draw the "I am an artist" line.

 

If not, would you agree that a gay painter should be forced to create a painting of white supremacist taunting people in a "gay pride parade"?

 

That's a valid question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, impartialobserver said:

That's a valid question.

Yep.  That's why I responded.  I think the courts also will agree:  where that line gets drawn is the issue, and will deserve their attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the gay couple really wanted to make a statement, they would organize a boycott of Masterpiece. Going bankrupt hurts more than your opposition trying to make a villain out of you in the media. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

 People have a right to hate the sin but they're wrong to do so.  

 

Really?

 

So you embrace the sins of bearing false witness and adultery?  You condone those acts by Trump?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, impartialobserver said:

If the gay couple really wanted to make a statement, they would organize a boycott of Masterpiece. Going bankrupt hurts more than your opposition trying to make a villain out of you in the media. 

All well and good, but there are really areas where either there is only one baker, or where ALL of the bakers will declare their "Christianity" by refusing to serve a gay couple.  That's what the South was like for a black person trying to get a good job in 1960, for example.  There was no real chance that black people could simply "organize a boycott" of all of the places that were racist.   Those people thought that God wanted them to keep a boot on black folks' neck.

 

You can't just leave it alone always.  Sometimes people have to be reminded that they are NOT free to cut people out of the social fabric and just cite "religion" as an excuse and that makes it all okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, splunch said:

All well and good, but there are really areas where either there is only one baker, or where ALL of the bakers will declare their "Christianity" by refusing to serve a gay couple.  That's what the South was like for a black person trying to get a good job in 1960, for example.  There was no real chance that black people could simply "organize a boycott" of all of the places that were racist.   Those people thought that God wanted them to keep a boot on black folks' neck.

 

You can't just leave it alone always.  Sometimes people have to be reminded that they are NOT free to cut people out of the social fabric and just cite "religion" as an excuse and that makes it all okay.

 

Or, they could simply purchase a "stock" wedding cake.  My wife wanted an elaborate custom wedding cake when we got married 42 years ago.  The bakery refused to sell a custom cake for the price of a stock cake.  They discriminated against her because she was financially prudent.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, splunch said:

All well and good, but there are really areas where either there is only one baker, or where ALL of the bakers will declare their "Christianity" by refusing to serve a gay couple.  That's what the South was like for a black person trying to get a good job in 1960, for example.  There was no real chance that black people could simply "organize a boycott" of all of the places that were racist.   Those people thought that God wanted them to keep a boot on black folks' neck.

 

You can't just leave it alone always.  Sometimes people have to be reminded that they are NOT free to cut people out of the social fabric and just cite "religion" as an excuse and that makes it all okay.

Except that there is social media and the Internet which expands the scope beyond what blacks had available to them in the 1960's. Besides, gay people tend to not live in small, rural, isolated places where there is only one option, if any. I have lived in rural, remote, sparsely populated areas like Central Idaho. Find Shoup and Salmon, ID on a map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

Really?

 

So you embrace the sins of bearing false witness and adultery?  You condone those acts by Trump?

 

 

Hate and condone are two different things.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Hate and condone are two different things.  

 

Do you embrace them?

 

FYI, some synonyms of embrace are: hug, cuddle, clutch, welcome, accept, adopt, support, and espouse

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, splunch said:

All well and good, but there are really areas where either there is only one baker, or where ALL of the bakers will declare their "Christianity" by refusing to serve a gay couple.  That's what the South was like for a black person trying to get a good job in 1960, for example.  There was no real chance that black people could simply "organize a boycott" of all of the places that were racist.   Those people thought that God wanted them to keep a boot on black folks' neck.

 

You can't just leave it alone always.  Sometimes people have to be reminded that they are NOT free to cut people out of the social fabric and just cite "religion" as an excuse and that makes it all okay.

How about freedom?  Freedom for each, individual, state to decide its own future.

Individual "states-rights".  And each person lives in the state of his own choosing.

Wouldn't that make everyone happy?      🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

Do you embrace them?

 

FYI, some synonyms of embrace are: hug, cuddle, clutch, welcome, accept, adopt, support, and espouse

 

 

 

Expecting straight people to embrace their life  style is really asking too much.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jerra- said:

 

 

Expecting straight people to embrace their life  style is really asking too much.  

 

That is completely out of context.  I was asking TrumpBGoneSoon (who said people should not hate the sin) if he embraced the sins committed by Trump.

 

I agree with your comment.  The LGBT (FAW) community insist that people be accepting and tolerant...yet refuse to accept that people disagree with the way in which they choose to live and refuse to tolerate any position that does not match theirs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Except that there is social media and the Internet which expands the scope beyond what blacks had available to them in the 1960's. Besides, gay people tend to not live in small, rural, isolated places where there is only one option, if any. I have lived in rural, remote, sparsely populated areas like Central Idaho. Find Shoup and Salmon, ID on a map.

But the law is clear.  Businesses cannot deny service to people based on their race.  Can they deny service based on sexuality?  I say that's a sh!t idea.  I say it should be the same.  If it is, then you cannot allow businesses to deny service to homosexuals even if the machine to systematically oppress homosexuals is not demonstrably in place and functioning at the moment.  Either businesses can deny service to gay couples, or they cannot.  If they can, then they will in certain areas, and in those areas homosexuals will be essentially denied access to everything.  And they're not going to give a flying fvck if you don't approve of them on Twitter.  Look at the bigots on this page.  They're proud to be racist gay bashing morons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BatteryPowered said:

The LGBT (FAW) community insist that people be accepting and tolerant...yet refuse to accept that people disagree with the way in which they choose to live and refuse to tolerate any position that does not match theirs.

The fight is over whether or not a gay couple can be denied service because they're gay.  Any effort by them to coerce other people to embrace or endorse or espouse their lifestyle is a non-starter, DOA, going nowhere, and has zero legal justification.  Just because some vocal minority of racist scumbags screeches about how much they love Trump doesn't mean every Trump supporter is wrong, or is a racist moron, does it?  The same applies to the left, and to LGBTQ, etc.  Conflating the actual debate and legal realities with what every agitating blowhard virtue signaler says is not useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, splunch said:

But the law is clear.  Businesses cannot deny service to people based on their race.  Can they deny service based on sexuality?  I say that's a sh!t idea.  I say it should be the same.  If it is, then you cannot allow businesses to deny service to homosexuals even if the machine to systematically oppress homosexuals is not demonstrably in place and functioning at the moment.  Either businesses can deny service to gay couples, or they cannot.  If they can, then they will in certain areas, and in those areas homosexuals will be essentially denied access to everything.  And they're not going to give a flying fvck if you don't approve of them on Twitter.  Look at the bigots on this page.  They're proud to be racist gay bashing morons.

there are exceptions to any rule. there was an 8'6" tall person... one and therefore its not impossible to be 8'6". Yes, there probably is one or two gay people in small, isolated towns such as Salmon, ID. However, policy and public opinion is not based on the outliers. Where this is most likely (99.99%) to happen is in places like Denver, Minneapolis, etc. In those places, the consumer has options and therefore can give negative word of mouth and use social media as a platform to expose them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

That is completely out of context.  I was asking TrumpBGoneSoon (who said people should not hate the sin) if he embraced the sins committed by Trump.

 

I agree with your comment.  The LGBT (FAW) community insist that people be accepting and tolerant...yet refuse to accept that people disagree with the way in which they choose to live and refuse to tolerate any position that does not match theirs.

 

 

I used to be somewhat on their side, but the gay community has been  become more and more militant every day. The ink was barely dry on the bill that allowed them to marry each other before they started suing the cr--   out of everyone who objected to them for religious reasons or non religious reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...