Leftists: Establishing a Religion
In the case of Jack Philips, the baker who doesn’t want to be forced to support a gay “wedding,” leftists have revealed their freedom-hating fascist fanaticism and their desire to establish their faith as a government-mandated religion.
Religion interacts with politics by defining moral and behavioral codes. For example, Catholics believe murder is wrong, a moral code, and that you shouldn’t eat meat on the Fridays of Lent (a penance that was ended in 1984, but is recently making a comeback), a behavioral code. Hence establishing a religion in the context of the 1st Amendment would involve providing preferential treatment to the moral and behavioral code of one particular faith, as the English government did with the Church of England.
The Constitution was specifically designed to provide freedom of religion while preventing the government from picking one religion as the winner. Historically Americans were more divided based on behavioral issues than on morality; the Ten Commandments has always been something most Americans agree on. As a result, the morality of our laws hasn’t been much of an issue, apart from slavery, of course, until very recently. Even better, most Americans have no interest in using the power of the government to impose their behavioral beliefs on the rest of America; Catholics don’t want to force people to eat fish on Fridays, Jews don’t want pork banned from restaurants, and Protestants don’t want to require people to go to services.
Sadly, leftists are trying to impose their behavioral beliefs on all Americans.
Contrary to leftist revisionism, the Framers wrote the First Amendment not to put a wall between religion and government but to prevent the government from picking one religion over all others. They did so because many of them had suffered because of the Church of England’s oppression of other faiths.
The key point is that the government should not pick one set of behavioral beliefs, on which people can disagree, and impose it on all Americans without some very compelling reason.
Contrary to the Constitution, leftists are claiming that the government has the right to force people to go against their own moral beliefs and submit to the morals defined by leftists even when there is no compelling government interest.
Leftists demanding that all Americans be forced to accept leftist moral precepts and leftist behavioral rules -- that marriage needs to be redefined, and that you must allow the “transgendered” into women’s bathrooms. This, in effect, is creating a government-sanctioned religion that is more equal than all the other faiths in America.
Leftists are working hard to ensure that anyone who disagrees with their morals/behaviors will be punished by the government. Precisely the sort of thing that the 1st Amendment was written to prevent.
This attack on the 1st Amendment by leftists is nothing new. Demanding that leftist morals/behaviors be allowed in schools and public settings while demanding that the morals/behaviors of all other faiths be silenced has been a key theme of leftism for quite some time.
For example, allowing teachers in public schools to extol the moral/behavioral beliefs of Nietzsche while declaring that even mentioning Jesus is verboten is nothing more than an establishment of one faith, leftist atheism, above all others.
Further, leftists demand complete obedience even in cases where no one actually suffers. No gay couple has been unable to purchase a wedding cake, for example. But leftists demand complete intellectual submission to their morals/behaviors. It’s as though Catholics were demanding that all orthodox Jewish delis serve pork.
Historically people understand that the 1st Amendment is not absolute; if one’s religion requires human sacrifice the government has a compelling interest to stop murder for example.
But in the case of the baker no sane person would argue that there is a compelling government interest in gay’s having “wedding” cakes.
What leftists are saying is that gay’s “right” to decide who will provide their “wedding” cake overrides the explicit 1st Amendment right of Americans to exercise their religion. Essentially the leftist religion overrides all other faiths in America. For example, leftists stated in their arguments to the Supreme Court that the government would have the right to force a Catholic church to host a gay wedding and for Catholic lawyers to defend gay causes.
Leftists will argue that their moral and behavioral beliefs aren’t a religion because they don’t involve a god or a formal structure. That is an invalid argument for two reasons; the Framers were concerned about the government imposing a set of moral and behavioral beliefs on the people and they used the term "religion" because at the time in America only religions had defined those things, not because they were okay with atheists imposing their beliefs. We all agree that Buddhism, which is decentralized and which does not believe in a god, is a religion. No one would think that giving Buddhist beliefs special privileges would be consistent with the First Amendment so it’s clear that giving the leftist faith special rights is wrong.
While leftists try and couch the discussion in terms of discrimination we can tell that’s a sham. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the group that ordered Christian baker Jack Philips to endorse a gay “wedding," also found that gay bakers don’t have to bake a cake with a Bible citation condemning active homosexuality. That’s a clear example of moral/behavioral beliefs that align with leftist’s faith -- being gay is good -- are protected but moral/behavioral beliefs from other faiths -- marriage is between a man and a woman -- are not.
It’s time to start condemning the left’s attack on other faiths and demand that the 1st Amendment rights of all Americans’ be protected.
There is no reason why what leftist define as moral and good behavior should be backed by the full power of the government. True diversity, which leftists constantly claim to support, means that all faiths should be on an equal footing in America. If a gay baker can refuse to bake a cake which cites Biblical condemnations of homosexuality, then a Christian baker can refuse to bake a cake that will be used in a gay “wedding”. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/12/leftists__establishing_a_religion.html
Tags
Who is online
85 visitors
The baker broke the law, he can't hide behind his religion as an excuse for his bigotry.
The Law is unConstitutional which will be the opinion by SCOTUS when they rule on this case.
Nope, it is not.
Enlighten us how you know they will rule in your favor.
We already know that Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Gorsuch will rule in favor of the baker. The only unknown to any extent right now is Kennedy. Kennedy did signal a concern about the Colorado law that is central to this issue.
"Counselor, tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it's mutual," Kennedy told Colorado Solicitor General Frederick Yarger, who was defending his state's anti-discrimination law.
"It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs."
That remains to be seen, but I believe the SCOTUS will see this as they have many other equality cases and rule in favor of the gay couple.
The article above is full of holes and is pure conservative opinion.
"the Ten Commandments has always been something most Americans agree on" Is total hogwash. The first 5 are behavioral which this article claims shouldn't be forced on anyone.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt make no graven image
Thou shalt not take the lords name in vain (what name?)
Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
Honor thy father and mother
The rest of the commandments can be found in the far older secular code of Hammurabi, the actual moral laws of not stealing, murdering and bearing false witness.
The fact is that if the SCOTUS agrees with the baker they open the door to persons claiming religious freedom to not serve black Americans or those of other faiths. They can claim that making a wedding cake for an interracial couple was against their religion. If the baker is operating a business open to the public offering wedding cakes then he cannot discriminate against blacks, Muslims, LGTBQ Americans, the elderly or the disabled. It's very simple, if you operate a public business and have a business license to operate from the local government then you are obligated to not discriminate.
As for comparing the laws against murder to Catholics not eating meat on Fridays, that's a ridiculous comparison. One is obviously violating someone else's right to life and liberty, the other is merely a personal preference that isn't forced on anyone. Now, any public business can choose to not sell meat on Fridays, or a Jewish deli can choose not to offer pork products, and this baker could choose not to offer custom wedding cakes, that would be his choice. But you can't have a restaurant sell meat on Friday to everyone but then deny Catholics the meat, or a deli serve BLT's to everyone but refuse to sell it to Jewish customers, or a baker offer custom wedding cakes to everyone else but refuse to offer them to a gay couple.
If the couple was asking for something this baker doesn't offer to everyone else, then you'd have a case. If they were asking for a gluten free cake and he didn't offer them, then he could rightly tell them to go elsewhere for their gluten free cake (fact is he does offer gluten free cakes as the sign shows behind him in one photo). If they were asking for a cake to be designed with anything he objected to like two grooms on top or a giant dildo cake topper, he would certainly have grounds to refuse, but to simply refuse to make them a cake based on their sexuality is a clear violation of their rights, not his.
"What leftists are saying is that gay’s “right” to decide who will provide their “wedding” cake overrides the explicit 1st Amendment right of Americans to exercise their religion."
Total nonsense. The "left" is saying no such thing. They are saying that it's a gay persons right to avail themselves of public businesses, to enter any public establishment and expect to be treated just like any other American. They are saying if you're a public business then you don't get to randomly discriminate against Americans because you disagree with their life style. You can say "I don't make cakes designed with any homosexual themes or decorations" but you can't say "I simply won't bake a cake for gay people that I offer to everyone else".
I think if this were a gas station where the owner refused to allow evangelicals to fill up because he doesn't believe in their life style choice of abstinence only education for their children and believes it's child abuse, the evangelicals would be screaming bloody murder about being discriminated against. They wouldn't say "Oh, well there's a gas station a few miles down the road so I guess we'll go there". That gas station owner would be in clear violation of their rights. However, if the gas station owner simply refused to sell Christian Music audio tapes and CD's, then there would be no violation at all, it's his choice as to what he offers as long as he sells whatever he offers to anyone wanting to purchase it.
This case hinges on the supposed "artistic" nature of a cake. However, many businesses could claim their work is "artistic", from hair styles (as was brought up by the SCOTUS), a dentist working on teeth, the art on top of an espresso to a custom made turkey sandwich. If we allow any business owner to discriminate based on sexual orientation because they claim their work is an "artistic" freedom of expression, then we open the door to allowing them to discriminate based on race, gender, gender identity, disability, age, faith or lack thereof.
Essential to the establishment of our Constitutional Republic was a Federal Government that would not intrude into the affairs of the citizenry, especially in their right to control their own property. We escaped that kind of totalitarianism found in Europe.
NO ONE has a Constitutional Right to what a business produces.
"A wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
John Adams declared that “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence” and that “Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty”
As the father of the Constitution James Madison stated in Federalist #45:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
James Madison 1792 Essay on Property-should be required reading by All Americans
An individual's rights end where another person's rights begin.
Secular laws are necessary because some religious laws are inane, insane, sexist, abusive, barbaric and socially unacceptable.
The United States is not a theocracy. Not one single person is legally obligated to obey one religious law or tenet. Every citizen of the United States must obey secular law. The days of witch trials and punishment for adultery are over ( even though adultery is still illegal in many US states and the laws include fines and jail time).
The majority of US citizens are intelligent enough to understand that they do not want to be forced to obey religious guidelines.
If a business is chartered according to US secular laws, then the business must obey US secular laws.
If a business wants to only serve customers with similar religious beliefs, then it should charter its business as a private business.
....
more on adultery laws...
Nonsense. NOWHERE did the Constitution ever state or imply that anyone has a RIGHT to what a private business produces. Even a nation like England with less liberties than our Constitutional Republic established never forced businesses to sell to everyone.
Without this liberty we have NO LIBERTY. We become slaves of government and operate at their command. This is the desire of the left who despise individualism and free market principles.
Statist collectivism is their "god" and they want all to worship the state
vs public business like Target, JC Penney, McDonalds, Taco Bell, etc.
Can you imagine the headlines if a national business proclaimed that homosexuals would not be allowed to order wedding cakes at one of their stores?
How about banning homosexuals from being allowed to shop at their stores that sold custom baked goods?
How about the bakers that bake wedding cakes for adulterers entering their second, third, fourth, or more wedding? Shouldn't bakers discriminate against the unholy adulterer who is still religiously bound to their first spouse?
You are misstating private vs public business. I'm referring to private enterprise vs state owned and operated (like Obama nationalizing student loans or taking over temporary ownership of GM)
you display a fundamental ignorance of private enterprise and free market principles. If a business is selective in who they wish for customers that opens the door in market competition for others to fill that market demand.
Anything else represents the fascist crony capitalism ideology
It is NOT a private business, it is a business open to the public and must abide by all laws. If he wants a "private" business then he can make it a private club.
You're the one misstating the difference between "private" and "public" businesses. I live near a "private" golf club that still refuses to allow black club members and it's perfectly legal because they are "private". They are not open to the general public and no one can play the course unless invited by a current member. A few years back they were removed from the courses played during the AT&T pro-am tournament because of it, but they can't be forced to integrate because they are a private business.
A public business purchases a public business license allowing them to operate a business open to the public, they are bound by anti-discrimination laws. This baker was operating a public business with a public business license and is bound by the anti-discrimination laws any public businesses are bound by.
Not to long ago the Meadowlands Country Club of Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, a private/members only club, was recently sued by a former female member, who alleged that the club treated her in a discriminatory manner by giving preferential treatment to men over women. Among her complaints were that the club illegally barred women from a men-only dining facility, refused to grant women club voting rights and forbid women from access to the golf course at certain times. The case settled at the end of September for an undisclosed sum and certain concessions by the club.
The former member argued that the club was a "place of public accommodation" because, among other things, Meadowlands advertised to promote non-member use of its facilities for parties, receptions, fashion shows, and golf and tennis tournaments. Had this argument succeeded, the club would have been found to be a "place of public accommodation" subject to the PHRA's (Pennsylvania's Human Relations Act) anti-discrimination measures, and the club would have been faced with justifying other allegedly discriminatory practices, such as restricted tee times, voting rights and dining facility access. Because the case settled, a judicial determination of whether the club was in fact a "place of public accommodation" was avoided.
The PHRA defines public accommodation as follows:
The term "public accommodation . . ." means any accommodation . . . which is open to, accepts or solicits the patronage of the general public, including but not limited to inns, taverns, roadhouses, hotels, motels, whether conducted for the entertainment of transient guests or for the accommodation of those seeking health, recreation or rest, or restaurants or eating houses, or any place where food is sold for consumption on the premises, buffets, saloons, barrooms or any store, park or enclosure where spirituous or malt liquors are sold, ice cream parlors, confectioneries, soda fountains and all stores where ice cream, ice and fruit preparations or their derivatives, or where beverages of any kind are retailed for consumption on the premises, . . . bathhouses, swimming pools, barber shops, beauty parlors, retail stores and establishments, . . . gymnasiums, shooting galleries, billiard and pool parlors, . . . but shall not include any accommodations which are in their nature distinctly private.
The "public" versus "distinctly private" accommodation distinction makes critical an understanding of what factors courts will consider to determine if a club is public or private for purposes of the PHRA. Courts interpreting similar statutes have considered the following factors in making that determination:
The left has redefined private enterprise to force compliance to their marxist statist collectivist ideology.
In a nation that embraces and values individual liberty, NO business should be forced to do business with anyone that they do not wish to have as a customer.
In your fascist government, you force businesses to operate against their own self interests in the name of the "collective good".
The left has redefined private enterprise to force compliance to their marxist statist collectivist ideology.
In a nation that embraces and values individual liberty, NO business should be forced to do business with anyone that they do not wish to have as a customer.
In your fascist government, you force businesses to operate against their own self interests in the name of the "collective good".
No we have not. No business open to the public can discriminate PERIOD!
certainly that is the case with the fascism that you leftists embrace
EXACTLY. A famous steak restaurant in Toronto (Carman's Club - the best steaks in the city) did not comply with zoning bylaws so the owner made it into a private club with lifetime membership sold at the door for one dollar. As a private club it complied, and the owner could make whatever rules he wanted without concern about discrimination legislation (although he did not discriminate, it was solely for the purpose of getting around the zoning bylaw). The restaurant was located right next to the apartment building I lived in for a couple of years. When I went out onto my 26th floor balcony that overlooked the restaurant the smell of garlic was delicious - I had no complaints about THAT air pollution.
There are LAWS every business must follow, owners break them, they pay the price. No fascism involved. What, because this baker is "christian" he should get special rules all for himself...NOPE
You still cannot see beyond your statist collectivism to understand the principles of liberty. it's not about "special rules" for anyone.
ANY business in a free society must have the right to determine who their customers are.
that means a black owned business can sell to only blacks. A Jewish business to only Jews. A woman owned business to only women. Christians to only Christians. Or they can sell to anyone and everyone. It should be THEIR choice, not Government. That is the difference between a free society and a fascist, government controlled economy
How do you know you are selling to a Christian? What do they have to do , recite prayers in front of you?
So discrimination is ok as long as they give you what you want.
That's kind of an accusatory statement. All I did was give an example of how someone was able to get around zoning bylaws by creating a private club. I said he DIDN'T discriminate. I did NOT say discrimination was okay and I would appeciate your NOT putting words into my mouth. I made my comment only because it was an example of how a person COULD get around various laws after Lady in Black suggested a private club.
How you advertise, signs in your business. Same for my examples of others
You can't see the forest through the trees....you have a business open to the public you must serve all the public, you can't pick and choose, doesn't work that way.