U.K. court sides with bakery; future ruling still awaits in U.S.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The highest court in the United Kingdom has ruled in favor of a Christian-owned bakery chain in a case that mirrors similar legal battles in the United States.
The five justices on the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Asher's, located in Northern Ireland, which refused in 2014 to design a cake with Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie and the words, "Support Gay Marriage."
A homosexual rights activist, Gareth Lee, ordered the cake and sued for discrimination, with help from an equality commission, when Asher's refused.
Asher's has lost several court cases over four years, including an appeal, but the Supreme Court announced its decision on Oct. 10.
Lady Brenda Hale, president of the Supreme Court, told the BBC that the court agreed Asher's turned down Lee's order due to the message, not because Lee is a homosexual customer.
The bakery "would have refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation," Hale said of the court's finding.
"We didn't say no because of the customer," Daniel McArthur, the bakery's general manager, told reporters earlier this year. "We'd served him before, we'd serve him again."
The U.K. ruling suggests its highest court supports the fundamental right of religious liberty, Hiram Sasser, general counsel at First Liberty Institute , tells OneNewsNow.
"Governments should not be able to force people to express a message," he says, "that violates their religious beliefs."
The legal finding in the Asher's case mirrors the claims of Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who ran afoul of that state's civil rights commission when his Masterpiece Cakeshop turned down a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Phillips, who won a narrow Supreme Court ruling in June after losing in lower courts, has repeatedly said he has refused to create bawdy bachelor party cakes and Halloween cakes with demonic images.
"I don't discriminate against anybody. I serve everybody that comes in my shop,” Phillips told NBC News earlier this year. “I don't create cakes for every message that people ask me to create."
A second similar case in the U.S. case involves a Kentucky print shop, where owner Blaine Adamson was sued after refusing to create a T-shirt design for a gay pride event. His business has turned down other print orders, such as racist themes and a strip club, that he didn't want to be associated with.
Homosexual rights activists and their legal allies, however, continue suing Christian business owners and keep piling up wins in lower courts with their legal claims of discrimination.
Despite the expectation of a landmark ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the Supreme Court found the Colorado Civil Rights Commission treated Phillips unfairly due to his religious faith in a 7-2 ruling described as "narrow" by legal analysts. That ruling left unsettled the discrimination-versus-religious liberty debate in the U.S. that has swept up bakers, florists, photographers, bed-and-breakfast owners, and even apple farmers .
Sasser tells OneNewsNow that First Liberty is currently asking the high court to review the case of the Kleins, the Oregon husband and wife who refused to create a same-sex wedding cake.
In the U.S. system of government, the attorney says, the judicial branch is where a Christian business owner can go to fight for and demand their religious rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
"People just have to be prepared to slug it out with the government," he says, "in order to eventually, hopefully achieve victory."
Tags
Who is online
63 visitors
Very surprising. The UK's laws protecting freedoms of speech and religion are generally not quite as strong as those in the US. And a unanimous vote, no less!
Or not surprising at all because this doesn't in any way shape or form give extra rights to religious persons. It does not authorize or allow their wanton discrimination of the LGTBQ community. I know it's tough for those with only a cursory education, but it really doesn't mean shit for supposed "religious freedom".
It basically means LGTBQ bakers can refuse to make any sort of "Christian" themed cakes. They can refuse to make confederate themed cakes. They can refuse to make any type of themed cake they want as long as they don't only refuse to sell them to a protected class. If the only cakes I sell are dildo themed bachelor'ette party cakes, you can't force me to sell a non-dildo themed cake to a psycho Christian, but if a psycho Christian wants to buy one of my dildo themed cakes, I can't refuse to sell one to them. The same is true of wedding cakes. If I sell an identical cake to gay couples and some straight couple comes in and says "Hey, I'd like one of those gay themed wedding cakes you make" I can't refuse to sell them the cake, I can only refuse to make it "non-gay" themed if I only offer gay themed wedding cakes.
This really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. I'm really rather curious why so many religious persons see the headline and jump on this as if it's some sort of "win" for their shitty desire to discriminate because it isn't.
Yeah. It's a win. Compelled speech is unconstitutional.
The free speech rights belong to the customer and not the baker. Piggie Park BBQ tried that same claim in the 1960s to defend racism when they refused service to Ann Newman. They claimed that the pitmaster was a BBQ artist but the SCOTUS didn't buy it.
No one asked the Colorado baker to design a "gay themed" wedding cake. That would clearly be protected as you say "compelled speech" is unconstitutional. However, if they sell a "Happy Wedding" cake to straight couples and the gay couple simply wants to buy the SAME cake, they cannot deny them service.
In the narrow supreme court ruling they kicked it back because they ruled that the lower court didn't sufficiently look at their claim of religious liberty, not that their ruling was wrong. In the British court ruling it was completely different as they ruled simply that a baker cannot be compelled to create a theme or message that goes against his beliefs, so if he didn't believe in marriage, he doesn't have to sell any wedding cakes to anybody. But if he does believe in marriage and a gay couple ordered an identical cake he sells to straight couples, then he MUST serve the gay couple or be in violation of anti-discrimination laws. As they said "The bakery "would have refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation," Hale said of the court's finding."
So this has ZERO to do with any religious person gaining extra rights, they haven't. Just like they can't refuse to make a cake for a black family but can refuse to make "Kwanzaa" themed cakes if they don't serve/sell them to anyone else. Would a racist baker consider not making a "Kwanzaa" cake a "win" for his beliefs? Of course not, so religious conservatives shouldn't get their hopes up that the courts have ruled in their favor, they haven't, they simply applied the law and enforced equality.
You would think after nearly 60 years these yahoos would get a clue. But with these dumb shits they'd turn any ruling into supposed support for their bigoted ideology. If the courts ruled that a bus driver couldn't be forced to go off his route for a black woman to get to a specified destination, these knucklehead confederate conservatives would claim the Rosa Parks trial just got overturned even though her case had nothing to do with forcing a bus to provide something it wasn't already providing every other customer regardless of race.
The freedom of choice seems to be the underlying issue at stake here.
and who's choice takes legal precedence.
IMO: Both the seller and the buyer already had the power of choice.
The buyer had the choice of what kind of cake and where to get one.
The seller had a choice of what kind of cakes he made and where to sell them
Until one side pushed the other to eliminate their choice.
I agree with the court's decision.
Personally I have no desire to make anyone do anything for me against their will.
and I have my limits of what I'll do for others.
That's sort of how I look at it, I guess. I think these people could (and should) relax about homosexuality, or at the very least, just make the cake out of kindness. However, I'm not enthusiastic about having the government force them to do it.
Me either not by a long shot. Personally I'm a very independent person, Ask me t do pretty much anything and I'll consider it. Tell me to do anything and my defences instantly go up and I'm just as likely to tel ya back to fuck off.
IMO: Freedom is NOT having a government telling me what I Personally HAVE to Do.
I already states my answer to that one !
lol
Additionally I do not TELL people what to do and I certainly do not force anyone to do anything they dont want to.
IMO: There are thousands of bakers, if you dont want MY business ? NO problem ! NEXT !
............
I had a man TELL me "Go get a haircut and come back and I'll interview you." I said, "Can I see that application back ?" he handed it to me and I said, "NO thanks I dont want to work for people like you !" and walked out the door.
Next !!
I'm not interested in moral arguments. The moralizing is disgusting. I'm only interested in the legal arguments and the legality of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Justice Brennan used to say "With five Judges you can do anything".
We shall see how that goes now.
The basis of Obergefell is the exact same legal concept as Loving v. Virginia. Do you also want to repeal interracial marriage [deleted]
If you want to repeal Obegefell you need to prove that your life has been negatively affected in a significant manner by that decision. How have you been harmed because LGBT people can marry the consenting adult of their choice?
We aren't talking about "repeal", we are talking about the Court taking on that case
What is the legally valid reason for the appeals court to revisit the Obergefell decision? It must first work its way through the lower courts and then the Supremes must see that the case is ripe for their review. You have yet to explain what that legally valid reason might be to start the process.
LGBT couples were being joined in religious commitment ceremonies before tghe 2015 decision, which had gay cakes so you will not stop LGBT couples from buying wedding cakes for their religious commitment ceremonies, even with a full repeal. The individual states will still have the right to pick and choose if they will allow LGBT couples to get married, unless "states rights" only applies to conservative causes du-jour such as slavery and voter disenfranchisement.
The court already took on the Obergefell case. it's settled. So there's no point in revisiting it. And there was no valid legal or logical reason to deny gays the right to marry. And there never has been. That's why opponents of SSM kept losing in the lower courts.
Ya, we know. The question was should the Court have taken it on, not that it was done, they got away with it and move on. Don't want to learn the lesson? You don't control the Court anymore.
Yes, they should have, as was their prerogative.
Got away with what exactly?
That makes no sense.
Prior to 20th century liberalism, the Court stayed out of the affairs of Congress.
Got away with what exactly?
Legislating from the bench, as if that question hasn't been answered a million times.
That makes no sense.
Not until Judicial activism flows from the opposite direction and it's coming
How did the court interfere with Congress exactly? The Obergefell case came up through the lower courts until it reached the SCOTUS. That's how the judicial process works.
Another question that hasn't been answered is what law did the SCOTUS legislate? Interpreting the Constitution and/or established legal precedent to determine the constitutionality of laws is not legislating. So what law did the SCOTUS make?
Another nonsensical statement.
It doesn't seem that you know what the role of the US Supreme Court is and that they have equal powers to both the legislative and the executive branch to make law. If Congress passes an unconstitutional law then the Supreme have the power to stroke it down and as such that decision makes new law. iof the POTUS acts in an unconstitutional manner or signs an unconstitutional executive order then the SCOTUS has the right to prevent it from happening and as such that sets new legal precedent.
None of this was listed in the US Constitution but John Marshall created this legal precedent in the Marbury v. Madison decision that involved Jefferson, Madison, Adams. The Founding fathers were satisfied with how it worked and left it alone. If they didn't like how it worked they could have passed the 11th Amendment and fixed it. This is more proof that we cannot reply on what is written verbatim in the Constitution as to how the government functions or what our rights are. Originalism is beloved by people who are too lazy to learn the how and why of the Constitution and by people who want to ignore legal precedent to rewrite the law.
To MAKE LAW? No, they are to interpret. Only the peoples representatives get to MAKE LAW.
It seems that it is you who dosen't understand the role of The SCOTUS
The act of judicial interpretation makes laws when it either sets aside an unconstitutional law/act or when it establishes a new law by answering a question that was asked of them to solve it creates new legal territory. Logically you cannot rule on a topic of constitutionality without making new law. If it didn't make new law then it would have been settled by a lower appeals court or without judicial review.
All 3 branches of the federal government have equal power and can make law, in their own unique manner. This is a basic concept of civics.
The Supreme Court needed to answer the question if marriage was a right of all people, especially after the SCOTUS struck down the federal DOMA law in USA v. Windsor. The Obergefell decision struck down state level DOMA laws and reinforced the Loving v. Virginia decision that marriage is a right of the people regardless of race, sex and gender. Do you also disagree with Loving v. Virginia that struck down a state level law that prohibited interracial marriage?
You have yet to say why you have a problem with it or how these decisions have harmed you. If you oppose them then why do you oppose them, unless its just an emotion or the feeling of social control of others? I am trying to have a productive conversation with you but you need to meet me halfway. How do you think that you might be harmed by LGBT equality?
do you feel the same way about Loving vs Virginia ?
No, I don't. That was a unanimous decision which basically struck down state bans on interracial marriage on equal protection grounds.
I oppose Obergefell for one reason. It's not about what was right, but who should have decided. The States were moving to individually granting same-sex marriages. There was a national majority favoring same-sex marriage. Had a majority of states done the same thing it would have been better or if Congress had enacted a law specifically allowing for same-sex marriages it would have been better. Why? First because that is the way the system is supposed to work. Second, so that people of faith would not have been smeared as they now are.
It doesn't matter if it is a 5-4 decision or it is unanimous. Obergefell is the right to marry based on the same equal protection grounds. The decisions are legally identical. Loving was cited as a precedent for Obergefell.
You have yet to explain why you oppose Obergefell? Do you also oppose US v.Windsor and Loving v. Virginia? Either you oppose them all equally [deleted]
Enough with the personal attacks
That also applies to Loving v. Virginia. There were only a handful of southern states that still had interracial bans on the books in 1967. We needed one national LGBT marriage law and after US v. Windsor striking down the federal DOMA ban it was only natural to ban state level DOMA laws. How has your life been negatively changed because of it? The people do not get to vote on the rights of others, especially when those voting to deny already enjoy those same rights. This is the very reason that we have the Bill of Rights to guarantee all people equal rights and not just the majority having rights.
US v. Windsor struck down a federal DOMA law. Congress was not going to do it because it would be politically unpopular for many elected officials, despite the fact that it would be constitutionally correct. There are still many people who support interracial marriage bans 50 years after Loving'. Do you think that Texas would have permitted LGBT equality that happened in Lawerence v. Texas when they still ban sex toys? Do you think that Engel v.Vitale would have happened at the state or federal legislative level? Federal judges are appointed for a lifetime so they have the power to make these constitutionally correct yet occasionally very unpopular decisions that would not happen if they needed to be able to be elected by voters every 6-8 years?
People of conservative faith do not have the right to deny others their secular rights because of their beliefs or to not be criticized for their beliefs. The rights of others are not determined by the religious beliefs of others. That is why we have the separation of church and state.
What is the role of the US Supreme Court if you don't want them making these decisions? I don't hear you complaining about the Heller decision or Citizens United.
and same sex marriage was a decision that basically struck down state bans on same sex marriage on equal protection grounds - correct ?
same can be said of Loving vs Virginia, correct ?
irrelevant since not all states were moving to grant same sex marriages, and some states were only granting civil unions or domestic partnerships - which were less than marriage. This creates an inconsistency across the nation - same thing could have easily happened had Loving vs Virginia not happened.
same can be said about Loving vs. Virginia, correct ?
again, same can be said about Loving vs. Virginia. It seems you are ok when it comes to race, but have issues when comes to sexual orientation ? (just a question, not a suggestion)
Why is it a personal attack to see the obvious hypocrisy of picking and choosing who has equal constitutional rights based on skin color vs their sexuality/gender?
Disagreeing with someone is necessary to have a discussion. If we agreed there wouldn't be much to talk about because I don't like sports and I don't follow celebrities.
Why should I ignore a situation of very obvious hypocrisy? Maybe you should answer the question that I posed to Vic? Why is it that you oppose Obergefell but you don't oppose Loving v. Virginia? Are LGBT people less deserving of equal rights than racial differences?
You don't think that a business should be forced to serve LGBT people so should a public business also be able to deny service to people because of their skin color or race? Masterpiece Cake shop and Newman v. Piggie Park are very similar, down to even the owner's religious affiliation, but I don't see many people opposing the Piggie Park decision while they support Masterpiece Cake shop's tepid decision?
Bueller...............Bueller......................Bueller..........................?
The answer is very simple, if you want to accept it. What makes Obergefell different from the others is that not only was the attitude of the country changing (In 2003 only 39% of the country supported same-sex marriage and by the time of Obergefell 60% supported it..Gallup), but 4 of the lower courts using the strange interpretation of the Windsor case to eliminate state regulation of marriage, had helped make same-sex marriage legal in 37 states and DC. That was a good place to be, I thought.
The SCOTUS was not involved and never granted certification. Then what happened? The Sixth Circuit Court discovered that same-sex marriage had no constitutional basis! That was the split in the Federal Courts that required the review and here we are with another activist decision.
again - how the public viewed it is irrelevant - please see my previous post for the reasons why (it's almost as if you didn't read anything in my previous post to you... here.. let me help you again:
does this make sense to you or are you still confused ?). Here are the facts: Loving vs. Virginia and Obergefell vs. Hodges are based upon the same concept of striking down unconstitutional marriage bans, the only difference is one dealt with race and the other dealt with sexual orientation. If you oppose one then you surely must be opposed to the other, especially since Loving vs. Virginia was used as a basis for Obergefell vs. Hodges.
I didn't ONLY use public opinion, did I? I showed how things moved through the lower courts and the interpretation of Windsor
the only difference is one dealt with race and the other dealt with sexual orientation.
And that is a huge difference. It's not Loving v Virginia that is the precedent IT'S Windsor that was the pretext for Obergefell.
since not all states were moving to grant same sex marriages, and some states were only granting civil unions or domestic partnerships - which were less than marriage. This creates an inconsistency across the nation - same thing could have easily happened had Loving vs Virginia not happened.
Even if there was an inconsistency - so what? Marriage used to be up to the States! The fact is that it was moving towards being law in all 50 States. As I have said over & over again, it would have been better if it were done that way than having the SCOTUS give haters the opportunity to call people of faith bigots.
again, it's as if you didn't read my previous post or comprehend it ... i suggest you try reading it again.
it was actually both ( among a couple others too ) - since the case dealt with the 14th amendment ( do a little research ).
so what ? are you serious ??
yes, so we have a couple legally married ( and federally recognized ) in one state but if they move to another ( for reasons of family or job etc ) then they are suddenly no longer married ? really ? you don't think this is a problem ? i guess it wouldn't be a problem unless it affected you, right ?
it wasn't moving towards law in all 50 states .. did you understand my previous post at all ? tell everyone the differences between Marriage, Civil Union and Domestic Partnerships - thanks
if the people of faith who opposed same sex marriage didn't want to be called bigots - then maybe their actions shouldn't have suggested such a thing , huh ?
again: Loving vs. Virginia and Obergefell vs. Hodges are based upon the same concept of striking down unconstitutional marriage bans, the only difference is one dealt with race and the other dealt with sexual orientation. If you oppose one then you surely must be opposed to the other, especially since Loving vs. Virginia was used as a basis for Obergefell vs. Hodges .
Both Loving and Windsor were precedents for Obergefell. The court cited Loving as to the fact that marriage is an inherent right for LGBT people just as marriage was a right when the couples are of a different race.
Alabama still had an interracial marriage ban on their books in 2000, so long long would interracial couples have had to wait to get their rights in that racist dump? We cannot leave the rights of a minority up to the bigotry the various states. The rights of minorities aren't up for a vote of popular opinion by either the popular election or the pandering legislators who must depend on the approval of those same racists to retain their job. This is why we have the Bill of Rights to guarantee equal rights to all.
I'm going to address this to both you and epistte. You say Loving vs. Virginia and Obergefell vs. Hodges are based upon the same concept and I will add that it was Windsor that addressed the federal benefits you mentioned (which gays used as their demand for "marriage status'). At the heart of all those decisions was Justice Kennedy. Obviously, he was itching for the Obergefell case and he got it. You say it was Constitutional. Ok. It is the law of the land. In your view a great victory for human rights. Maybe so. I wonder what the framers of the Constitution would have thought? I wonder what you will think when others in the future will defend SCOTUS decisions in the same way. Decisions that you may not think are Constitutional, not to mention morally right. The latter seems to be your main concern. So it will be for your political opponents.
That's exactly what the slave owners said, and the proponents of Jim Crow laws, and those who wrote laws banning interracial marriage because they're disgusting racists who don't understand or value every human regardless of skin color. They so wanted the federal government to stay out of it, and if it had we'd have half the country still owning slaves, banning gays, banning interracial marriage and injecting their religious beliefs into every aspect of those States in the form of blue laws. It wouldn't have been only liqueur banned on Sundays, I have no doubt entire States would have made church attendance mandatory as any unconstitutional wannabe theocracy would have. We see it today in nearly every Muslim country, and the evangelical Christians see the injection of Sharia law as the sign of the devil but when it's their religion being injected they imagine themselves as shining beacons of righteousness.
People of faith can worship how they want, no one is denying them that. Just don't go claiming that part of your worship requires you to discriminate in your publicly licensed business and hate on other law abiding American citizens refusing them service because you claim they're "sinners". It's your choice to open a private Christian only bakery, no one is stopping any religious baker from doing so. Then they can refuse service to interracial couples, black, Jewish, liberal, gay, transgender, Mexican, all the minorities and protected classes conservatives have always wanted to be able to kick off their doorsteps (and used to in their public businesses just 60 years ago which is why they're so enamored with the MAGA slogan).
Well, you may be on to something. I'm sure they would have defended the "Dred Scott" decision by saying "it was the law of the land" and who am I to question the wisdom of those appointed Justices.
"gays" ? how about stating "homosexuals" ? seems to be more appropriate since "gays" usually has the connotation of specifically gay men and leaves out lesbians. (just a suggestion, not making an issue of it)
good question - what would the framers of the Constitution have thought ? unfortunately we'll never know since none of them are around. They did realize that society will change and so will life - which is why that was built into the Constitution as well.
they have already made decisions that i disagree with (and will always continue to do so, along with making decisions that i agree with) - but guess what ? that's what they ruled and that ruling is in effect unless it gets reversed (which has happened in the past with some decisions, but it's not common, most decisions are "set in stone" and not reviewed again). So, even with decisions i disagree with, i still stand by their decisions regardless. I guess you think i play in your imaginary little political war - guess again, i prefer to think for myself. The decision for Obergefell vs. Hodges was correct in my opinion based upon Loving vs. Virginia and the other cases that were referred to (and used) as precedent - whether it was morally correct or not is irrelevant.
I think either is acceptable to the LGBT community. Thanks, anyway
They did realize that society will change and so will life - which is why that was built into the Constitution as well.
Yes, they did - In Article 1
I guess you think i play in your imaginary little political war
If you think the Court had the authority to make decisions like "Roe", "Chevron" and "Obergefell", your'e right.
was just a suggestion - your word choice is just that... yours.
if you feel Article 1 should have been the route for Obergefell vs. Hodges then you surely must feel the same about Loving vs. Virginia since we established that they were the same concept - striking down unconstitutional marriage bans, correct ?
if you think the Court has no authority to review laws or strike down unconstitutional marriage bans (for example) then you may need to figure out what the court actually does. There was no new "law" made - it just simply struck down the bans the same way it did for Loving vs. Virginia.
E.A Sure but should that be the " Rule "? why not use words with the meaning that they were meant for and not " colourise them "?
What is the problem with LGBT equality in all aspects of freedom that you and I enjoy? What are you afraid of happening if others have absolutely equal rights to what you and I enjoy? The fear of what others may do to you seems to be a big driver of your ideas.
Why would the framers not have supported LGBT marriage or equal rights? It is well known that Alexander Hamilton was gay and Washington supported him living with his lover John Laurens.
The Constitution is a limitation on the power of the government and a protection of the inherent right of the citizens to act without interference from the government or religion. The core idea of not needing to ask permission from the government is the very basis of our freedom. You want to limit our rights to what the government permits us. I say that we can do anything that we want to unless there is a compelling reason to say that we cannot because others would be harmed. What is the compelling reason to limit LGBT equality?
Is free speech supposed to be limited in the presence of religious belief because they may be offended by the secular and religious beliefs of others?
The federal government has been involved in marriage since they said that polygamy was not permitted in the Reynolds v. US decision. That ban on polygamy was the basis for Utah being permitted to join the union in 1879. The federal government was obviously also involved in Loving v. Virginia when the SCOTUS overturned a Virginia ban on interracial marriage.
Does that make any difference if it was unanimous vs just majority?
Obergefell was really no different than Loving in that regard.
Many states also allowed interracial marriage and many did not. It doesn't matter if more or less states allowed one or the other. It's not a popularity contest. States do not get to decide in equal civil rights, especially through popular vote. And like Loving, state laws prohibiting SSM were properly challenged in the courts.
Congress didn't need to enact a law allowing for interracial marriages. Would that have been better than the Loving decision?
Any law on any level of government can be challenged in the courts. That's the way it worked with state laws against interracial and SSM.
That's their problem and their fault! They brought any smearing on themselves with their attempts to deny the equal civil rights of others.
Immaterial. That doesn't change the facts that many states still had bans against SSM and those bans were challenged in the courts. The Constitutionality of a law is not based on popularity.
You thought wrong! So you're basically saying that as long as most states allowed SSM, then it's ok if other states did not? Seriously?
Loving could still be cited as precedent regarding marriage rights/equality.
Windsor was just the opening shot. Obergefell was the final battle.
Until equal rights started being denied to certain couples. But marriage cases have gone before the SCOTUS long before Loving or Obergefell.
So? That does not mean ALL 50 states would have allowed SSM. The issue of SSM has been going on among the states for 12 years before Obergefell. Should gay couples have to wait even longer in the hopes their state caught up to the others with allowing SSM? It seems like the SCOTUS just saved everyone a lot of time.
If the shoe fits! If people of faith want to deny others their equal rights for no good reason, that is hateful and/or bigoted no matter how you slice it.
And yet, you seem to take issue with the recognition and expansion of human rights?
Morality is subjective and cannot be legislated. Many opponents to SSM argued "moral" reasons for supporting such bans. It's no wonder they nearly unanimously lost every time such cases went to the courts.
But Vic, aren't laws based somewhat hopefully on morality to begin with ?
I understand the Legal side but as a country morality has been important to us to get and keep that legal system.
IMO: Much of how this was handled from the get go although perhaps some of it moral much of the whole mess was mishandled by many many people.
Now it is what it is.
Yes Steve. The Constitution was written by moral men. Men who believed that all men (& women) are created equal. However if there are things not specifically provided for in the Constitution it is up to the people, through their representatives to make the necessary amendments. If we are not a nation of laws we are nothing.
Will you still feel that way when the the new Court begins to discover the rights of the unborn?
Probably, I actually don’t have much of a stake in any of this currently nor in the future.
I'm an older single retired man with no children and no family left on the planet . So, WTF do I care what the Hell the rest of the planet does IF it doesn’t affect me now or in the near future , honestly not much.
talk about I got mine so screw you. I got that one covered !
LOL
You sound suspiciously close to the ideas of the Masorti jews, Saudi and Iranian morality police and ISIL.
The morality of the majority or anyone else is irrelevant to determining the limits of our freedoms in the US. Our freedoms are limited to when they come into contact with the equal rights and freedoms of others, but you do not have the right not to be offended by the actions, beliefs or the speech of your fellow citizens. If we would allow morality to determine our rights then we have become a theocracy where only the majority religion has rights because their religious beliefs would determine the secular and religious rights of everyone else. That idea creates an inherently unstable and violent society such as what we see in the middle east. This very concept is one of the reasons why we have the strict separation of church and state in the 1st Amendment.
Your argument is wholly emotionally driven. Did someone abort a fetus against your will and now you seek to punish her?
How can the unborn have legal rights when they must rely on the mother to exist. If you give rights to something that cannot speak or act independently then you take away rights of the mother who can speak and act. Why should we be second class citizens in our own body when we are pregnant?
They cannot vote, hold a job, have a social security number, speak, walk, reason or even wipe their own asses. They LACK far too much to be considered a viable human being. You want to give THAT rights, and take away the rights of adult, functioning, human beings? That is the least logical argument I have heard. That's like curing a hangnail by cutting off someone's arm.
Tell me Vic, why should the human CARRYING a fetus be denied rights that you think the fetus should have? If Roe V. Wade is over turned, (I seriously doubt it), how many unwanted babies are you personally going to adopt? 100? 1000? 10,000? I am willing to bet that you would be in favor of funding welfare at that point.
According to the Bible in Genesis, we are not alive until we breathe air,
Yep, I know that passage very well..
^5
[Removed]
And you sound suspiciously close to the ideas of Linda Sarsour. Sound good? Why not just address the argument instead of attacking me?
The real task of a Justice on the Supreme Court is to put aside personal & political predilections and base decisions on neutral legal principles. In 2015 the nation was granting same-sex marriages, state by state. Why did the SCOTUS intercede?
If One Court can suddenly find a "right of privacy" another can find the rights of the unborn. What does the Ninth Amendment say about "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"?
Did someone abort a fetus against your will and now you seek to punish her?
You really need to stop attacking the person and focus on the argument.
Why should we be second class citizens in our own body when we are pregnant?
That is a kind of moral argument. What does the Constitution say?
So you believe one needs to be able to speak to have rights?
If Roe V. Wade is over turned, (I seriously doubt it),
I doubt it too, but rights for the unborn will be found and expanded. You don't believe that?
how many unwanted babies are you personally going to adopt? 100? 1000? 10,000? I am willing to bet that you would be in favor of funding welfare at that point.
ZERO. No Welfare.
Sorry, I can't be here all the time.
I love the irony when supposed small government conservatives/libertarians out themselves as repressive theocrats.
You keep doing it
How about live without a host to feed on.
I don't think anything that cannot survive on it's own, (that meaning without being physically attached to a host body), should have any rights at all. And you never answered my question... Why do you think the mother should have less rights than something that can literally not survive WITHOUT the mother?
So you want to force women to have children, then take NO responsibility for YOUR actions? What exactly is the point of forcing a woman to have a kid if she cannot afford to care for it properly. Lets cut to the chase here...
True statement, that you essentially just said...
Indeed, the right claims they are all for more individual freedoms....just not for women, minorities, immigrants, etc.. Pretty much white male republicans only.
Save it for your voting base....Without them, the democratic party is DEAD DEAD DEAD
I shall, but I am not running for any office. Did I say something that wasn't accurate? Do you DENY that you are for individual freedoms....except for women's reproductive decisions?
Ive never heard of her. I had to Wiki her and I still don't see the resemblance.
I attacked your arguments.
The state level DOMA laws were unconstitutional because marriage is an inherent right of people. Didn't you read the SCOTUS decision?
The 4th amendment is based on an inherent right to privacy. The right to privacy wasn't made up. It is so obvious to be understood. You cannot have freedom and autonomy if you don't have a right to privacy. A password would be illegal if we don't have then right to privacy. Abortion wasn't unknown in the 18th century and it wasn't banned in the Constitution. The basic concept of freedom is that we don't have to ask permission before we act. We can do what we want unless there is a compelling state interest to say that we cannot. Your idea turns that on its head and ays that we only have the freedom that they allow us.
Your problem is that you think that the Constitution is an absolute list of rights and if it isn't listed verbatim in that document it doesn't exist. The internet isn't listed so log off immediately.
If these women are forced to carry a child to term against their will then you must provide total care of these children and the mother. You want to punish women for having sex against your beliefs and then punish you seek to punish the child.
As I recall, when the Constitution was drafted, black people were considered 3/5 a person, women did not have the same rights of men, and only white landowning men could vote. The Founding Fathers had some good ideas with the Constitution, but it did need a little tweaking.
And the courts, especially the SCOTUS, determine the constitutionality of laws.
Let us know when that happens. Until then, that is pure conjecture. Of course, the unborn cannot be given rights without first taking rights away from the woman in question.
See previous statement.
See previous statement.
Tweaking by whom? The American people via Congress gave us the 14th Amendment along with 26 others.
And the courts, especially the SCOTUS, determine the constitutionality of laws.
You don't know the difference between the people making the changes in the law and the Court interpreting the law?
Of course, the unborn cannot be given rights without first taking rights away from the woman in question.
Maybe, but as long as every act of activism is applauded as "settled law", I don't expect to hear any complaints when it happens.
Yes, which only shows the Constitution in its original ratified draft still needed some work.
Is that supposed to refute my statement?
What "activism?" If laws get passed, they can be challenged. Then it falls to the courts. Otherwise, your statement is just speculation at best.
This condescension looks familiar.
I'm sorry that you think that I am condescending. I am just logical. I assumed that other people were likewise.
I am obviously an atheist, so logically how I can also be a theocrat? Atheist and theocrat are opposite ideas.
Marriage had been left to the states until the Court got involved
Yep, BY CONGRESS
What "activism?"
Have you not learned anything from Roe?
The issue of interracial marriage was also left to the individual states until the SCOTUS got involved in Loving v. Virginia. Do you want to repeal that decision as well as Obergefell? These decisions are constitutionally identical. The only difference is skin color vs the person's sex or gender. You're strangely silent on Loving' but you very vocally oppose Obergefell. Do you expect us to not to notice that you won't dare to admit to opposing Loving but you have no problem opposing LGBT equality when it was conservative religious belief that was the basis for opposing marriage equality for either minority? Arguments opposing Loving were recycled for opposing Obergefell. Loving' was also very unpopular among religious conservatives when it was decided.
What rights do you have in mind, and how do you plan to create constitutional rights for something that doesn't yet exist as a person? Not even your Bible says that a fetus is a person. Is the Bible wrong?
Unlike the Republican voting base-- because the Republicans have no need of their voting base-- without them they would win anyway!
By a landslide!
/sarc
Like they did in Newman v. Piggie Park?
I don't think anything that cannot survive on it's own, (that meaning without being physically attached to a host body), should have any rights at all. And you never answered my question... Why do you think the mother should have less rights than something that can literally not survive WITHOUT the mother?
You don't think they should have rights? Thank you Justice Brennan. As far as the rights of the mother - WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY? And don't give me "Roe v. Wade"
A living breathing human woman's reproductive decisions are and always will be between her and her doctor, period.
Not if the right wing and the conservative GOPERS prevail. And now, with Trump they are a ( life breath ) away with Ginsburg and Stevens.
Don't worry.
A fetus has no rights until it is an independent person living separately from the mother's body.
Actually fetus survival is not the issue. The only issue is if the woman or family makes 'the decision' whether they want to be parents or not. The issue is personal or financial and is of NOBODYS' concern except for those involved. Especially the governments.
Right wing conservatism is pro birth----not pro life.
That idea has been understood for 30 years. These people don't give a damn about the child once the 3rd trimester ends. The issue of abortion is about punishing women who disobey the church and think for themselves. The church will defend pedophiles and theives but they won't permit women to have autonomy.
That and protecting their bizarre doctrine of a magical "soul" being created at conception that many claim will spend an eternity in torment or at best in the lonely wastelands of purgatory if they weren't sprinkled with some water off the fingertips of a possibly pedophile Priest before they die. With such insane fantasy beliefs its no wonder they refuse to use science and logic to make decisions. I'm almost surprised they're not still burning accused witches at the stake.
Don't give them any ideas because they might claim that being prevented from doing so is an infringement of their religious rights.
No! Not until they are born.
Why not? Roe is established legal precedent. It determined that a woman has a right to an abortion.
Then prepare for more legal precedent
Such as?
Roe has been revisited many times (Webster, Casey, Stenberg, Gonzales, and Hellerstedt) and yet it still stands. You can no more give a fetus more rights than to claim that Columbus discovered the new world when the native people met him on the beach. Maybe I should discover your house and investment account.
do you think the "rights of the unborn" who literally cannot survive outside of the mother should have rights that supersedes the mother and her rights to her body ?
Must be an echo in here, I just said the same thing.. LOL
GMTA.