Not true. The Constitution is the bedrock of our democratic processes. Passing unconstitutional laws violates the Constitution. The court ruling against said laws is not overturning anything, it’s holding it up.
Right. If this doofball judge is not in fact being a bigoted moron and there is indeed credit to the idea that an action that is illegal under antidiscrimination laws is actually protected by the constitution, then the correct course of action would be to push to get the antidiscrimination law(s) in question struck down as unconstitutional by the US Supreme court. Of course that would be a really long battle to fight and this particular argument would never pull it off because, at some point in the line, the case would run afoul of somebody -anybody- who wasn’t bigoted enough to rubber stamp this shit.
As I think I already mentioned, the Constitution is not a democratic device. It’s a set of rules tht restrict democracy and democratically elected government. That’s on purpose.
This thread is an odd place to argue this, but the constitution straight-up defines the democratic process of the US government. What democracy and democratically elected elements our government has are all wholly dependent on the constitution.
Now, it is true that the government as defined by the constitution isn’t entirely composed of people who are directly elected by the populace at large. (One example of such a person: the President.) So in that sense there are non-democratically-elected aspects to the government defined by the constitution as well. But to point at those and say the constitution is anti-democratic would be like pointing at the brakes of a car and declare that they show that the car’s entire purpose is to stay stationary.
Right, of course. But then why are other posters whining about “violating democratic processes”, when that was never the intention of this country?
In oral arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case Justice Alito made it very clear with on question that context matters. The query he posed, however, used a hypothetical that included written text on the cake.
His example was of a couple ordering a cake and requesting wording to the effect of, “November 9. The best day in history” in order to celebrate their wedding anniversary. The next customer asks for the same wording, but states he wants the cake to celebrate Kristallnacht.
Alito made it clear that their ruling would need to allow the baker to accept the first order but refuse the second.
Before anyone suggests the hypothetical neo-Nazi is not a member of a protected class, the SCOTUS has ruled that certain self described religious organizations professing white supremecy as a part of their beliefs are indeed religions capable of asserting religious freedom arguments.
Maybe because the Constitution isn’t the whole of the American experiment.
It’s the foundation.
Now that right there is a dangerous line of thinking, IMO. I mean: that’s what my god tells me.
I concede that when I read that, my mind immediately leapt to the fact that you can totally use religion to justify murdering people.
As a person who doesn’t have a religion that I could use to justify a murder spree, I feel it’s unfair to offer that loophole to others and not me.
You could try harder than that. Cuz that’s awful lame.
Andros, the answers to your questions will vary according to the faith community to which the individual in question belongs. I can answer only as a Catholic; I can’t answer as a Protestant Evangelical would do (although I believe the baker in this case is an Evangelical), because I’m only slightly familiar with their theology.
The Divine Precept that directs the Catholic faithful to an understanding of marriage as properly celebrated only between one man and woman may be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring;” (CCC Paragraph 2357)
Without going into further detail here, the Catechism also plainly expresses to Catholics that sexual relationships apart from marriage between one man and one woman are forbidden by God. (CCC 2351-59)
The Catechism further informs Catholics that "Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them . . ." (CCC 1868)
The people of God are commanded by Him through the inspired words of the Apostle Paul: “whatever you do, in word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Colossians 3:17)
A Catholic baker can hardly decorate a cake to order for a wedding between two men or two women “in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” For a Catholic cannot do, in the name of the Lord, a thing associated with acts that God forbids. Therefore a Catholic baker needs to avoid becoming involved in facilitating in any way the celebration of a union that God does not permit.
Andros, you wrote, “Thirdly, does your ‘divine precept’ allow for ignorance of the law being an excuse for disobeying? Again, chapter and verse?”
I’m sorry, I don’t understand the question. In what circumstances are you asking about “ignorance of the law being an excuse” ? Are you asking about bakers ignorant of Divine precept? Or about bakers ignorant of civil laws?"
What gives you the right to delineate the options among which the conscience of another American must choose?
How about you select your actions on this matter from among the following choices: (1) MYOB; (2) MYOB; and (3) MYOB.
The First Amendment to the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
It is clearly a violation of the First Amendment when the State enacts laws that impose penalties upon people of faith for the free exercise of their consciences, as informed by their religious beliefs. The State cannot willy-nilly impose penalties on acts according to the whim of various officials. That would be utter chaos. No, for the State to impose a penalty upon an act, the State must first create a law forbidding the act. And the State is forbidden by our Constitution to declare contrary to law the free exercise of a person’s religion.
Precisely. The Catholic in question does not recognize such a marriage as a marriage at all. It is not, to the RCC, a marriage. It is a civil ceremony only, not recognized by God.
So why on earth would said Catholic baker care?
Thus my question. God, as near as I can tell, has not countermanded civil marriage. Indeed, the entire concept of free will is pretty essential to the plot, and God does not stand in the way of two non-Catholics doing non-Catholic things.
You said, as I quoted above,
Leaving aside the issue of whether God has forbidden the celebration in question (which He patently has not), this seems to be an “ignorance of the law” cavil. If the baker is not aware, there is no disobedience. Is ignorance of God’s law an excuse to break said law with impunity? In your opinion?
.
So do you think the Civil Rights act violates the Constitution? Because it’s been around over 50 years. Is it possible that you’re wrong?
So you’re totally fine with being denied service at a place of business for being Catholic?
.
The couple in question wanted a “wedding cake.” They didn’t want a yellow layer cake covered with an unadorned swath of chocolate icing. They wanted a cake that looked like a wedding cake. It requires the artistic expression of the baker to take a plain, unfrosted cake, and turn it into a wedding cake. That’s what the baker didn’t want to do.
Why would a baker refuse to sell a cake to people with tatoos? This baker didn’t “refuse to sell a cake” to a homosexual couple. The baker refused to take an unadorned cake and cover it with icing and decorations so as to render the unadorned cake a wedding cake. A wedding cake for the celebration of the union of two men. A union which is forbidden by God.
A Christian baker who does all she does “in the Name of Jesus Christ,” can’t do in the Name of Jesus Christ something that furthers the project - even someone else’s project - of offending against the Divine Precept.
Therefore the Christian baker can’t adorn an fresh-out-of-the-oven cake with designs, decorations, and arrangements that are proper to a wedding celebration - if the celebration is in honor of the wedding of two people whom God says cannot marry.
Undoubtedly, the baker can in good conscience sell to a couple of men who are in a homosexual relaitonship, a plain fresh- out-of-the-oven cake, if that’s what they want. Or a birthday cake, or a Hallowe’en cake. Or a cake with the words, “Happy graduation, Emily!” and piped flowers all over it. Or a plain carrot cake with cream cheese icing. Or a bundt cake, a pineapple upside-down cake, a strawberry shortbread, a red velvet cake . . . but she cannot in conscience exercise her artistic expression to arrange decorations and embellishments suitable for a wedding to the order of two men entering into a civil union which is forbidden by God.
k9bfriender wrote, “They chose to live under Caesar’s rule when they opened their shop to the public. If the are not able to follow Caesar’s rule and the beliefs of their religion at the same time, then they need to choose. It is not up to “Caesar” to accommodate them.”
So, you’re not a fan of the First Amendment, I take it.
The First Amendment which specifies that Caesar shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That is a law that dates back to 1789, and if Caesar attempts to enact laws that contravene the First Amendment, then Caesar is ignoring and violating his own laws. And is proving himself to be unAmerican. (Which Caesar was, after all).
So, let us thrown up our hands, and admit it. The United States of America is is no longer “the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.” The United States of America is now well on its way to becoming what the former Soviet Union was before the wall fell, awash in a tidal wave of anti-reactionary laws, regulations, and diktats governing every aspect of the citizens’ lives, both public and private.
And people of faith had better stand back and keep their mouths shut, and get in line.
(Yeah, I’ll send my sons off to fight and possibly die . . . for that. . . . Not!)
We get that this is where all this is going. Even if all y’all don’t.
Which is why some of us are raising Cain about it.
Oh, yes it’s the same.
When the State enacts a law with penalties for breaking that law, then the consequences for the lawbreaker will, if she continually refuses to cooperate with those attempting to apply the penalty, either loss of her livelihood and financial ruin, or jail time. And jail time* is *at gunpoint. Because your time in jail is spent at gunpoint - you are just a few feet away from armed patrols. And if you attempt to walk out of that jail or run out of it, I guarantee you, you will be shot at.
Imagine if some state or other passed a law stating that abortions are illegal after the second trimester, and if a woman has an abortion in her third trimester, she faces a $1,000 fine. Would you say “too bad for her: these are rules we agree to abide by ‘for the common good’ and some punishment for those that decide they don’t like it or choose not to.”
I think not.
And people of faith deny that civil laws which would require them to violate their consciences can be seen as promoting “the common good,” in any way, shape of form.