« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Why Barronelle Stutzman’s Case Might Resolve Questions Left Open in Masterpiece Cakeshop  (Read 757 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Elderberry

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,391
Why Barronelle Stutzman’s Case Might Resolve Questions Left Open in Masterpiece Cakeshop
« on: September 18, 2019, 01:30:16 pm »
National Review By Kristen Waggoner September 17, 2019

The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every American enjoys the right to speak freely and to freely exercise our faith. That is true no matter how strongly we may disagree and debate with one another. But when the Supreme Court redefined what marriage means in Obergefell v. Hodges, many questioned if any of us would remain free to live out the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

That is a serious question: Both before and after Obergefell, government officials have been using the laws to crush creative professionals who created custom art celebrating marriage between a groom and bride — but could not in good conscience use their talents to celebrate any other form of marriage.

One of the first attacks landed in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case I was privileged to argue at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2017. My client, Jack Phillips, is a cake artist in Colorado who serves anyone but cannot communicate every message or celebrate every event through his art. So when asked to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, he respectfully declined. Rather than respect his faith and conscience, Colorado prosecuted Jack.

More: https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/baronnelle-stutzman-case-questions-from-masterpiece-cakeshop/
Logged

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,958
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: Why Barronelle Stutzman’s Case Might Resolve Questions Left Open in Masterpiece Cakeshop
« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2019, 01:58:27 pm »
Quote from: Elderberry on September 18, 2019, 01:30:16 pm
National Review By Kristen Waggoner September 17, 2019

The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every American enjoys the right to speak freely and to freely exercise our faith. That is true no matter how strongly we may disagree and debate with one another. But when the Supreme Court redefined what marriage means in Obergefell v. Hodges, many questioned if any of us would remain free to live out the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

That is a serious question: Both before and after Obergefell, government officials have been using the laws to crush creative professionals who created custom art celebrating marriage between a groom and bride — but could not in good conscience use their talents to celebrate any other form of marriage.

One of the first attacks landed in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case I was privileged to argue at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2017. My client, Jack Phillips, is a cake artist in Colorado who serves anyone but cannot communicate every message or celebrate every event through his art. So when asked to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, he respectfully declined. Rather than respect his faith and conscience, Colorado prosecuted Jack.

More: https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/baronnelle-stutzman-case-questions-from-masterpiece-cakeshop/

@Elderberry

While I personally don't give a rabid rats ass if homos marry each other or not,the basic FACT is that you are either a Master,or you are a Slave. ANY government that can DEMAND that ANY business do business with ANYONE,regardless of their personal feelings,prejudices,wishes,or any other way you want to define it,is set on making us all slaves and them the Masters.

We are either a free people,or we are the subjects of our political masters.

If this means some non-white business owner refuses to do business with me because I am not dark enough to suit them,so be it.

The only obvious exceptions to this are agencies of the government,such as medical professionals,LEO's,and public servants who have government jobs.

The GOVERNMENT MUST treat everyone equally in order to be a just government. Individuals are and must remain,individuals,free to do or not do business with anyone they wish.
Logged
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Offline PeteS in CA

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,142
Re: Why Barronelle Stutzman’s Case Might Resolve Questions Left Open in Masterpiece Cakeshop
« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2019, 08:49:26 pm »
It looks like, again, state officials who decided this case voiced hostility as happened in the first Masterpiece Cakes case (yes, the activists have attacked that business again). So the USSC may simply slap down those officials in the State of Washington on the same basis as in the Masterpiece Cakes case. Or they may realize that there are bigoted officials "out there" who are cunning enough to conceal their bigotry, and rule more broadly so as to preclude sham objectivity.
Logged
If, as anti-Covid-vaxxers claim, https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2021/robert-f-kennedy-jr-said-the-covid-19-vaccine-is-the-deadliest-vaccine-ever-made-thats-not-true/ , https://gospelnewsnetwork.org/2021/11/23/covid-shots-are-the-deadliest-vaccines-in-medical-history/ , The Vaccine is deadly, where in the US have Pfizer and Moderna hidden the millions of bodies of those who died of "vaccine injury"? Is reality a Big Pharma Shill?

Millions now living should have died. Anti-Covid-Vaxxer ghouls hardest hit.

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,305
Re: Why Barronelle Stutzman’s Case Might Resolve Questions Left Open in Masterpiece Cakeshop
« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2019, 09:36:06 pm »
Quote
The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every American enjoys the right to speak freely and to freely exercise our faith. That is true no matter how strongly we may disagree and debate with one another. But when the Supreme Court redefined what marriage means in Obergefell v. Hodges, many questioned if any of us would remain free to live out the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

When the Supreme Court chooses to willfully ignore the Constitution, then we end up with decisions like Scott, Plessy, Roe, and Obergefell.
Logged
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,363
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision
Re: Why Barronelle Stutzman’s Case Might Resolve Questions Left Open in Masterpiece Cakeshop
« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2019, 02:32:20 am »
Quote from: Hoodat on September 18, 2019, 09:36:06 pm
When the Supreme Court chooses to willfully ignore the Constitution, then we end up with decisions like Scott, Plessy, Roe, and Obergefell.
And Lawrence, and Reynolds, and so on and so forth.

Judges with agendas are the most dangerous (wo)men in government... and Anthony Kennedy, thankfully gone now, had an agenda.
Logged
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »