Supreme Court says Government Can't Decide what Speech is "Worthy" of Protection

[rangerrebew]

Supreme Court says Government Can't Decide what Speech is "Worthy" of Protection

By Gary DeMar   / 22 June 2015   / 0 Comments   
 
 

 
A Supreme Court ruling on speech might have implications for Christians who object to serving people who engage in same-sex marriage since "speech" is the issue. A baker has no problem selling a cake to someone who identifies as homosexual and engages in same-sex sexuality, but that same baker should have the freedom to refuse to make a cake for an event that she finds objectionable.

 

 
Similarly, a baker who opposes the ownership of guns, should not be forced to make a cake for the NRA or Gun Owners of America. The free speech rights of both groups are thus protected.

The following is from the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).


In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decisively affirmed Thursday that the government cannot play favorites when it comes to free speech. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent an Arizona church in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, a case involving restrictions on temporary signs that provided the vehicle for the justices to reaffirm and clarify that the government cannot single out one form of speech over another based on how worthy the government thinks it is.
Keep Reading at Godfather Politics...

Read more at http://eaglerising.com/19929/supreme-court-says-government-cant-decide-what-speech-is-worthy-of-protection/#2Ab5CexWfZbQBPys.99

[Luis Gonzalez]

I don't think speech is the issue in the bakery thing.

If if was speech, then this same ruling could be used to refuse people service based on age, religious beliefs, sex, race, etc.

[Bigun]

I don't think speech is the issue in the bakery thing.

If if was speech, then this same ruling could be used to refuse people service based on age, religious beliefs, sex, race, etc.

And just where does it say in our Constitution that someone should not have the right to refuse service to anyone on any basis he chooses?  If I don't want your business why should I not have the right to tell you so?

[aligncare]

Btw, Luis, happy birthday. I feel lucky to be at any website where you post. You keep it all in perspective for me. To borrow a line from pop culture, you're not getting older, you're getting better!

[jmyrlefuller]

And just where does it say in our Constitution that someone should not have the right to refuse service to anyone on any basis he chooses?  If I don't want your business why should I not have the right to tell you so?

As I've stated before, the 13th Amendment says you have the right to refuse service to ANYONE, at any time, and there is nothing anyone can do to force you to do so. (Except raise taxes—thanks, King John Roberts.)

[Bigun]

As I've stated before, the 13th Amendment says you have the right to refuse service to ANYONE, at any time, and there is nothing anyone can do to force you to do so. (Except raise taxes—thanks, King John Roberts.)

That sir is an EXCELLENT point!  How is forcing someone to provide service to someone or something he does not want to provide service to not constitute "Involuntary servitude"?

[DCPatriot]

I don't think speech is the issue in the bakery thing.

If if was speech, then this same ruling could be used to refuse people service based on age, religious beliefs, sex, race, etc.

Come on, Luis.

"Speech"...the spoken word, or "Refusing to act on something found PERSONALLY to be "Objectionable"....it the same damned thing, IMO.   

[Luis Gonzalez]

As I've stated before, the 13th Amendment says you have the right to refuse service to ANYONE, at any time, and there is nothing anyone can do to force you to do so. (Except raise taxes—thanks, King John Roberts.)

Amendment XIII

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


So, are you saying that "involuntary servitude" and commerce are the same thing?

[Luis Gonzalez]

That sir is an EXCELLENT point!  How is forcing someone to provide service to someone or something he does not want to provide service to not constitute "Involuntary servitude"?

The exchange of cash for services rendered destroys the whole "involuntary servitude" thing.

[Luis Gonzalez]

And just where does it say in our Constitution that someone should not have the right to refuse service to anyone on any basis he chooses?  If I don't want your business why should I not have the right to tell you so?

The things not said in the Constitution far outnumber those that are said. Congress is granted the power to "... make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", so Congress has passed many, many laws since that First Congress passed the Bill of Rights and all subsequent legislation passed during the institution's Freshman sessions.

If all we needed was the Constitution, you'd think those were the guys to best understand that, and in having that understanding, they would have passed no laws. But they did.

In theory, I do believe that anyone should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason whatsoever, but as a person who could feasibly be the object of that refusal, and whose children could doubly so be the same, I don't feel that it is in the best interest of the "general welfare" of the nation to promote any manner of discrimination, irrespective of the reason.

I don't think it a good idea that an ambulance driver be permitted to refuse transportation to someone based on race, gender, religion, national origin, or age, so I don't think allowing others to do so is a good idea.

Some time ago, as a nation we decided to eliminate discrimination, so if I want to own a hotel, run a taxi service, a nail salon, a restaurant, etc, I need to be able to either set my prejudices aside, or not run a business.

Now, some people will make the argument that their religious beliefs are protected, and that they have the right to stand on those beliefs, and live their lives accordingly. They will be right to say that of course.

But just like you pointed out that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that someone should not have the right to refuse service, that very same Constitution does not say that anyone has the right to bake a cake or own a bakery.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Come on, Luis.

"Speech"...the spoken word, or "Refusing to act on something found PERSONALLY to be "Objectionable"....it the same damned thing, IMO.   

OK, let's agree that it is "speech".

The freedom of speech is not unlimited, so what we may be establishing here are additional limits on that freedom.

[jmyrlefuller]

Amendment XIII

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


So, are you saying that "involuntary servitude" and commerce are the same thing?

Involuntary = against one's will.
Servitude = just that, servitude.

One cannot be forced to serve someone else against their will. Plain English, Mr. Gonzalez.

And if you're going to play the "commerce" card, read the ruling from the court in regard to the raisin case. Running a business does not automatically mean you lose your 13th Amendment rights.

[jmyrlefuller]

The exchange of cash for services rendered destroys the whole "involuntary servitude" thing.

That is simply not true and not supported by anything in the Constitution.

[Luis Gonzalez]

That is simply not true and not supported by anything in the Constitution.

The U.S. Air Force is not supported by anything in the Constitution either.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Involuntary = against one's will.
Servitude = just that, servitude.

One cannot be forced to serve someone else against their will. Plain English, Mr. Gonzalez.

And if you're going to play the "commerce" card, read the ruling from the court in regard to the raisin case. Running a business does not automatically mean you lose your 13th Amendment rights.

Running a business does not automatically mean you lose your 13th Amendment rights

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Involuntary = against one's will.
Servitude = just that, servitude.

One cannot be forced to serve someone else against their will. Plain English, Mr. Gonzalez.

And if you're going to play the "commerce" card, read the ruling from the court in regard to the raisin case. Running a business does not automatically mean you lose your 13th Amendment rights.

It's not against one's will to freely decide to own and run a bakery. Once you've freely made that decision, there are   An integral part of making that decision are the many laws that you must abide by in owning and legally operating that business, the majority of which are not in the Constitution.

We're governed by not just one Constitution, but by our individual State Constitutions and enacted laws and statutes, both State and Federal.

 

[Bigun]

That is simply not true and not supported by anything in the Constitution.

“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”

Thomas Paine