Gary Johnson: 'Religious freedom, as a category' is 'a black hole' (Q&A With the Libertarian Candidate for President On Social Issues)

[SirLinksALot]

But they're not, because their stated reason was illegal.

I was informed by an Oregon friend that it involved at least putting the figurines of two lesbian couples on the cake. Like this ( as an example):




If so, then that is a message they are required to convey.

Number 2... they routinely recognize civil marriages as being marriages, so again, they discriminate based on sexual preference, which is illegal in Oregon.

Christians recognize marriages whether solemnized by the church or by the state BUT ONLY BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN ( See Kim Davis of Kentucky ).

Again, the Christians object to PARTICIPATING, they are not forcing anyone to not get their marriage license based on their sexual orientation. There are two words religious people object to, and any conservative or self-styled libertarian ought to support them: GOVERNMENT COERCION.

[Luis Gonzalez]

They didn't object to placing the figurines on the cake. They objectec to making the cake and told one of the mothers that her daughter and fiancé were "abominations".

[SirLinksALot]

They didn't object to placing the figurines on the cake. They objectec to making the cake and told one of the mothers that her daughter and fiancé were "abominations".

Let's go back to the constitution before we get caught in the details of the case.

Here's what James Madison, the acknowledged father of the constitution, said in his own writings, http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html:


    [Man] has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. (Snip.)

    Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

    According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

    More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property . . . To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.


The most powerful aspect of the American constitutional rule of law is that government may not cause harm by coercing people to violate their rights of conscience. This is EXACTLY what Oregon did.

[SirLinksALot]

They objectec to making the cake and told one of the mothers that her daughter and fiancé were "abominations".

Now you have the gay couple's words against the Kleins ( the Christian bakers ).

Here's what they told the CBN News: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2013/february/baker-investigated-for-refusing-gay-wedding-cake/?mobile=false

"I never told anybody they were an abomination," Klein said.

OK, Suppose we had a Christian Baker who very simply said this -- "I am sorry, but we do not make cakes for gay weddings. If you wish, We can make you a cake without any message on it."

Would that be an acceptable compromise to the state of Oregon? I'm trying to find some sort of point of agreement here.

[Jazzhead]

I was informed by an Oregon friend that it involved at least putting the figurines of two lesbian couples on the cake. Something like this:

You've got to be kidding, right?   That's all the guy was pissed off about doing?    I thought he was being asked to carve on the cake God Loves F--s.   

This is simply ridiculous.  Simply post a sign reading "The Management reserves the right to decline to inscribe a cake with anything it deems obscene, [political] or inappropriate."   Don't even make it particular to wedding cakes,  one could, say, request an obscenity on a birthday cake. 

I remember National Review used to preface their classified ads with a disclaimer to the effect that NR extended its maximum freedom to its classified advertisers, but cautioned that NR's maximum freedom may be another man's straightjacket.

 
 

[SirLinksALot]

For those who are not religious, this will not seem to be a big deal.

The disagreement comes on one issue only — should a Christian provide goods and services to a gay wedding. That's it. We're not talking about serving a meal at a restaurant. We're not talking about baking a cake for a birthday party. We're talking about a wedding, which millions of Christians view as a sacrament of the faith and other, mostly Protestant Christians, view as a relationship ordained by God to reflect a holy relationship.

Many DEVOUT Christians, including a significant number of Catholic and Protestant preachers, believe that a gay marriage is a sinful corruption of a relationship God himself ordained. Because they try to glorify God through their work, they believe they cannot participate in a wedding service. Yes, because they believe they are glorifying God in their work and view it as a ministry, they view providing goods and services as a way to advance, even in a small way, God's kingdom. TRY PUTTING YOURSELF IN THESE PEOPLE's SHOES. It is their deeply held belief, one which they are willing to suffer for.

Herein lies the dispute of the day. Devout Christians  do not stand in the way of others providing cakes, flowers, and pictures for a gay wedding. Some people, however, believe the government should coerce DEVOUT Christians ( Yes, those who take their faith as seriously as the Pilgrims did) to violate their conscience. They only see the transaction through the customer's eyes as if the vendors are passive participants.

That's the problem.

We are not talking about race. We are not talking about restaurants. We are talking about a specific institution people of faith believe God himself created and ordained. Should the state force people to violate their conscience in that regard?

THAT is the issue and THAT is what the First Amendment should be for if it means anything.

You want to talk absurd -- here's the absurdity --- The gay couple, instead of going to another bakery, INSISTED on filing suit. The State of Oregon could have easily told this couple to go to another shop. Instead, they fined this Christian Bake shop $135,000 effectively ruining their livelihood.

It is not surprising that there are aggrieved gay rights activists who think the state should be able to force people to recognize as normal that which most Christians view as sinful. What is staggering is the number of self-styled conservatives or libertarians who apparently think the State has the right to decide and enforce this issue and ruin an honest livelihood.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Now you have the gay couple's words against the Kleins ( the Christian bakers ).

Here's what they told the CBN News: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2013/february/baker-investigated-for-refusing-gay-wedding-cake/?mobile=false

"I never told anybody they were an abomination," Klein said.

OK, Suppose we had a Christian Baker who very simply said this -- "I am sorry, but we do not make cakes for gay weddings. If you wish, We can make you a cake without any message on it."

Would that be an acceptable compromise to the state of Oregon? I'm trying to find some sort of point of agreement here.

You keep missing (or a willfully ignoring) the most salient point and bypassing the actual case to debate something that no one is questioning here.

The Kleins have every right protected by the Constitution, but they don't have a constitutionally-protected right to run a for-profit business (bakery) in accordance to their own beliefs and standards.

Businesses are licensed and regulated entities, subject to all kinds of government-imposed regulations including the anti-discriminatory statutes found in the State's laws.

So your soaring rhetoric aside, and being in concert with the fact that the several layers of State government have the Constitutional power to license and regulate businesses within their jurisdiction, no one has a constitutionally-protected right to ignore those regulations when running their businesses, irrespective of their reason, and their First Amendment rights do not cast aside their duty to abide by all regulations related to the operation of their business.

[libertybele]

You keep missing (or a willfully ignoring) the most salient point and bypassing the actual case to debate something that no one is questioning here.

The Kleins have every right protected by the Constitution, but they don't have a constitutionally-protected right to run a for-profit business (bakery) in accordance to their own beliefs and standards.

Businesses are licensed and regulated entities, subject to all kinds of government-imposed regulations including the anti-discriminatory statutes found in the State's laws.

So your soaring rhetoric aside, and being in concert with the fact that the several layers of State government have the Constitutional power to license and regulate businesses within their jurisdiction, no one has a constitutionally-protected right to ignore those regulations when running their businesses, irrespective of their reason, and their First Amendment rights do not cast aside their duty to abide by all regulations related to the operation of their business.

Sorry to butt into the debate here; but why do you feel that their First Amendment rights shouldn't be honored?  It seems to me that the 'regulations' infringe upon their first Amendment rights. 

[SirLinksALot]

You keep missing (or a willfully ignoring) the most salient point and bypassing the actual case to debate something that no one is questioning here.

The Kleins have every right protected by the Constitution, but they don't have a constitutionally-protected right to run a for-profit business (bakery) in accordance to their own beliefs and standards.

Yes they do, IF in their running of their for profit business, they are required to convey a message that is AGAINST THEIR CONSCIENCE. As I said, First Amendment Rights SUPERCEDE local business rules.

Ones' first amendment rights do not disappear just because one operates a for profit business. A Black Baker is not required to bake a cake for a KKK party that require them to write messages repugnant to to his deeply held beliefs about race. Same principle applies to the Christian Baker.

[SirLinksALot]

So, a restaurant as a licensed business can't refuse to serve someone because they are gay, Muslim, Hispanic or what-ever.  Thus, the bakery as a licensed business cannot refuse service of making a cake because a person is gay, Muslim, Hispanic or what-ever. Both could choose not to be a licensed business if their belief system required this and thus their 1st Amendment rights are not infringed.

Let's correct this for a moment.... the bakers in question are not refusing service to a type of people (in this case, gays, but you can also replace "gays" with  Blacks or Muslims, it still applies) — they are refusing to be party to a type of message. This is not debatable. When you put writing on a same-sex “wedding” cake, you’re crafting a message; if you place figurines (of two men, for instance) on that cake, you’re erecting symbols relating that message.

Note here that the Supreme Court has already ruled that “Symbolic Speech” — a legal term in U.S. law — is protected under the First Amendment; examples of such rulings would be that pertaining to flag-burning and the Tinker v. Des Moines case.

And can we compel people to participate in the creation of a message? Forced speech is not free speech. It is a VIOLATION of a person's First Amendment Rights.

As I said before, Some homosexuality activists have likened the bakers’ refusal to provide faux-wedding cakes to a denial of service to blacks. This is a false analogy. A race-specific refusal is denying service based on what a person is; in the wedding-cake incidents, denial was based on what message was being requested or what message that action implies to the person required to serve is.

Let's differentiate between THE PERSON and THE MESSAGE.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Yes they do, IF in their running of their for profit business, they are required to convey a message that is AGAINST THEIR CONSCIENCE. As I said, First Amendment Rights SUPERCEDE local business rules.

Ones' first amendment rights do not disappear just because one operates a for profit business. A Black Baker is not required to bake a cake for a KKK party that require them to write messages repugnant to to his deeply held beliefs about race. Same principle applies to the Christian Baker.

You sign an agreement to run the business within all applicable laws and regulations which gives you the license to run the business.

There is no First Amendment right which allows you to run a for-profit business in violation of all applicable laws and regulations.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Sorry to butt into the debate here; but why do you feel that their First Amendment rights shouldn't be honored?  It seems to me that the 'regulations' infringe upon their first Amendment rights.

The First Amendment does not mention businesses.

[SirLinksALot]

The First Amendment does not mention businesses.

It is APPLICABLE to Doing Business even if it is not mentioned. James Madison mentioned a person's CONSCIENCE, that is what is being protected REGARDLESS of what venue it is.

[SirLinksALot]

You sign an agreement to run the business within all applicable laws and regulations which gives you the license to run the business.

There is no First Amendment right which allows you to run a for-profit business in violation of all applicable laws and regulations.

I argue that there is. The agreement to run the business does not mean the applicable laws and regulations suddenly supercede the fundamental law of the land.

The first amendment gives a person his INALIENABLE right, without it, you can't even think of doing any business.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I argue that there is. The agreement to run the business does not mean the applicable laws and regulations suddenly supercede the fundamental law of the land.

The first amendment gives a person his INALIENABLE right, without it, you can't even think of doing any business.

This is not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment does not protect your right to run a business outside applicable laws and regulations.

It never has.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It is APPLICABLE to Doing Business even if it is not mentioned. James Madison mentioned a person's CONSCIENCE, that is what is being protected REGARDLESS of what venue it is.

James Madison's commentaries are not law.

What is law is Oregon's § 659A.403.

[SirLinksALot]

This is not a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment does not protect your right to run a business outside applicable laws and regulations.

It never has.

Yes it has and it is. The moment you are required to convey a message and the message is against your conscience, IT APPLIES even in a business.

[truth_seeker]

Yes they do, IF in their running of their for profit business, they are required to convey a message that is AGAINST THEIR CONSCIENCE. As I said, First Amendment Rights SUPERCEDE local business rules.

Ones' first amendment rights do not disappear just because one operates a for profit business. A Black Baker is not required to bake a cake for a KKK party that require them to write messages repugnant to to his deeply held beliefs about race. Same principle applies to the Christian Baker.

As a licensed realtor, a practitioner is obligated to provide services, to anybody and everybody. There are federal and state fair housing laws. There is nothing in those laws and regulations, allowing practitioners to refuse service for reasons of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual preferences, etc.

My estimate is the same holds true for many professions and vocations. I must undergo continuing education, for license renewal.

I suppose in YOUR VIEW it should not be that way. I should be free to deny my services based on sexual orientation, right?

Why are bakers different from realtors? Attorneys, doctors, nurses, etc.?

[SirLinksALot]

James Madison's commentaries are not law.

What is law is Oregon's § 659A.403.

James Madison's commentaries TELL US THE INTENT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE LAND -- The Constitution.

This fundamental law of the land SUPERCEDES Oregon's Law. By becoming a state, Oregon agrees to abide by the constitution.

Therefore, their business laws if they are coercive, are LIMITED by the Bill of Rights

[SirLinksALot]

I suppose in YOUR VIEW it should not be that way. I should be free to deny my services based on sexual orientation, right?

Why are bakers different from realtors? Attorneys, doctors, nurses, etc.?

NOT Sexual orientation. Let us differentiate between the PERSON and the MESSAGE.

If you are required to convey a message by your actions that violate your conscience, then it is and HAS TO BE protected by the First Amendment.

You cannot refuse service  to a type of people (in this case, gays, but you can also replace "gays" with  Blacks or Muslims, it still applies) —but you can  refuse to be party to conveying a type of message.

[HonestJohn]

I argue that there is. The agreement to run the business does not mean the applicable laws and regulations suddenly supercede the fundamental law of the land.

The first amendment gives a person his INALIENABLE right, without it, you can't even think of doing any business.

Businesses aren't people, they don't have Constitutional rights.

[Bigun]

Businesses aren't people, they don't have Constitutional rights.

Businesses are owned and operated by people who DO NOT give up their Constitutional rights just because the choose to own or operate a business!

[HonestJohn]

Businesses are owned and operated by people who DO NOT give up their Constitutional rights just because the choose to own or operate a business!

And they can.  They cannot ascribe their own beliefs to that of the business.  If the business says it bakes all types of cakes for all occasions, then it does just that.  If the owner feels differently, he can say so.  He cannot conflate that with the business.

Which is why the head of Chick-fil-A opposes gay marriage.  He donates to groups against it.  But at the same time, Chick-fil-A serves and hires gays/lesbians.

[Luis Gonzalez]

NOT Sexual orientation. Let us differentiate between the PERSON and the MESSAGE.

If you are required to convey a message by your actions that violate your conscience, then it is and HAS TO BE protected by the First Amendment.

You cannot refuse service  to a type of people (in this case, gays, but you can also replace "gays" with  Blacks or Muslims, it still applies) —but you can  refuse to be party to conveying a type of message.

You're parsing words.

There is a refusal to convey a service based on the sexual orientation of the individuals seeking the service because the service provider wants to discriminate against their sexual preference.

Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Businesses are owned and operated by people who DO NOT give up their Constitutional rights just because the choose to own or operate a business!

No one has a Constitutional right to own and operate a business.