No one coerced the Kleins into being in the wedding business at a time when same-sex weddings are legal and in a State where laws prohibit deniail of serviced based on sexual orientation.
Again, they went in to this business with the ABSOLUTELY RIGHT assumption that their First Amendment rights would be protected. THAT should be enough for them to do their business in peace.
According to the Daily Signal:
http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/02/state-silences-bakers-who-refused-to-make-cake-for-lesbian-couple-fines-them-135k/At the time of the refusal, same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized in Oregon.It is a law that prohibits the denial of housing to a gay couple based on the fact that they are a gay couple.
Again, for the nth time, the service was not denied because they were gay. It was denied because it required the owners to write messages of affirmation of a form of marriage their deeply held beliefs consider sinful.
It prohibits companies from denying family health benefits to same-sex couples based on the fact that they are a same-sex couple.
I don't know why you are bringing this up. Health benefits are not the issue here.
It prohibits hotels from denying accommodations to a same-sex couple based on the fact that they are a same sex couple.
Again, why are you bringing this up? The issue is CONVEYING A MESSAGE.
All these examples could also arguably be construed as sending a message of approval of same-sex unions, yet they are prohibited, because the First Amendment does not give businesses a right to communicate to the public that they will unlawfully discriminate.
Yes, and if these local laws conflict with the First Amendment, the first amendment should be supreme over these local laws.
Scalia wrong?
Sadly, yes.
Well, it seems odd that today, a year after the Kleins paid their fine to the government and vowed to fight on, they have yet to challenge the State in Court.
The problem is this -- they are fighting the government. They do not have unlimited resources. This is the problem with allowing the government ( the entity that has the power to destroy you ) to favor one message over another. Why do you say it is odd? They're not multi-billionaires, it is NOT odd at all. They don't have the money and power to continue spending their time going to court.
And I support their right to fight on, MORALLY if they so choose. If they did, They are not simply fighting for themselves but all other Christian/Muslim/Jewish or any other religious business owners of America.
My guess is that their lawyers understand that they won't win that fight.
Not winning a fight does not make the law right. I am arguing a principle, I am not arguing how the political winds blow.
One could say that it would be futile to fight the Roe vs Wade decision or the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, but this is a forum to argue whether a decision made was constitutional or not. So I argue that these are not, and neither is the Oregaon decision.
Whether you disagree with the majority opnion of the SCOTUS on a case does not make that case less of a legal precedent to be used in future cases.
Hmmmm.... the above argument sounds like --- MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, to me. It might be legal, but so was the Dredd Scott Decision. Doesn't make it right.
I can also turn the situation around, let's say the Christian bakers WON their case against the gay couple, what then? Would the issue of "was the decision that was made in court, right?" go away? No it won't. I would argue that the decision that was made was RIGHT, just as I would argue that the decision made today was WRONG.
This is what we are discussing, not merely the fact that the court made its decision.
I would not argue that because the Christian bakers won the case, the court decision was therefore, right. That would be a "might makes right" argument. I want to argue whether or not the decision made was right ON PRINCIPLE whether the Klein's won the case or not.