Below is my column in the Hill on the acceptance of a major new case by the Supreme Court on the issue of free speech and anti-discrimination laws. The nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (the subject of today’s Hill column) and the Ukraine war took attention from this addition to the docket. However, this case has the makings of a major course change for the Court.
Here is the column:
“Eliminating … ideas is CADA’s very purpose.” Those words from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals about Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act may be some of the most honest but chilling words ever uttered in a federal opinion. The court ruled that a state could not only compel an artist to speak but could prevent that artist from speaking, too.
The idea being eliminated in this instance is the view of artist Lorie Smith that marriage is “an institution between one man and one woman.” For Smith, it’s an idea grounded in faith, while for her critics, it is grounded in discrimination. Now, her case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, was just accepted by the Supreme Court to determine if that “very purpose” is the very thing that the First Amendment is designed to prevent.
Last year, I described the court’s current session as a “train whistle docket” of major cases that are likely to produce significant changes in areas like abortion, gun rights, and race criteria in college admissions. That whistle seems to get louder by the day. Indeed, this docket is a virtual listing of unfinished business for a court majority that may finally have coalesced around clear standards in areas long left murky by a divided court.
This latest case seems uniquely framed to reinforce free speech on religious values in conflicts with anti-discrimination laws.
Many years ago, I wrote an academic piece on how anti-discrimination laws would inevitably collide with free-speech and free-exercise rights. Those conflicts continued to mount across the country. In 2018, the court was thought to be ready to clarify the applicable standards in the case of a religious cake shop owner who refused to make cakes for same-sex couples. The court ultimately punted in that case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, ruling for the owner yet leaving uncertainty over the constitutional limitations on cities and states under anti-discrimination law.
Smith’s case has long been a focus for some of us. I have written in favor of taking a free-speech approach to these cases rather than treating them as conflicts under the Constitution’s religion clauses. For that reason, one aspect of this grant of review was immediately notable. The court agreed to consider only one question: “Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”
Both of the questions initially raised by Smith referenced the religion clauses, but the court carefully excised the other claims to focus solely on free speech. That is precisely what some of us have advocated as the best way of resolving these disputes, and it could signal that a new, bright line will be drawn in this case.
It would be difficult to pick a case that more highlighted both the free-speech rights of artists but also the anti-free-speech elements of some of these laws. Smith is an artist and website designer who wants to use her skills to design wedding websites. She is also deeply religious and wants to promote her view of marriage as between one man and one woman. While she (like the Masterpiece Cakeshop owner) said she would work with LGBT customers, she stated that she would not create designs celebrating marriages that violate her religious values. She also wanted to post a statement explaining those values.
I fundamentally disagree with Smith’s views on same-sex marriage and have supported such marriages for decades. However, one’s personal views or values should not matter in determining whether Smith has a right to the expression of her own views as an artist.
That brings us to the most striking aspect of the 10th Circuit opinion. Many past courts have sought to reject these cases as free-speech conflicts or to minimize the degree to which speech is being curtailed or denied. The 10th Circuit was neither evasive nor ambiguous. It agreed that this case involved “pure speech” and that the state was forcing her both to say things she opposed and to not say things she supported. It further agreed that this denial required the satisfaction of the most stringent constitutional standard: the strict scrutiny test. It then said all of that was perfectly constitutional. The court ruled that the state could create a type of “pro-LGBT gerrymander” forcing religious artists to celebrate same-sex marriage while protecting the speech rights of secular artists.
The opinion has other notable elements. For example, it declares that Smith’s designs are “unique services [which] are, by definition, unavailable elsewhere.” Yet, it admits that “LGBT consumers may be able to obtain wedding-website design services from other businesses.” Thus, Smith’s status as an artist works against her. Couples want to force her to celebrate their marriage, relying on her unique artistic skills; either she creates these images for LGBT marriages, or she cannot create such images for any marriages.
After years of obfuscation and avoidance, the court finally has a free speech case without exit ramps or extraneous issues.
Free speech offers a clear path and precedent for addressing these conflicts. For example, a Jewish baker asked to make a “Mein Kampf” cake, or a Black baker asked to make a KKK cake, should be able to refuse those jobs as offensive to them. People may agree or disagree with their values; some may even boycott their stores. However, “public accommodation” should not mean “compelled public speech.” Likewise, it should not allow the government to ban an artist from expressing her views on the sanctity of marriages, even if many of us reject her views.
Colorado’s arguments in the case only heightened free-speech concerns. It stressed that a business is not required to design a website proclaiming “God is Dead” if it would decline such a design for any customer. Yet when Smith said she would not design a website celebrating same-sex marriage for any customer, the state said that was discrimination.
The appeals court resolved this conflict with a bludgeon of a rationale: Some views are simply intolerable. According to the court, an artist espousing faith-based objections to same-sex marriage is simply one of those views that must be excised “from the public dialogue” and “eliminating such ideas is CADA’s very purpose.”
In his powerful dissent, Chief Justice Timothy Tymkovich starts with a poignant quote from George Orwell: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” The Supreme Court will now decide if liberty can exist if you not only are barred from saying things that people do not want to hear but also compelled to say the things that they do.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
The good Professor falls short in his explanation. He should have approached the subject and explained that those who do not comply will be forced to comply at the point of a gun.
The good Prof starts with a glaring inaccuracy. The Cake baker did not refuse to bake for gay people. They fully agreed to bake a birthday cake for the same couple. They refused the idea, not the people.
Marriage is a Christian sacrament. Reserved for a man and woman.
The govt got involved. They stole the sacrament as a way to incentivize behavior the govt wanted to encourage. “marriage” was a category the used to distribute benefits. SS benefits got shared with a spouse. Only because the woman stayed home to rear a family…a critically important activity for a functioning society. Inheritance gets a tax break for spouses, for the same reason. None of those reason apply to homosexual couples.
The problem started with the government, forcing businesses, to serve all. Now they are trying to force Pandora back in the box
Iowan2,
“ The problem started with the government, forcing businesses, to serve all.”
No, the government is not forcing businesses to serve all. It’s enforcing the law. Specifically the 14th amendment,
“ All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The baker in Colorado chose to do business within the secular confines of his state’s rules. That meant adhering to the state’s anti discrimination ordinance as a condition of being able to do business in the state. The baker believes he should be exempt from a law that applies to everyone else because he has certain religious beliefs. Beliefs that change direction as often as the cultural winds blow. The sincerity of such beliefs should be scrutinized if they are to be taken seriously.
Adultery is a serious sin that is committed by almost everyone. If such beliefs are “deeply held” or “sincerely held”. Then people such as the baker wouldn’t be able to do business with a clear conscience the majority of the time. What about single mothers? Divorced couples? Single fathers? All are assaults on “deeply held religious belief”. Obviously they are ignored or pushed aside putting into question the sincerity of their claim.
Religious folks certainly chose to carry a certain burden that their religion requires of them. That doesn’t mean others who don’t share their beliefs should help them carry that burden because they put themselves into a situation that they knew would create a problem. Those types of people serve or sell products to people their beliefs wouldn’t allow them to if they knew who they were.
One solution would be for gay couples or would be married gay couples is to simply be vague. Offer no details other than it’s for a wedding. They don’t need to know who is getting married. That way they would be just as “safe” in not knowing they have done something against their “ beliefs” as they have for everyone else like adulterers or single mothers or divorcées.
No, the government is not forcing businesses to serve all. It’s enforcing the law. Specifically the 14th amendment,
The 14 amendment has nothing to do with a cafe right to refuse service. The 14th amendment does not address forcing an individual into service of others.
Iowan2, the government is not forcing an individual into service of others. It’s the business lever who freely chose to do business with the public. A business operates within the rules of secular legal system when it’s catering to the public. Meaning they cannot be exempt from the rules because of cherry picking religious beliefs.
Religious beliefs are often used as an excuse to practice bigotry. First it was interracial marriage, now it’s same sex marriages. Single moms, divorcées, adulterers would pretty much prevent them from doing business entirely if they truly had “deeply held religious beliefs”. It’s a burden they chose for themselves. Nobody forced them. If they want do operate in the secular business world where their burdens would be their obstacle. Forcing others to help them carry their self imposed burden is not only wrong it’s quite selfish.
The sincerity of such beliefs should be scrutinized if they are to be taken seriously.
‘The key to winning in politics, once you can fake that, you have it make.”
But aside a witty rejoinder, “sincerity” has no place in law or constitutional analysis. You are basing your entire ideology on an apparition.
Iowan2,
“ But aside a witty rejoinder, “sincerity” has no place in law or constitutional analysis. ”
It certainly does. Sincerity is at the root of the claim. Because religious belief has been used to justify bigotry, racism, slavery, etc. and often as an excuse to practice those.
It certainly does. Sincerity is at the root of the claim.
The claim is not law.
Cite the controlling statute
They don’t need to know who is getting married. That way they would be just as “safe” in not knowing they have done something against their “ beliefs”
The problem with Master Piece Bakery, was the specific words they wanted on the cake. How can you force an artist to create, that which the find objectionable.
I think this issue goes deeper than “how can you force an artist to create…” in that craftspeople constantly make products that they find ugly or out of taste but they are contracted to do so through a purchase agreement. I owned (now retired from) a shop that made all sorts of graphic imagery for many products. My unofficial slogan was “I don’t do ugly” but that was used only when someone needed some design assistance. If they insisted on something awful I just said to myself – the customer is always right. If you are contracting yourself as a craftsman then that is different from when I would create art of my own volition and then either keep it or sell it, that was my own creation. The problem that I see is this craftsmen referring to her work as art. She makes product in an artistic way but is she really making art? This needs far more discussion.
Alma Carman, that’s certainly a very interesting point.
The important part is “contract” You signed the contract.
The govt did not force you to sign
Iowan2,
“ The problem with Master Piece Bakery, was the specific words they wanted on the cake.”
They didn’t want any words on the cake. The baker didn’t want to apply a wedding design on the cake. It was only after the baker inquired about who was getting married that set the whole thing off. If they didn’t say who was getting married and only stated it was for a wedding the baker would have made a cake without ever knowing it was a same sex wedding. His “deeply held religious beliefs would have been intact.
Svelaz believes that the government should determine how we deal with our personal lives and work. He is asking for dictatorship and slavery (forced labor).
This type of thinking is creating a legal morass so that when the leadership changes, the law changes, and everyone has to change as well. If the new dictator believes in God, he might force people to church every Sunday. That probably would be good for Svelaz’s well-being. If that is not satisfactory to Svelaz, he should tell us why.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ Svelaz believes that the government should determine how we deal with our personal lives and work. He is asking for dictatorship and slavery (forced labor).”
Nope. You don’t get to tell me or anyone what I believe. Don’t put words in people’s mouths.
Government isn’t forcing people to serve others. They are enforcing the equal treatment of others according to the law. Some like to think they are exempt from the law because the special privilege of being religious demands it.
Nope. You don’t get to tell me or anyone what I believe. Don’t put words in people’s mouths.”
Svelaz, no one has to put words in your mouth. You do that all by yourself. The gay couple could have bought any cake in the store, but Phillips refused to create an artistic cake to celebrate something he thought sinful. Why would any decent person want to force someone to do something sinful (in his mind) that is unnecessary? The gay people I know would never do such a cruel thing.
Would you ever ask your mother to draw a picture of two or three people having sex? I wouldn’t, but do you know why you wouldn’t do so? It isn’t a decent thing to do.
LOL. The government is forcing servitude, it is enforcing a law that requires servitude.”
I do not claim religious exemption from baking a homo cake. I simply refuse to do what you tell me when I choose. Deal with it. I do that equally for everyone, simply because some people ask me to do thinks I will do has no bearing on the rest.
You have no right of action from me. Especially if you are litigious vermin that feels and is ostracized for many reasons, mostly what you do not think being the case,.
“Government isn’t forcing people to serve others.”
Business Owner (BO): “I don’t want to serve Joe.”
Government: “You have to serve Joe. Or else.”
BO: “‘Or else’ what?”
Govt: “We will use our police powers to fine, arrest, jail you, confiscate your business.”
Evade all you want. *That* is government compelling some people to serve others.
Enforcing the 14th ? … Ignoring the 13th !
I have felt from the very first that the entire hate speech legislation was unconstitutional when we finally get down to the brass tacks of it all. Public opinion of it was and has always been swayed by an agenda-driven media/education industry but finally we have an honest opportunity to run this legislation up against the constitution and settle this. I wonder what questions Sen Cruz will have for the new SCOTUS nominee with regard to this question.
Where does the freedom to contract enter into these issues?
There is no freedom to contract; that is an antiquated concept given government overreach via administrative law, and politicized courts advancing social agendas. One can only contract within accepted parameters of bureaucratic edicts; e.g., look at all whose employment has been terminated because they chose to make a health care decision most appropriate to them – was not their freedom to sell their “labor” precluded by bureaucratic threats ?
Separately, I would add cases such as “303 Creative” (Lorie Smith) and “Masterpiece Cake” clearly demonstrate that the demonrats have de facto repealed the “13th Amendment” and permit “slavery” and “indentured servitude” as long as it advances their purposes. But the demonrat party has always been the champions of slavery in this country whether “southern” or “northern plantations”, importing illegals to become “slave labor” in the “underground economy”, legal immigration via special visas to undercut American’s salaries and wages, offshoring to countries which actively perpetuate slavery, relocating whole communities from “tribal cultures” where slavery and humans as chattel remains core to their beliefs, … I would further argue that most government workers are enslaved, owing their jobs to how they vote and having been brainwashed into believing they could replace their income in a “free economy” (the pervasive federal education system is core to this; as are “unions”).
Last, this country needs to, as a society, reinstate the basic mores against lewd and immoral behaviors that societies since the beginning of time have held. A starting point might be to define what is a “religion” such that “government as the ‘established religion'” of the United States would be precluded, and celebrating “perversity” as a “religious cause” would also be precluded.
Next to last para. SHB “they could not replace”.
It obvious that the flawed premise of compelling private business owners to perform transactions with people that don’t want to, would inevitably bump into other laws guaranteeing free choices to associate with who or what they want.
Libertarians have been pointing this out for decades only to be called racist, where it is actually freedom of choice from state imposed association
If you are bent you are bent…
You are bent all the way ..
From your first blow job…
Til your fast dying day!
The Lord will send you …
Straight to hell.
When you arrive they will ring a bell
Hell is for queers and not for deers.
You ain’t got an antler and will not get denied!
Liberty…….refresh my memory: what grade are you in?
Freedom of speech should absolutely triumph. I don’t care if you are David Duke or BLM. You should have a legal right to make an a$$ out of yourself in public. Let the courtroom of public opinion make these decisions, not politicians and bureaucrats.
Putin should get a taste of his own medicine. Let bombs rain down on Moscow.
Putin should get the Nobel Peace Prize for sending in those peace-keeping troops.
Why not, Obama got one for doing nothing.
I wouldn’t hold it against Zelenskiy if he has to flee Kyiv, as long as he returns. Live to fight another day. Douglas MacArthur had to flee to Australia from the Philippines when the Japanese invaded. He promised to return someday, which he did.
MacArthur left the Philippines because he was ordered to by President Roosevelt to leave. Zelensky Is the President and he is right by staying. Leadership is not “do as I say,” but “do as I do, follow me.” And that’s exactly what he is doing. Hopefully, Zelensky and the Ukrainians will kill a lot of Russians.
I will take the LGBT mafia seriously when they go to a Muslim bakery and demand a Mohammad cartoon cake.
Any takers? Come on, s@@tlibs and be brave for the cause.
What’s that I hear?? Crickets?
antonio
Don’t have a WordPress account, but I’d like it if I could. You are correct, of course. Just as they would not go to an illegal immigrant’s business and demand a ‘BORDER PATROL ARE GREAT’ cake. The ignorance and hypocrisy of the privilehed lib class is nothing new, though.
Beat me to it. Antonio!
Antonio and James hit the nail on the head. For some reason the left feels it is fine to pick on Christians and only Christians. I am not a Christian, but I find it abhorrent that the left is so bigoted against them. Don’t believe me…as Antonio alluded to above, show me a protest at any Muslim establishment. The left even loves Iran, the place where gays are tossed off of roofs.
The left, under the guise of the NBA BOYCOTTED North Carolina because they wanted to not let men into women’s bathrooms…and then they have exhibition games in middle eastern nations that ban gays entirely.
hullbobby…….I’m watching “Giant”, and thinking that gay Rock Hudson was more of a real man than so many Lefty men I know who are too afraid to address the hypocrisy that actually kills gays, that you’re speaking of…….!!! It’s sickening. You’re exactly right.
Where in the Constitution does it grant the power to control the People’s speech….to dictate what the People can say….and dictate what the People must say?
Someone please cite the Article and Cause that sets forth that power….I shall wait.
We saw yesterday how we have. arrived at this situation….by Biden appointing the Nominee that he did….he furthers the Leftist method of appointing Judges that legislate from the Bench and ignore the Constitution when deciding Cases.
I have a problem with same sex “Marriage”….as to me it is not “Marriage” but is certainly a Legal Union that deserves equal treatment under the Law.
That is acccomodation to both sides, a compromise in wording that affords equal protection to both speech and legal protection.
Government cannot be allowed to dictate what a Citizen must say…..and any such law, rule, regulation, ordinance or policy must be banned and anyone endorsing such dictates should be removed from Office and be penalized.
“Government cannot be allowed to dictate what a Citizen must say…..”
I agree, but sadly, increasingly, that is precisely what is happening. Great to be close to the finish line because I do not want to see the arrival of what increasingly is obvious…the end of liberty in America. The end of America.
Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America well projected the decline and demise of America. Now Nero has begun to fiddle. “The court ruled that the state could create a type of “pro-LGBT gerrymander” forcing religious artists to celebrate same-sex marriage while protecting the speech rights of secular artists.”
Gerrymandering, tokenism, affirmative action, reducing standards, participation trophies, abortion, samesex marriage, corupt government, have paved the way. Just a matter of time. Believe as you chose, that is (should be) your prerogative, and to ech his own, and to thine own self be true. Selah
As a free individual, my free speech should not be considered a violation of discrimination laws. I should neither be compelled nor denied the right to say what I believe as long as it doesn’t threaten violence towards others.
I recognize that my free speech contains things others do not wish to hear. To that, I respond, too bad.
S.Meyer,
Amen Brother! I agree exactly as you say it.
Say and think what you wish…right up to the point you offer violence or in any way incite others to violence.
I may not agree, endorse, or support what someone is saying….but I do accept their Right to do so….just as I demand I have that exact same Right.
Government must not be allowed to dictate to the People….the People should dictate to the Government.
Far too many have lost sight of that.
Forget the idea of supporting someone who doesn’t support same-sex marriage and instead thing of it as forced performance. Now imagine that if Stephen Colbert performed at Obama’s inauguration (or Streisand or any other very liberal “artist”) and then go forward to think about Trump DEMANDING that Colbert perform at his inauguration.
The Cake Shop case, like the case at hand, is about forcing action on the plaintiffs. In the Cake Shop case the owner DOES NOT ban gays from buying cakes, he only doesn’t want to CREATE a cake for a specific wedding. The activists discovered his shop and targeted him for their activism as there were many other places the gay couple could have gone for their cake. They wanted to force the guy to make something he didn’t want to make. Sort of like forcing Barbra Streisand to sing for Trump. It is like Specific Performance on steroids.
PS to my own comment: I supported gay marriage before Obama and Hilary Clinton, but these cases aren’t about gay marriage, they are about freedom from coercion.
The problem with the legislation is that the term marriage is a religious construct.
Any two people of any sex could always engage in a legal contract to provide the essential benefits and disadvantages of marriage. They could even call themselves married. The only things restricted were laws created by the states or federal government. An example would be social security. The remedy would have been to advocate changes in those laws.
S. Meyer,
“ They could even call themselves married. The only things restricted were laws created by the states or federal government.”
No they couldn’t. It was religious conservatives who wanted to deny them the right call their union a marriage thru legislation. They literally wanted the government NOT to recognize their legal contract at all.
Religious conservatives claimed they had the sole authority to determine what constitutes a marriage over everyone else. They didn’t want to allow same sex couples to be legitimized by government which is supposed to be neutral on whether their marriage would be considered valid. Religious conservatives had the same issue and used the same excuses when they opposed interracial marriages.
“ Any two people of any sex could always engage in a legal contract to provide the essential benefits and disadvantages of marriage.”
No you couldn’t do that before same sex marriage became legal. It was ILLEGAL at the time. No government agency would have been required to recognize a same sex marriage. Even states created constitutional amendments denying that recognition by stating a marriage can ONLY be between one man and one woman.
Marriage may just be a religious construct, but it was a construct forced upon everyone else as the ONLY construct they themselves determined to be the authority of.
“No they couldn’t. It was religious conservatives who wanted to deny them the right call their union a marriage thru legislation.”
Svelaz, you have it wrong, as usual.
A marriage is a contract. Outside what I mentioned, tell us, what part of the contract could not be handled without legislation.
When it comes to specifics you fail. You know very little.
I’ll add that people can marry in a religious venue and not be held to the marriage contract. People can call themselves married and not be held to the marriage contract.
Do you have any idea what a contract is? What it means? How one is created? Why contracts exist? Do you know what a meeting of the minds is?
Were you taught nothing in school?
S. Meyer being obtuse as usual.
“ Outside what I mentioned, tell us, what part of the contract could not be handled without legislation.”
For same sex couples it couldn’t. Because such contracts were not legally recognized as such. They couldn’t enjoy the same benefits that heterosexual married couples did. Everything from taxes to insurance benefits couldn’t legally be the same as that of a heterosexual marriage or contract.
Religious conservatives literally passed legislation making same sex marriages or contracts illegal. Because religious conservatives couldn’t stand the though of two people of the same sex having equal recognition being married as heterosexual couples. Their contracts were NOT the same as that of a heterosexual couple. That was the problem.
Can you show us any examples of same sex couples legally married thru a contract recognized by government prior to the Obergefell ruling? Give us some specific examples.
“For same sex couples it couldn’t. Because such contracts were not legally recognized as such.”
Read what a marriage contract entails. All provisions with the type of exceptions mentioned previously can be written into a contract and signed by the parties involved.
Svelaz, tell us what other provisions cannot be duplicated by contract? You won’t provide any specifics because you do not understand contract law.
“Everything from taxes to insurance benefits couldn’t legally be the same as that of a heterosexual marriage or contract.”
You also didn’t read carefully. In my first comment, I said: “The only things restricted were laws created by the states or federal government. An example would be social security. The remedy would have been to advocate changes in those laws.”
Give *specific* examples of the problems you want to solve or say are illegal because of politics to discuss and manage them individually. Understand there are two parts to marriage: 1) A contract involving finances that need not be called a marriage 2) a religious bond between a man and a woman. Anyone can be married religiously or secularly and call themselves married. Only the contract has a legal meaning.
I have no problem with two or even more people joining together, no matter their sex or race. That is a personal issue that the government should not be involved in. Some of the laws you talk about were created by Democrats, but no matter, no one should interfere with another’s liberty.
“Can you show us any examples of same sex couples legally married thru a contract recognized by government prior to the Obergefell ruling? Give us some specific examples.”
I could, but that would interfere in the attorney-client privilege. It just so happens that someone very close to me handled these matters for many gay clients. The contracts or the outline were presented, and many decided they did not want a marriage contract according to the state’s laws. They chose less invasive ways of dealing with the situation.
S. Meyer,
“ Svelaz, tell us what other provisions cannot be duplicated by contract? You won’t provide any specifics because you do not understand contract law.”
How about reciprocity in other states? A same sex “ contract would only be valid in the state they reside. A normal “contract” would be recognized in every state.
The same-sex contract you are talking about is not a normal contract. Do you know the reasons behind the clauses of the marriage contract? I will provide an example. If one partner dies, the other is entitled to a certain percentage of his estate. Any gay person can create a contract duplicating that part of a state’s marriage contract. People can have a religious ceremony and be considered married but are not forced to uphold the state marriage contract legally.
What we are discussing is the use of the word marriage. Iowan explained that very well in one of his replies to you. Everything can be granted to the union of two gay persons, even the use of the word marriage. The dispute is changing the legal definition of a spiritual designation of the word marriage.
Why someone would want to stick a poker in another’s eye is something I don’t understand. Apparently, you do, so perhaps you would like to explain.
S. Meyer,
“ I’ll add that people can marry in a religious venue and not be held to the marriage contract. People can call themselves married and not be held to the marriage contract.”
You’re talking about common law marriage. It’s not the same as a legally binding marriage and it differs a lot by state. Also same sex couples couldn’t be legally recognized as a marriage even by common law marriage standards.
“You’re talking about common law marriage.”
No. I am not talking about common law marriage imposed by states if two individuals lived together and appeared as man and wife for a specific length of time.
“it differs a lot by state. ”
Yes. The marriage contract differs by state.
You are stuck in a loop without recognizing that marriage had a purpose. You want to stick a poker in the eye of your neighbor who doesn’t care how you live or what contracts you have. You want to stick that poker in the eye because you will go to any means to hurt those with different beliefs than yourself.
I am not arguing against gay people. I am arguing for them and non-gay people to recognize that each individual should be free to live his own life. We do not need the government telling us how we should live our personal lives.
“Religious conservatives had the same issue and used the same excuses when they opposed interracial marriages.”
In Pew Research Center polling in 2004, Americans opposed same-sex marriage by a margin of 60% to 31%. Pew Research Center polling conducted as recently as 2019 found 29% of Democrats still oppose same-sex marriage so it’s not just a religious conservative “issue”. I suggest you also do some research on the opposition of interracial marriage. Here’s a fun fact….In 1871, Rep. Andrew King, D-Mo., proposes a U.S. constitutional amendment banning all interracial marriage in every state throughout the country. It will be the first of three such attempts….by Democrats.
It wasn’t just religious conservatives that were against gay marriage, There were also millions of people that realized that marriage was an institution that was fostered for its societal benefits, none of which two homos could provide, unfortunately.
The cry for inclusion by the homos is simultaneously laughable and pathetic.
You use that word “force” wrong in this post, too. We all know what the organized homos want, it is what most leftists want to stop, what they claim others are doing but what it is they themselves are doing…and force has most of what to do with that.
Excellent post! The court was right to excise the freedom of religion issue. Even atheists who do not believe two men can be married should not have to create a website or bake a cake for such a wedding.
Smith’s case presents an intersection between free speech and religious beliefs. There is one problem I see in smith’s view. She CHOSE to create websites knowing she would not be able to celebrate all types of marriages. Her argument could have been used to justify against creating websites for interracial marriage as it was in same-sex marriage. Both have been based on “deeply held religious beliefs”. The sincerity of such beliefs would eventually be questioned in court. Just as “deeply deeply held religious beliefs” have been used as an excuse to avoid vaccinations it has also been used as a poor excuse to be a bigot.
Smith chose to be in an environment where her beliefs would come in conflict with the rest of the world. It’s HER burden to bear. She is also wanting to make it clear by posting a notice open to all that she will not do same-sex marriage. I have no problem with that at all. It gives everyone a chance to not patronize the business if they choose not to.
Still I think it all comes down to sincerity. Eventually that will have to be questioned.
“She CHOSE to create websites knowing she would not be able to celebrate all types of marriages.”
“Smith chose to be in an environment where her beliefs would come in conflict with the rest of the world. It’s HER burden to bear.”
She chose the way she wished to live her life. Leave your malignant hands off of her.
Anonymous, She made the decision. A decision that she knew would not be an easy path. Don’t blame me for pointing out the obvious.
I see, Svelaz. Your misanthropic ways force you to tell a self-employed person to do things your way or not at all.
Leave things to the screwballs and you’ll need to wear a device to record brainwave patterns to determine if your thinking is acceptable to them.
Will be interesting to see the result in this one. Also the ensuing discussion (insert eating popcorn gif)
I fully agree with Professor Turley on this. And, I fully agree with, “ artist Lorie Smith.” I myself fully believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Not between 2 men. 2 women. Both are disgusting to me. And, not only disgusting and evil in the eyes of God, but even if I wasn’t a Christian, just the thought of 2 men or 2 women together, is vile, pathetic, sick, mentally & emotionally sick, to me. Furthermore, if there was anything on the same level as things being evil that a-lot of folks would call evil, but they would not call 2 men together as being evil, they are dead wrong. Here’s why.
You cannot call yourself a Christian and then start listing / grading sin as one is more evil than the other one. God, Jesus does not grade sin on a basis like this. An example:
A. Hitler was so evil.
B. Serial killers that kill little children left and right are so evil.
C. 2 Men, that get married or Just simply having sex, married or not, is simply committing a “sin.” But not on the same level of evil as A & B.
D. Wrong. Dead wrong. All have sinned and fell from the glory of God. Hitler is no more evil, serial children killers, serial women killers that even chop up, There bodies are no more evil than 2 men that get married. Or, 2 men or 2 women that just get together and have sex. All of them, are just as evil as the next one.
(No. I do not reply to emails. It’s a complete waste of time. If you agree with me? Ok. If you do not? Ok. I could care less if you don’t agree with me. We will never, ever, see eye to eye on this issue. And, chances are, it’s obvious that we wouldn’t either on many other issues since we don’t on this issue.)
GarlandHamiltonIII,
I have no issue with your belief against same sex-marriage. You can believe it is wrong as much as you want and it’s certainly your prerogative. It only becomes a problem when you seek to impose that belief on others which conservatives have been trying to do thru legislation.
You are perfectly free to not associate with those that are not in line with your beliefs or views, but that freedom also applies to those who choose to marry another of the same sex. It goes both ways and many Christian conservatives cannot accept that concept because it undermines their belief that EVERYONE should be following THEIR beliefs.
@Svelaz
I will take you seriously when you demand the Muslim baker create a Mohammed cartoon cake. After all we can’t have Muslims forcing their beliefs on others, right? But you won’t, of course, you’ll just obfuscate and call me a bigot.
I want a divorce! And if people such as me are a bad as you believe, you should welcome this.
antonio
I doubt that Svelaz cares whether you take him/her seriously.
You claim to want a divorce but never walk away.
The scary thing is that a law designed to crush ideas would be upheld by any court.
I am horrified that this travesty got as far as the SCOTUS. If it not unanimously ruled un-Constitutional I shall be shocked.
Sotomayor is a scary thing. We heard her “reasoning” over vaccine mandates. Beyond scary this person is sitting on the Supreme Court.
I am at a loss here, why would homosexuals want to force a Christian to make a wedding site for them? I would think they would feel uneasy but I believe their true intention is to harass the Christian just to make a point and “punish” those with whom they disagree via the public courts and opinion polls. Their use of this type of legal suit is just par for the course in their continued war on traditional America. That is fine if they dislike that culture but what gives them the right to destroy it instead of finding accommodating cultures elsewhere.
You cannot call yourself a Christian and then start listing / grading sin as one is more evil than the other one.
Alas you did just that with your tirade. Well done, hypocrite!
From your youtube “about” page: Much I could say but the greatest thing is Jesus saved me recently and I have never been happier!! Well Glory!!!!
Now that is rich. I might have given a neophyte like you a pass, but when people like you (and you are in great company) give Faith such a bad name, then there really is no other choice than to show the millstone that you are.
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
Indeed someone may say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.” See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
– James Chapter 2
Our world has collapsed not because of liberals, progressives, Democrats, etc, but because of conservatives, Republicans, traditionalists, who talk the talk but embody every single deadly / Cardinal sin: pride, wrath, gluttony, sloth, ….you know the list, right?
Our world has enjoyed relative peace, unity and goodness for centuries, certainly from the time of Christ’s birth, for one reason: we were a religious people. Call it Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam (Sunni), or a quiet resignation that we remained humble before God, remained at peace with our neighbor, and kept busy on our own self-regulation.
People like you are a disgrace, more so than liberals. At least liberals have an excuse for acting like heathens because they take pride in it (Cardinal sins). It is up to Christians to show them and the world via our works why God’s ways are the better way, imperfect that we all are.
Lent starts this Wednesday. I am giving up the internet for Lent. I have become an addict of sorts to this site and need to recalibrate.
May God have mercy on us all.
“Lent starts this Wednesday. I am giving up the internet for Lent. I have become an addict of sorts to this site and need to recalibrate.”
That is a great idea.
In case that did not translate correctly — I meant it is a great idea that I had not thought of myself and I shall join you! Fat Tuesday will be the last night of indulgent time-wasting, before the ritual Lenten sacrifices and fasting….from the internet. Ha!
@garlandremington
I am a person holding many traditional religious beliefs and agree with much of your post but their is no point in arguing with s@@tlibs. They don’t debate, their goal is the doxx, marginalize and destroy.
The sooner “conservatives” realize that cannot live or co-exist with these people, the sooner a divorce will be had.
antonio
antonio………Re: divorce..I agree, but who gets the kids? (and by “kids” I mean those incorrigible tykes on Capitol Hill. They’re a handful)
Remington:
I don’t think homosexuality is evil or immoral. It is, however, unnatural and abnormal. What’s normal is for a species to propagate itself and reproduce. Our species propagates itself via heterosexuality.
If you believe in the survival of the fittest theory, then by definition every single person – indeed every organism – alive today is a winner. We all have ancestral chains in which every individual link in our chain did whatever it had to do to survive long enough to reproduce. But along the way, there were winners in the species who either did not get a chance to reproduce (they died prematurely from starvation, disease, war, accident, homicide, suicide, etc.); they chose not to reproduce; or they were rejected by all members of the opposing sex as a prospective partner.
The winners who lack the primal urge to reproduce, or who have been rejected by the opposite sex, may have defective genes. So perhaps homosexuality is nature’s way of purging defective genes from the gene pool. If so, then to the extent homosexuals don’t reproduce and pass on defective genes it may strengthen the species and increase the likelihood of its long term survival.
I am always amazed with the way that liberal/progressive/leftist are always promoting Darwin as the rule when attempting to eliminate or deny religious views on things yet they are the first to deny his #1 tenet, “survival of the fittest”, when it comes to honestly evaluating the outcome of such socialist concepts as “The Great Society” and affirmative action/equity legislation. By all rights most of those generational welfare families would not have survived and been “left by the side of the trail as the wagon train moved on” yet are now becoming a societal burden with no relief in sight. Either take one stance or the other,
Darwin said nothing about legislation and implied nothing about legislation.
Nothing. Zero, nada, rien.
Darwin did not, but his concepts have been used as bludgeons when useful but the concept happily obscured when it conflicts with creating the nanny state, (as is those park signs that advise against feeding the fauna as they will become accustomed to the dole and lose their natural survival instincts).
If homosexuality were influenced by genes it would appear in every culture.
Sergeant,
What cultures do not have homosexuality
Sergeant, it appears in the animal world too. Oh, and it does appear in every culture.
Some of your speech and beliefs are “vile, pathetic, sick, mentally & emotionally sick, to me.”
Your God commands you to Love thy neighbor as thyself, and you spit on your God’s command.
I’m sure they still you you, doesn’t mean they’re wrong, though.
Time for this mindless emphasis on all things leftist to end and return to the real point of the country which we used to agree is freedom. Anti discrimination laws are being used simply as favoritism. There is no arguing that. Equal protection clauses give judges all the ammo they need to root out real unlawful discrimination. Everything else is will to power by groups who’ve shown they have no business having it. Mandatory cake making? Ridiculous.