Dred Scott
You probably have heard the name. Do you know the case? And why I would bring it up now?
For those that don't, the Dred Scott case was decided in 1857 by the US Supreme Court. It ruled that if your ancestors were brought to the United States as slaves, then you could never be a US Citizen, regardless of whether you were currently a slave, or a free man. It is universally considered one of the worst rulings in the Supreme Court's history.
So, why does that matter today?
This fall the Supreme Court will hear the case Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission. To sum it up, a baker has been accused of discriminating against a gay couple because he refused to provide a wedding cake, citing religious beliefs. This is only one of many like cases that have come up recently.
Some of these businesses provided their services for the very same people that they are now accused of discriminating against. It isn't the individuals that they are discriminating against, it is the wedding. Not that that should matter.
If you don't know my position, let me be clear. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II is blatantly unconstitutional, period. The Constitution governs the federal government, not private citizens. The 14th Amendment provides those same constraints on State and local governments. Though upheld by the Supreme Court, citing Interstate Commerce in public accommodations, I would reply with the words, "what about Dred Scott?" Private individuals having their use of private property dictated by federal government is just wrong. This is the issue that I had with pseudo-libertarian Gary Johnson. He had no problem sending in the jack booted thugs to stop any sign of discrimination.
I am, and have been consistent on this issue, but just let me show you someone else, to whom I would give support if asked.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/christian-pro-life-group-kicked-seattle-coffee-shop-gay-owner/
Let the free market decide whether discrimination is okay. Just not government enforced discrimination. After all, if they can tell you what you can do with your business, you give them the right to tell you to only eat at Burger King. After all, why are you discriminating by going to McDonald's or other fast food joint?
So, all eyes will now be on the one that wants to be popular, Justice Kennedy. We already know that he has no principles when it comes to the Constitution (having said that states can ban gay marriage, the year before he cast the deciding vote in Obergefell) He loves to be the darling of DC society, and I could very easily see this being his last hurrah before retiring. A country that rebelled against a king has turned around and accepted a king for its lawmaking. This should be a slam dunk 9-0, but we know it won't be.
So what about Dred Scott? If the Supremes rule against Masterpiece, then those who believe will be stripped of their 1st Amendment rights. And if they rule that religious expression is unconstitutional, then every other right is at risk. You accuse me of hyperbole, but it really is that stark.
For those that don't, the Dred Scott case was decided in 1857 by the US Supreme Court. It ruled that if your ancestors were brought to the United States as slaves, then you could never be a US Citizen, regardless of whether you were currently a slave, or a free man. It is universally considered one of the worst rulings in the Supreme Court's history.
So, why does that matter today?
This fall the Supreme Court will hear the case Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission. To sum it up, a baker has been accused of discriminating against a gay couple because he refused to provide a wedding cake, citing religious beliefs. This is only one of many like cases that have come up recently.
Some of these businesses provided their services for the very same people that they are now accused of discriminating against. It isn't the individuals that they are discriminating against, it is the wedding. Not that that should matter.
If you don't know my position, let me be clear. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II is blatantly unconstitutional, period. The Constitution governs the federal government, not private citizens. The 14th Amendment provides those same constraints on State and local governments. Though upheld by the Supreme Court, citing Interstate Commerce in public accommodations, I would reply with the words, "what about Dred Scott?" Private individuals having their use of private property dictated by federal government is just wrong. This is the issue that I had with pseudo-libertarian Gary Johnson. He had no problem sending in the jack booted thugs to stop any sign of discrimination.
I am, and have been consistent on this issue, but just let me show you someone else, to whom I would give support if asked.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/christian-pro-life-group-kicked-seattle-coffee-shop-gay-owner/
Let the free market decide whether discrimination is okay. Just not government enforced discrimination. After all, if they can tell you what you can do with your business, you give them the right to tell you to only eat at Burger King. After all, why are you discriminating by going to McDonald's or other fast food joint?
So, all eyes will now be on the one that wants to be popular, Justice Kennedy. We already know that he has no principles when it comes to the Constitution (having said that states can ban gay marriage, the year before he cast the deciding vote in Obergefell) He loves to be the darling of DC society, and I could very easily see this being his last hurrah before retiring. A country that rebelled against a king has turned around and accepted a king for its lawmaking. This should be a slam dunk 9-0, but we know it won't be.
So what about Dred Scott? If the Supremes rule against Masterpiece, then those who believe will be stripped of their 1st Amendment rights. And if they rule that religious expression is unconstitutional, then every other right is at risk. You accuse me of hyperbole, but it really is that stark.
Comments
Post a Comment