Here we are again, at the throne of King Justice Anthony Kennedy
As a review.
In 2013, the Supreme Court let stand the 9th Circus ruling that Prop 8 in California was unconstitutional, by default since the state chose not to defend its law against to leviathan government. King Kennedy essentially said that if states want to have a neanderthal view of marriage that was their business, (skipping his description, he is right, by the Constitution), but that since the state wouldn't defend its law, it was tossed.
In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell that no, even though the Constitution leaves marriage, and any number of other things to the states, states can't decide what marriage means as a legal term. Again it turned to His Majesty, Justice Kennedy, to completely reverse what he wrote just two years prior.
So here we are, in 2017, and a case regarding gay marriage is before the Supreme Court. A baker refused to create a cake for a gay wedding, and the couple complained and the state of Colorado went after the baker. To be clear, he didn't refuse to bake a cake because they were gay, he refused to create a cake for a gay wedding. He has also refused to create cakes for divorces, halloween, and other events that go against his beliefs.
Fun fact about the case, at the time that the baker refused to bake the cake, gay marriage was NOT legally recognized in the state of Colorado. Not that it matters to the case, but it is certainly ironic.
With a likely 4-4 split, guess what? Here we are, at the feet of His holiness, Justice Kennedy.
This case is far more than a baker. It is far more than a photographer, or a florist, or anyone else that has been denied their use of property because of their choice not to create for a gay wedding. It strikes at the center of the Civil Rights Act, and its enslavement of businesses everywhere, in the name of "non-discrimination".
Is enslavement too strong of a word? Ask the baker that can't make wedding cakes anymore. Ask the florist that had to pay a $135,000 fine in Oregon for refusing to provide flowers for a gay wedding. (this case is even more cut and dry, as the florist regularly served the couple, just not the wedding) Oh yeah, gay marriage wasn't recognized by the state of Oregon at the time either. The photographer in New Mexico? Same.
Am I advocating a return of Jim Crow laws? Would throwing out that section of the Civil Rights Act cause that? It is unlikely that a ruling for the baker would be broad enough to impact Section II, but if it did, what business would be stupid enough to segregate? Not if they wanted to stay in business.
Justice Kennedy, will you extend the scepter of liberty to the baker? Or will you hit him over the head with it?
In 2013, the Supreme Court let stand the 9th Circus ruling that Prop 8 in California was unconstitutional, by default since the state chose not to defend its law against to leviathan government. King Kennedy essentially said that if states want to have a neanderthal view of marriage that was their business, (skipping his description, he is right, by the Constitution), but that since the state wouldn't defend its law, it was tossed.
In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell that no, even though the Constitution leaves marriage, and any number of other things to the states, states can't decide what marriage means as a legal term. Again it turned to His Majesty, Justice Kennedy, to completely reverse what he wrote just two years prior.
So here we are, in 2017, and a case regarding gay marriage is before the Supreme Court. A baker refused to create a cake for a gay wedding, and the couple complained and the state of Colorado went after the baker. To be clear, he didn't refuse to bake a cake because they were gay, he refused to create a cake for a gay wedding. He has also refused to create cakes for divorces, halloween, and other events that go against his beliefs.
Fun fact about the case, at the time that the baker refused to bake the cake, gay marriage was NOT legally recognized in the state of Colorado. Not that it matters to the case, but it is certainly ironic.
With a likely 4-4 split, guess what? Here we are, at the feet of His holiness, Justice Kennedy.
This case is far more than a baker. It is far more than a photographer, or a florist, or anyone else that has been denied their use of property because of their choice not to create for a gay wedding. It strikes at the center of the Civil Rights Act, and its enslavement of businesses everywhere, in the name of "non-discrimination".
Is enslavement too strong of a word? Ask the baker that can't make wedding cakes anymore. Ask the florist that had to pay a $135,000 fine in Oregon for refusing to provide flowers for a gay wedding. (this case is even more cut and dry, as the florist regularly served the couple, just not the wedding) Oh yeah, gay marriage wasn't recognized by the state of Oregon at the time either. The photographer in New Mexico? Same.
Am I advocating a return of Jim Crow laws? Would throwing out that section of the Civil Rights Act cause that? It is unlikely that a ruling for the baker would be broad enough to impact Section II, but if it did, what business would be stupid enough to segregate? Not if they wanted to stay in business.
Justice Kennedy, will you extend the scepter of liberty to the baker? Or will you hit him over the head with it?
Comments
Post a Comment