Friday, September 08, 2017

Important Battles Are Going To Be Fought (Part 2)

The other court case we should be watching is the case on "Religious Freedom” that is before the Supreme Court and it has just taken an ominous turn.
In major Supreme Court case, Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple
Washington Post
By Robert Barnes
September 7, 2017

In a major upcoming Supreme Court case that weighs equal rights with religious liberty, the Trump administration on Thursday sided with a Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

The Department of Justice on Thursday filed a brief on behalf of baker Jack Phillips, who was found to have violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act by refusing to created a cake to celebrate the marriage of Charlie Craig and David Mullins in 2012. Phillips said he doesn’t create wedding cakes for same-sex couples because it would violate his religious beliefs.

The government agreed with Phillips that his cakes are a form of expression, and he cannot be compelled to use his talents for something in which he does not believe.
Tell me Mr. Attorney General Sessions, would someone who is black and denied service would that be free speech? Would a company that has a sign up that says “No Muslims Will Be Hired” be free speech?

I would say Mr. Attorney General that you want to ban LGBT people not because of “religious freedom” but rather from bigotry and homophobia, that you are using region to hid you bigotry behind.
The DOJ’s decision to support Phillips is the latest in a series of steps the Trump administration has taken to rescind Obama administration positions favorable to gay rights and to advance new policies on the issue.
Mr. Sessions you are a bigot!


The Supreme Court case is about a baker in Colorado that refused to make a cake for a gay couple, the case was heard by civil rights commission when they found against him, he appealed to the Colorado courts and when he lost their he took his case to the federal courts.
But Phillips refused to discuss the issue, saying his religious beliefs would not allow him to have anything to do with same-sex marriage. He said other bakeries would accommodate them.

The civil rights commission and a Colorado court rejected Phillips’ argument that forcing him to create a cake violated his First Amendment rights of freedom of expression and exercise of religion.

The court said the baker “does not convey a message supporting same-sex marriages merely by abiding by the law.”
Why is this case so important to us?

Well first off, a baker or another store or business could just as easy to discriminate against us, since you can use the same argument against us. Also you could easily also include race and religion in this case because back in the days of Jim Crow laws they did base their discrimination of blacks on the Bible.

I feel most importantly there can be no religious test, because how can you prove that it is not against their religion? So all a bigot has to do is say “It is against my religion.”

Consider,,,
Religious Discrimination and Racism: It’s Not Old News
Columbia Law School Blog: Public Rights / Private Conscience Project
By Cindy Gao
August 22, 2014

In conversations about our work on religious exemptions law, I frequently compare the refusal to provide wedding-related services to gay couples or reproductive health care to women for religious reasons to the widespread refusal to provide services to African-Americans for religious reasons before, during, and even after the Civil Rights Movement. This comparison is most often met with dismissive incredulity: my audience insists that this did not happen, or that if it did, it was not widespread. But in fact, religious doctrine was routinely used to justify the extensive oppression of, and discrimination against, African-Americans, beginning with religious justifications for slavery and continuing through the 20th Century, particularly in the South under Jim Crow.  These arguments were more widespread before the Civil Rights Movement, but even as late as 1983 Bob Jones University, a Christian-affiliated school, was arguing in the Supreme Court that its racially discriminatory dating and marriage policies for students were constitutionally protected as a free exercise of religion. (The Supreme Court disagreed).

As it turns out, this argument is not old news. A new poll released this week finds that a full 10% of Americans think that business owners should be allowed to refuse service to African-Americans if the refusal is religiously-motivated. (Not to mention the 16% who believe business owners should be allowed to refuse service to LGBT individuals – that number is 15% when polled about refusing service to atheists and 12% for refusing service to Jewish individuals). Although that means the overwhelming majority of those polled do *not* support such exclusions, it’s still a striking result.
So this case is going to be more important than marriage equality because it void the Supreme Court decision on marriage and it can open up a whole new can worms. We might see other court case to challenge the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state non-discrimination laws.

I would be worried if Justice Kennedy steps down from the bench and Trump gets a change to pack the court with religious fanatics. 

No comments: