"The reality is that when leftists, including those on the Supreme Court, write about liberties they are actually thinking only of liberties that they endorse. For example, the same leftists who scream that pornography is protected by the First Amendment tell us that peacefully trying to change a woman’s mind as she enters an abortion clinic is not protected by the First Amendment"The Gay Marriage Ruling Supports the Baker . . . "The Court has used similar language in previous decisions, including this quotefrom an abortion decision:
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life
"The intent of both of these quotes was to declare that the individual’s right to define who they are and what they believe overrides cultural norms and the democratic process, in the case of gay marriage, and science, in the case of abortion.
"Such a belief, that we can define reality rather than recognize it, is a symptom of the elites’ abandonment of both God and science. Both statements only make sense if one assumes that the autonomous individual has the power to actually create their own reality; something that sane people know is impossible. While we have freedom to react to reality we cannot warp it to our wills. Men can castrate themselves and wear makeup, but they cannot become women because their DNA does not change for example." . . .The fascist nature of rulings by lower courts demanding that people deny their faith and offer sacrifices to leftist dogma is clear. In all cases, the gay people being “married” had absolutely no problem finding alternative sources for their “wedding” needs. Yet the lower courts have ruled that gay’s right to pick who they want to serve them overrides the First Amendment rights of those whose “…personal identity and belief” prevent them from supporting gay “weddings.”
Clarence Thomas facepalm: Oral arguments for Masterpiece Cakeshop
. . . "Justice Kennedy spoke to clarify the position set forth in his opinion inObergefell v. Hodges, where the justice not only voted to legally redefine the nation's understanding of marriage, but wrote the 5-4 majority opinion. Yesterday, however, Justice Kennedy questioned if a Christian person, who serves all sexual orientations and holds no animus whatsoever against people who characterize
themselves by their attraction to members of the same sex, but who cannot create a cake or cooperate with two men or two women attempting to marry due to his sincerely held religious beliefs, can escape persecution from the state.
"After observing the oral arguments, I believe that there are four votes yes (Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Roberts) and four votes no (Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer). I am hoping for the sake of the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment that Justice Kennedy casts the last "yes" vote in the case to tilt the scales in favor of something that Jack Phillips has not experienced in our judicial system – namely, tolerance."
Bakery vs. bakeshop . . . "Now, Phillips said that he would sell any of his premade cakes to anyone without restriction. In this he was acting as a public accommodation. But, he said, he will not create a cake that violates his religious principles. That, he claimed, is his First Amendment right. Thus, the battle lines were drawn, and the case proceeded up to the Supreme Court." . . .
Naturally there is at least one left-wing site calling the baker a "homophobic bigot".
No comments:
Post a Comment