The Fatal Flaw in the Bakers’ Free Speech Argument

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
74,561
43,292
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#1
Oct 2014
31,202
5,524
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
#3
I think the precedent created is more interesting... that no longer are companies private entities that can determine who they want to do business with..

Just need to frame it as a discrimination argument and you can win 100s of thousands of dollars.
 
Nov 2008
62,776
4,829
Washington state
#5
One way to solve this whole issue is for government to get out of the marrige business altogether and let the churches do it, where it started in the first place. Government has no obligation to marry people, so stop it. Courts are now in the business of trying to settle issues about who has to provide services for a wedding even though they are opposed to it. Simple, stop marriages, let the church do it. The courts are deciding who gets rights and who doesn't, so its a conflict of the first amendment. When the Supreme Court made the Gay marriage ruling in 2015 they basically prevented free exercise of religion (first amendment) for some people in the business of servicing weddings. Now they are in a position to choose who gets rights and who doesn't. They created quite a mess for themselves unless they rule for what religious people lost 3 years ago, which is free exercise.
 
Likes: CtC
Oct 2014
31,202
5,524
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
#6
One way to solve this whole issue is for government to get out of the marrige business altogether and let the churches do it, where it started in the first place. Government has no obligation to marry people, so stop it. Courts are now in the business of trying to settle issues about who has to provide services for a wedding even though they are opposed to it. Simple, stop marriages, let the church do it. The courts are deciding who gets rights and who doesn't, so its a conflict of the first amendment. When the Supreme Court made the Gay marriage ruling in 2015 they basically prevented free exercise of religion (first amendment) for some people in the business of servicing weddings. Now they are in a position to choose who gets rights and who doesn't. They created quite a mess for themselves unless they rule for what religious people lost 3 years ago, which is free exercise.
I agree... don't compell the church, compell the court to recognize the marriage document.

My wife and I had considered a court wedding with a bbq with family... but that plan changed. The church we went through had certain requirements of us, they wanted to be sure that we shared compatible values to the church and everything.

You can have it both ways; allow people to get married and allow churches to maintain their beliefs.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
74,561
43,292
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#7
One way to solve this whole issue is for government to get out of the marrige business altogether and let the churches do it, where it started in the first place.
That makes no sense. Churches had their own law independent of, and superior to, the civil authority. This is unconstitutional in the United States.

Government has no obligation to marry people, so stop it.
The civil government is the proper repository of the law, not religious organizations.

The courts are deciding who gets rights and who doesn't.
No, they are not. A thing is not a "right" just because you say it is.

When the Supreme Court made the Gay marriage ruling in 2015 they basically prevented free exercise of religion....
No, it did not. You are making that up entirely. It is not a denial of your free exercise of religion to allow gays to get married.

[hr][/hr]
And finally, of course, your post has absolutely nothing to do with the OP, which is about the baker's free speech argument, not religious freedom.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
74,561
43,292
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#8
I agree... don't compell the church, compell the court to recognize the marriage document.
The church is not compelled to do anything. And courts cannot be required to recognize the legality of a marriage document that does not conform to civil law. Religion has no legal authority in the United States as a matter of constitutional law.