Imagine a world where photographers, web designers and videographers were forced by law to work in the porn industry. If they don’t choose to work with porn clients, then they can be sued; losing their businesses and their personal property as a result!
Who would want to have their freedom to choose their clients ripped away by virtue signalling? No one.
The media would have you believe this suit is a pristine example of discrimination against the LGBT community, but that’s simply rubbish. It’s about the First Amendment – the Right to Religious Freedom.
America, if you remember, was started by many groups with a variety of reasons. Some came here to exploit the new land for money, while others came here because they were criminals in exile. However, one of the big reasons for the Northeastern colonies was a group escaping religious oppression in England. They didn’t want to be aligned with the King’s Church of England. They sought religious freedom, to worship the way they saw fit. Hence, why this right is very first Amendment in our Constitution! Make sense?
The case before the Supreme Court, could very well turn out to be our contemporary Roe v. Wade precedent setting litigation, because it will determine whether or not business owners have a right to refuse service based on their personal conscience. Not only does this hit the Religious Freedom, it also touches on Free Speech. Christian baker Jack Phillips has turned this seemingly nuisance case into a legitimate fight to retain a constitutional right!
In reality, the same-sex couple had several other choices but they chose to make a big hoopla out of this one baker refusing service. Sounds to me like politics was more important to Charlie Craig and David Mullins than their wedding. I always suspect cases like this because people – especially liberals – like to use the justice system as a way to get their opinions validated rather than using it for what it’s meant to do — finding remedies for injured parties in Civil suits. Frankly, the fact Phillips didn’t bake their cake leaves no real injury for Craig and Mullins, one has to wonder why this case wasn’t dismissed on the lower court level.
Hint: I have often thought these litigants were bankrolled by opposition groups to cause a deterioration of our Constitutional Rights, but so far, none have jumped out to take the financial credit! Remember, David Brock said he had billions at his disposal to reshape our country’s landscape and counter the MAGA agenda.
Readers, you have to remember, Colorado is known for its progressive attitude and virtue signalling society much like Washington State. The liberal melee continues to permeate their culture which has led to some pretty interesting decisions in violation of federal laws – like the legalization of marijuana recreational use, so it’s not out of the realm of possibilities such legal system abusing cases such as this one, be heard in their court system. The problem is, this pecking at our Constitutional rights doesn’t just stay within their state limits.
Once a precedent is shown, then all the bandwagon — including the Gloria Allreds of the legal world — begin to take full advantage of wayward rulings until it becomes a minority eradicating the rights of the majority. This is not good for our society and smacks in the face of our inalienable rights!
While it sounds like a frivolous suit, it’s not by a long shot, because as said in the opener, if the Supreme Court rules for Colorado to have the right to penalize business’s rights, it would open a floodgate of other suits. Hence, it would also take away an owner’s right to refuse serving customers who want something that stands against a person’s personal code. To the causal observer or even a legally savvy one, it demonstrates a far over-reach of government into the personal held beliefs on an individual basis. This goes against the grain of the US Constitution and constitutes the very tyranny our founding fathers warned us about in their various writings.
The oral arguments were heard yesterday and Justice Kennedy’s questioning Colorado’s tolerance toward Phillips is a good sign he’s leaning towards his Constitution-loving contemporaries. Many have speculated we’re looking at a 5-4 vote in the baker’s favor, so let’s keep the faith!
We shall see in the days to come how this cake situation shakes out; but let’s hope it doesn’t end up with us on the losing end. Because after all, disagreement doesn’t constitute discrimination and that’s all this really was in the first place!
We should thank our lucky stars for a patriot like Jack Phillips, whom had the perseverance and wherewithal to take this all the way to the Supreme Court instead of just lying down and taking the tyrannical opinion of the Colorado court system. It would’ve been so very easy to do the latter, indeed!