The More We Evolve, the Less We Need God

[seer]

Good. I see no problem with that.

So then, when one citizen says to another, "You are infringing on my constitutionally protected rights" and the other says, "No, I am not," who do you think ought to resolve that dispute?

First, find out which one really has a Constitutional right. I do not have the right to take or harm your property, or harm you. In the case we are speaking of we have a baker exercising his religious freedom, a protected right. Against someone one demanding his service, which is not a Constitutional right.

[Doug Shaver]

So then, when one citizen says to another, "You are infringing on my constitutionally protected rights" and the other says, "No, I am not," who do you think ought to resolve that dispute?

First, find out which one really has a Constitutional right.

That rephrases my question. It doesn't answer my question.

[Sparko]

Then why the 'special pleading' for religion? There's no established religion in the US.

because there was in England. They wanted to avoid that.

No-ones' "free exercise of religion" is being prohibited, merely discrimination against others based upon an individual's religious beliefs. Or does religion = discrimination to you?

Yes it is. When your religion tells you that gay marriage is a sacrilege and a sin, forcing someone to create something that celebrates it is infringing on their free exercise of religion. And the constitution expressly forbids congress making any laws that infringe on the free exercise of religion. It's so simple even JimL can understand it.

Making a cake is not a good enough reason to deny someone their constitutional right. There is no constitutional right to have a wedding cake made by a Christian.

[Sparko]

That rephrases my question. It doesn't answer my question.

Are you trying to trap him and he refuses to fall for it or something?

[seer]

That rephrases my question. It doesn't answer my question.

Then I don't know what you are asking, you need to give me a specific example. I think though, if my religious freedom lead to harming you or your property, you and your property would take precedence. Life and property would be paramount. Why we would not allow child sacrifice for instance even if that was a deeply held religious practice or belief.

[Doug Shaver]

Are you trying to trap him and he refuses to fall for it or something?

A trap is something to be afraid of. I'm asking him to clarify his thinking. If his thinking is clear, he has nothing to fear.

[Doug Shaver]

Then I don't know what you are asking, you need to give me a specific example.

Smith wants to do something of which Jones disapproves on religious grounds. The Supreme court has previously ruled that Smith has a constitutional right to do this thing. Smith asks Jones to provide some assistance and offers to pay him for it. Jones normally provides this assistance to anybody who will pay his asking price. Jones refuses the assistance to Smith because of his religious convictions. Smith accuses Jones of violating his constitutional right. Jones denies that he is violating any of Smith's constitutional rights. Who should decide which of them is correct?

[seer]

Smith wants to do something of which Jones disapproves on religious grounds. The Supreme court has previously ruled that Smith has a constitutional right to do this thing. Smith asks Jones to provide some assistance and offers to pay him for it. Jones normally provides this assistance to anybody who will pay his asking price. Jones refuses the assistance to Smith because of his religious convictions. Smith accuses Jones of violating his constitutional right. Jones denies that he is violating any of Smith's constitutional rights. Who should decide which of them is correct?

Jones has a Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. Now you have to show me exactly which Constitutional privilege Smith is asserting. Or, I could put it this way. Smith wants to publish a girly magazine (Constitutionally protected right), Jones is a well know photographer and Smith wants to hire him to take nude pictures. But Jones does not want to traffic in porn because of his religious beliefs. At this point Smith has no Constitutional right to press Jones into service, no matter how much money he offers.

[Sparko]

Jones has a Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. Now you have to show me exactly which Constitutional privilege Smith is asserting. Or, I could put it this way. Smith wants to publish a girly magazine (Constitutionally protected right), Jones is a well know photographer and Smith wants to hire him to take nude pictures. But Jones does not want to traffic in porn because of his religious beliefs. At this point Smith has no Constitutional right to press Jones into service, no matter how much money he offers.

right. Nobody has a constitutional right to someone else's labor or assistance.

[Doug Shaver]

Jones has a Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. Now you have to show me exactly which Constitutional privilege Smith is asserting.

My hypothetical stipulated that the Supreme Court had answered the question about Smith's constitutional right. In our system of government, the Supreme Court has the last word, does it not?

I'm not claiming that the court is infallible or that we should treat it as if it were. We citizens can disagree with the court, and we can do so without being disloyal to our nation. Such a disagreement would be a kind of grievance, and the First Amendment unambiguously give us the right to petition for redress of grievances. The court has changed its mind before, and it will almost surely change its mind again, when a sufficient number of citizens exert the kind of political pressure necessary to make that happen. But until that happens, as far as the law is concerned, the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

Or, I could put it this way. Smith wants to publish a girly magazine (Constitutionally protected right), Jones is a well know photographer and Smith wants to hire him to take nude pictures. But Jones does not want to traffic in porn because of his religious beliefs. At this point Smith has no Constitutional right to press Jones into service, no matter how much money he offers.

I agree. And if the court were to rule in Smith's favor in that case, I would be arguing as strenuously as I could that the court had made a mistake.

[seer]

My hypothetical stipulated that the Supreme Court had answered the question about Smith's constitutional right. In our system of government, the Supreme Court has the last word, does it not?

What are you saying? That the Court gave Smith the Constitutional right to force me to work for him?

I'm not claiming that the court is infallible or that we should treat it as if it were. We citizens can disagree with the court, and we can do so without being disloyal to our nation. Such a disagreement would be a kind of grievance, and the First Amendment unambiguously give us the right to petition for redress of grievances. The court has changed its mind before, and it will almost surely change its mind again, when a sufficient number of citizens exert the kind of political pressure necessary to make that happen. But until that happens, as far as the law is concerned, the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.

Well I disagree, the Constitution means what the Constitution says. What if the Court said you actually did not have right of petition? Would that be Constitutionally correct? And if you lost the right of petition where would you go then? Revolution?

[Doug Shaver]

What are you saying? That the Court gave Smith the Constitutional right to force me to work for him?

My hypothetical did not stipulate the court's endorsement of any form of involuntary servitude.

the Constitution means what the Constitution says.

Like the Bible means what it says?

What if the Court said you actually did not have right of petition? Would that be Constitutionally correct?

If the court said that, I would disagree with the court.

And if you lost the right of petition where would you go then? Revolution?

I've gotten too conservative in my old age to join a revolution, but the Declaration of Independence does address that issue, and I don't disagree with what it says.

[Tassman]

I have no problem with the Fourteenth Amendment as it was applied to governments, as it was written. It does not apply to private business. And again there is NO constitutional right not to be discriminated against by a private individual or business. Even the Commerce clause does not cover everyone.

You are ignoring the existence of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin in Public Accommodations.

Who says he should not be operating a business? Who says he can not operate that business according to his Constitutionally protected right of the free exercise of religion?

The baker's free exercise of religion is not infringed by baking a cake.

Of course it is carte blanche unless you physically harm someone or their property. You would override a clearly defined Constitutional right for a right or ideal that is found nowhere in the Constitution.

See above re the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[rogue06]

You are ignoring the existence of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin in Public Accommodations.



The baker's free exercise of religion is not infringed by baking a cake.



See above re the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And you keep deliberately (since you've been informed of this ad nauseam) ignoring that Constitutional provisions trump all other laws including other federal laws.

[seer]

My hypothetical did not stipulate the court's endorsement of any form of involuntary servitude.

You were speaking of Jones working for Smith and about Jones refusing. Then what were you taking about?

Like the Bible means what it says?

The majority of Scripture is quite plain. As is the Constitution. I'm sure you have read it, no big mystery.

If the court said that, I would disagree with the court.


I've gotten too conservative in my old age to join a revolution, but the Declaration of Independence does address that issue, and I don't disagree with what it says.

Ok, so what are you taking about with Smith and Jones? What does Smith have a Constitutional right too? We can't deal with hypotheticals because we need to know if it really is a enumerated right. If it isn't then the Court is wrong and violate the Constitution.