I read an article saying lets stop our partisanship and leave the poor baker alone. Really?! You think discrimination is about a single business selling cakes to the public? You really think asking a baker to hold his religious beliefs outside his public venue is wrong? That is a slippery slope surely ending with any sort of discrimination being hidden under the mantel of religion, when even religious people think discrimination based on sexual preference is evil.
"The Baker and the Empire"
Ross Douthat DEC. 9, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/09/opinion/masterpiece-cakeshop-supreme-court.html
Ross has a notion that if this baker discriminates based on religion that no harm will come to our country or / maybe AND the Civil Rights a millions of Americans who are gay.
Ross is wrong and I cannot believe the Supreme Court has difficulty figuring out the answer instantly. Discrimination for ANY REASON abandons ALL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS!! People died for no reason if the Supreme Court sides with the baker.
"Race and religion are the crucial loci here. We need a liberalism that doesn’t just rely on demographic replacement to win elections and a conservatism that doesn’t just rely on fears of that replacement to hold its own. And we need a way to make the new shape of religion in America, in which a Christian core looks resilient, the lukewarm are secularizing and non-Christian faiths expand apace, feel less threatening to everybody — so that conservatives stop panicking about Shariah law every time a mosque goes up nearby, and the left stops preening about social justice while dragging nuns and florists into court."
Ross, DISCRIMINATION is the loci, not race, religion, creed, etc, etc, liberal or conservative. Ross, You are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, albeit in an eloquent manner. People DIED, people are dead to rid this country of discrimination for ANY REASON, GOOD OR BAD. You are wrong.
"Liberalism won the same-sex marriage battle. Religious conservatism isn’t going away. We all have to find a way to live together. That goal requires some compromise and magnanimity. Here is an opportunity: Please, for the sake of the country, leave the baker alone."
NO, I hope the law never changes and hope we do NOT LEAVE THE BAKER [OR PEOPLE LIKE HIM] ALONE! EVER! America has to remain steadfast in validating the deaths of so many people who died for Civil Rights!
Bottom line: it is crystal clear religion must stay out of government, and government MUST stay out of religion, AND DISCRIMINATIION MUST REMAIN ILLEGAL!
How can a true religion, spirituality in a Church as we know it, as I knew it in Sunday school as I grew up, with a God, and love and caring for everyone, teaching forgiveness, kindness, helping the poor, be something that is used to hurt people, to separate and discriminate against people of any kind of culture or creed or love/sexual practice?
Puritans came to America for religious freedom, but not to oppress people with that freedom. Where are we today?
Government cannot serve religion, and religion cannot serve government; they belong separate.
"Justices Struggle to Rule Against Gay Couple Without Upending Civil Rights Law"
The Supreme Court’s conservatives want to side with the baker who refused to serve the couple, but they can’t quite figure out how.
Stephanie Mencimer Dec. 5, 2017
"As the Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in the landmark case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, two things became clear. First, the conservative justices clearly want to side with Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who refused to make a wedding cake for David Mullins and Charlie Craig, a same-sex couple, on religious grounds. And second, they have no idea how to rule in his favor without upending decades of civil rights law."
Do we need Solomon to decide? Should we cut the baby in half?
It is actually an easy and clear solution. America is not a theocracy so should not see decisions made in our Supreme Court based on religious beliefs. Religious freedom can be protected without causing harm to the public. Private beliefs should be held private.
Americans make the decision on refusing service in a public business hard by forcing religion on the public, even while everyone is not necessarily religious, or as religious as everyone else.
"Al Franken’s Resignation and the Selective Force of #MeToo"
By Masha Gessen December 7, 2017
"Outside the #MeToo bubble, the renegotiation of the sexual regime is happening right now in the Supreme Court. On Tuesday, the Court heard arguments in the case of a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Justice Anthony Kennedy surprised many observers with his seeming sympathy for the baker’s argument. “Suppose he says: ‘Look, I have nothing against gay people,’ ” said Kennedy. “ ‘But I just don’t think they should have a marriage because that’s contrary to my beliefs.’ It’s not their identity; it’s what they’re doing.” It was an oddly refracted expression of the understanding that our behavior toward others may be based—perhaps ought to be based—on the way they conduct themselves in areas related to sex.
There are many differences between the case of the senator who lost his job and the same-sex couple who couldn’t get a cake; undoubtedly, there is a difference between acting like a jerk and getting married (though the plaintiff in the cake case claims to have been offended by the gay couple’s intention to get married). Oddly, though, these cases stem from a common root. If only Franken’s heartbreakingly articulate expression of his loss were capable of focusing our attention on this root, and on the dangers of the drive to police sex."
The obvious solution is that religion can be practiced anywhere, but not in business that is open to the public. A private enterprise NOT open to the public might be allowed to assert (discriminate) religious beliefs against potential customers.
"Countries With A Theocratic Government Today"
These recognized sovereign states are ruled by people and/or laws considered to have divine authority.
http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-theocratic-governments-today.html
"Afghanistan. Afghanistan is an Islamic state with a theocratic government. ...
Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran is a revolutionary theocratic state. ...
Mauritania. ...
Saudi Arabia. ...
Sudan. ...
Vatican. ...
Yemen."
If America admires these countries and wants to be like these countries, THEN we should become a theocracy. BUT that was never the intention of the founding fathers. The founding fathers saw the danger of a theocracy and wished to avoid ruling our country by someone's chosen religion, and their particular religious beliefs.
"Is Risk of Theocracy Overblown?"
April 19, 2006 by Ed Brayton
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2006/04/19/is-risk-of-theocracy-overblown/
"Ken Brown has a post pointing to Joe Carter’s essay on the subject of theocracy and the fear of it that is often expressed by those on the left. Carter argues that accusations that the religious right is pushing for theocracy are empty political rhetoric. While he admits that “some conservative Christians in our country do want to establish a theocracy” he also argues that their numbers “are rather negligible and their political influence almost non-existence (sic)”. I’m going to agree in part and disagree in part. Yes, I think the left often exaggerates the risk of theocracy and applies the term to people who aren’t really theocrats; on the other hand, I think Carter downplays the amount of influence that true theocrats do have within the various apparati of the religious right and even the Republican Party itself."
"The Dangers of Theocracy (Revisited)"
By Guest Blogger John S. Morton September 1, 2013
http://www.economicsandethics.org/2013/09/the-dangers-of-theocracy-revisited.html
"Roger Williams [who became the founder of Providence, Rhode Island, a haven of religious liberty] was one of the first people in North America to define liberty in modern terms. Though deeply religious, he worried that not only would religion corrupt the state but the state would corrupt religion."
Government involvement in religion is a threat, and the opposite is a threat. Keep religion and government separate!
"It puzzles me that the NSA surveillance hasn't sparked more discussion about why the 4th Amendment right to privacy is so essential in protecting our 1st Amendment rights to freedom of religion and speech. Somehow, I don't trust the government to do the right thing when they make political use of tax returns, tap the phones of reporters, and promote the people who gave guns to the Mexican cartels."
