The Gay Marriage Ruling Supports the Baker

When the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was not only legal but mandated by the Constitution, the majority were declaring that the Constitution meant whatever the majority of the Supreme Court wanted it to mean.  It was an exercise is pure totalitarianism and a rejection of the very idea that power flows from the people.

Nonetheless, because of a desire to cover judicial overreach with sophistries that the elite leftist media could use to confuse the people as to just how much the people’s freedom was eroded by the Court’s capricious decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the following, gaining the concurrence of five other member sof the Court:

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486 (1965).

The Court has used similar language in previous decisions, including this quote from 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.

Fortunately for civilization, sweeping declarations of expansive individual rights clearly support the rights of all individuals when read objectively.

For example, the fundamental principle defined by the Court in its ruling on gay “marriage”, Obergefell, clearly and unambiguously supports the rights of bakers, photographers, etc. to refuse to support gay “weddings.”

The Court has declared that the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause include “intimate choices that define personal identity and belief.”  But saying that one is glad to serve gays but not willing to support a gay “wedding” is precisely a choice that defines personal identity and belief.

Hence the Court now faces a quandary.  They can either ignore what they wrote in Obergefell or they can refuse to impose the moral view of the left on all Americans by upholding the First Amendment rights of those who don’t wish to be forced to support something that is in direct contradiction to their “…choices that define personal identity and belief.”

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.

To leftists, the Constitution is not only living its content is also defined only by what leftists believe. In the leftist universe, the Constitution is a tabula rasa on which leftists, and only leftists, can write whatever they, at the moment, believe to be true. Given the fascist roots of leftist ideology, it’s not surprising that they believe that all Americans must submit to what leftists write on that clean slate, even though what they write has not been accepted by the people through the Democratic process.

The core concept of American government is that power flows, not from the barrel of a gun or the pen of a government bureaucrat, but from the people. Yet when the Supreme Court goes beyond the intent of the people who ratified the Constitution, the people are cut out of the process.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to improve American society -- that’s the responsibility of the people and the politicians they elect, but to determine what the people have said through their representatives. Hence, whenever the Court inserts its own beliefs, it’s acting as a tyrannical power and declaring that power doesn’t flow from the people but from the rulers, the Supreme Court in that case.

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.”

If the Court rules that individual rights to self-expression are subject to the demands of gays, they are removing their own justification for legalizing gay “marriage” and overriding the votes of 55,000,000 Americans.

Sadly, modern leftists have demonstrated over and over a complete willingness to ignore their own statements when they become inconvenient. Giving Bill Clinton a pass on a credible rape charge, for example, in no way stops leftists from condemning Roy Moore.

While it’s clear that the liberals on the Court don’t actually believe that people have rights that conflict with what the liberal judges support, they may be willing to be rational on this issue as they were rational on the HHS mandate.

No gay is denied a “wedding” cake or photos of their “wedding” because a small number of people have strong religious beliefs. There are a multitude of bakers who have no problem making a cake for a gay “wedding.” Even if one were to argue that there was a compelling government need for gays to have “wedding” cakes it’s obvious that there are far less oppressive solutions than demanding that every baker, including those with deeply held religious beliefs, be forced to support gay “weddings.”

In the HHS mandate ruling the Court basically said that there were less intrusive ways to meet the objective of providing contraception and abortion to all than forcing nuns to cooperate in supplying things they found to be morally offensive.

It’s time to educate your friends about what’s at stake. No gay has ever been unable to obtain any “wedding” service they want. The people who do refuse to serve gay “weddings” have no problem serving gays, including gays who say they are married. The issue isn’t about discriminating against gays but about the right of all Americans, not just gays, to make “choices that define personal identity and beliefs.”

A fundamental concept in America is justice for all; that is, all individuals are subject to the same laws and have the same rights. A Supreme Court ruling that declared that Christians do not have the liberty to “choices that define personal identity and beliefs.” but gays do would be another slap in the face to the Constitution and a step towards the totalitarian regime that leftists dream of.

You can read more of tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter

When the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was not only legal but mandated by the Constitution, the majority were declaring that the Constitution meant whatever the majority of the Supreme Court wanted it to mean.  It was an exercise is pure totalitarianism and a rejection of the very idea that power flows from the people.

Nonetheless, because of a desire to cover judicial overreach with sophistries that the elite leftist media could use to confuse the people as to just how much the people’s freedom was eroded by the Court’s capricious decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the following, gaining the concurrence of five other member sof the Court:

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 147–149 (1968). In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486 (1965).

The Court has used similar language in previous decisions, including this quote from 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.

Fortunately for civilization, sweeping declarations of expansive individual rights clearly support the rights of all individuals when read objectively.

For example, the fundamental principle defined by the Court in its ruling on gay “marriage”, Obergefell, clearly and unambiguously supports the rights of bakers, photographers, etc. to refuse to support gay “weddings.”

The Court has declared that the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause include “intimate choices that define personal identity and belief.”  But saying that one is glad to serve gays but not willing to support a gay “wedding” is precisely a choice that defines personal identity and belief.

Hence the Court now faces a quandary.  They can either ignore what they wrote in Obergefell or they can refuse to impose the moral view of the left on all Americans by upholding the First Amendment rights of those who don’t wish to be forced to support something that is in direct contradiction to their “…choices that define personal identity and belief.”

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.

To leftists, the Constitution is not only living its content is also defined only by what leftists believe. In the leftist universe, the Constitution is a tabula rasa on which leftists, and only leftists, can write whatever they, at the moment, believe to be true. Given the fascist roots of leftist ideology, it’s not surprising that they believe that all Americans must submit to what leftists write on that clean slate, even though what they write has not been accepted by the people through the Democratic process.

The core concept of American government is that power flows, not from the barrel of a gun or the pen of a government bureaucrat, but from the people. Yet when the Supreme Court goes beyond the intent of the people who ratified the Constitution, the people are cut out of the process.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to improve American society -- that’s the responsibility of the people and the politicians they elect, but to determine what the people have said through their representatives. Hence, whenever the Court inserts its own beliefs, it’s acting as a tyrannical power and declaring that power doesn’t flow from the people but from the rulers, the Supreme Court in that case.

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.”

If the Court rules that individual rights to self-expression are subject to the demands of gays, they are removing their own justification for legalizing gay “marriage” and overriding the votes of 55,000,000 Americans.

Sadly, modern leftists have demonstrated over and over a complete willingness to ignore their own statements when they become inconvenient. Giving Bill Clinton a pass on a credible rape charge, for example, in no way stops leftists from condemning Roy Moore.

While it’s clear that the liberals on the Court don’t actually believe that people have rights that conflict with what the liberal judges support, they may be willing to be rational on this issue as they were rational on the HHS mandate.

No gay is denied a “wedding” cake or photos of their “wedding” because a small number of people have strong religious beliefs. There are a multitude of bakers who have no problem making a cake for a gay “wedding.” Even if one were to argue that there was a compelling government need for gays to have “wedding” cakes it’s obvious that there are far less oppressive solutions than demanding that every baker, including those with deeply held religious beliefs, be forced to support gay “weddings.”

In the HHS mandate ruling the Court basically said that there were less intrusive ways to meet the objective of providing contraception and abortion to all than forcing nuns to cooperate in supplying things they found to be morally offensive.

It’s time to educate your friends about what’s at stake. No gay has ever been unable to obtain any “wedding” service they want. The people who do refuse to serve gay “weddings” have no problem serving gays, including gays who say they are married. The issue isn’t about discriminating against gays but about the right of all Americans, not just gays, to make “choices that define personal identity and beliefs.”

A fundamental concept in America is justice for all; that is, all individuals are subject to the same laws and have the same rights. A Supreme Court ruling that declared that Christians do not have the liberty to “choices that define personal identity and beliefs.” but gays do would be another slap in the face to the Constitution and a step towards the totalitarian regime that leftists dream of.

You can read more of tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter

RECENT VIDEOS