Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Yeah, I have a question

ADF's registration graphic.
I'll leave it to you to ponder what Running the Race refers to.
It seems as if they have organized a virtual campaign rally.
Anti-LGBT hate group, Alliance Defending Freedom, is having a conference call on November 30. People can register here. The subject of the call is this year's fundamentalist chew toy — Masterpiece Cakeshop and its bigoted owner, Jack Phillips, who denied a wedding cake to a gay couple. According to the registration page, participants will be able to comment and ask questions. If I could ask one question it would be: Suppose Phillips did not approve of interracial marriages?

While ADF is screaming incoherently about “Religious Freedom©” to appeal to the masses they are primarily arguing that forcing Phillips — whom they refer to as a cake artist — to make a cake is impermissible compelled speech. Phillips, of course, had a religious objection when he turned the couple away. ADF knows that religious liberty is probably a losing argument. Among the several precedents, Reynolds v. United States (1878) established that the state can regulate conduct which is not the impermissible regulation of religious belief. Is there a change in doctrine? Are we more religious now than 140 years ago?

I don't see how they make a First Amendment compelled speech argument either. Compelled speech is not impermissible per se. It seems that the argument has only prevailed when one is required to promote a government message. Does it really matter? Justices of the Supreme Court are supposed to rule based on the law rather than any personal bias. Those days seem to have passed. Thomas and Gorsuch will probably quote liberally from ADF's brief and Christian amicus briefs to support their preordained opinion in this case. Might I be pleasantly surprised?

In United States v. Windsor (the DOMA case) Alito's dissent included something to the effect that the legalization of same-sex marriage could result in those who disagreed being labeled “bigots or superstitious fools.” Therefore his dissent, in part, was based on his perceived personal need to be insulated from opprobrium. When has the Court ever done anything like that? Can Alito's sensitive ego be protected by any clause in the Constitution? I do not think so.

Nevertheless, I think that we are going to be pleased with the outcome of this case. I hope I am right. Meanwhile if you have some time to spare and excess brain cells to kill, feel free to register for that idiotic conference call.

Related content:



No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.