Thoughtful Analogy on SSM

Regarding the uproar over wedding cakes, etc., for same-sex marriages:

I like this.  It’s thoughtful.  Somebody put their thinking cap on and really noodled this out and I like that.  A lot.  Give it a read and follow the bouncing, extrapolating ball.  It’s kinda neat. Via Breitbart’s John Nolte, who’s a fave of mine over there.



April 1, 2015
By John Nolte

CNN’s Sally Kohn runs a small private for-profit business.

Indiana Bob runs a small private for-profit business.

Sally offers a product to the public as a speaker. Her product is inspirational speeches that conform to her worldview.

Bob offers a product to the public as a baker. His product is specialized wedding cakes that celebrate the holy union of marriage.

Sally is a very nice, very smart, very likable gay progressive.

Bob is a very nice, very smart, very likable practicing Muslim.

Sally will tell you she was born a lesbian.

Bob will tell you he was born a Muslim.

Sally’s speech is protected from the government by the First Amendment.

Bob’s religious faith is protected from the government by the very same First Amendment.

Because her speech is protected by the First Amendment, Sally cannot be forced by the government to alter her product — her speech — into something that violates her beliefs and conscience.

Although Bob’s religious practices and beliefs are protected by the same First Amendment, Sally is demanding the government force Bob into altering his product — a wedding cake — into something that violates Bob’s beliefs and conscience: a same-sex wedding cake.

Sally believes it is unconstitutional for the government to force her to alter her business product (inspirational speeches) in a way that violates her beliefs and her First Amendment rights.

Nevertheless, Sally also believes that freedom and equality demand the government force Bob to craft and deliver his business product (wedding cakes) in a way that violates his beliefs and First Amendment rights.

Because her speech is protected by the First Amendment, even though she offers her services to the public, the government cannot force Sally to serve everyone. For example, on her website, Sally offers to deliver “an inspiring tingle-in-your-toes speech,” but she could not be forced by the government and would not agree to offer that service to inspire or tingle anyone’s toes at a meeting of anti-abortion activists.

Nevertheless, Sally believes the product she serves the public (inspirational speeches) is more equal than the business product Bob serves the public (wedding cakes).

Thanks to her First Amendment protections, Sally does not believe she can be forced by the government to serve all of the public with her inspirational speeches.

Nevertheless, Sally believes Bob should be forced by the government to serve all of the public.

Sally believes her First Amendment speech rights are protected even when that right is turned into a for-profit business product.

Sally does not believe Bob’s First Amendment religious rights are protected when that right is turned into a for-profit business product.

Although she offers her product to the public, Bob would never dream of asking Sally to violate her First Amendment rights, her beliefs or her conscience.

Nevertheless, Sally would see the government punish Bob and the public shame Bob if he refused to violate his own First Amendment rights, his beliefs and his conscience.

Bob would never dream of trampling Sally’s First Amendment rights.

Sally wants the government to trample Bob’s First Amendment rights.

Breitbart News reached out to Sally Kohn for comment. Always a great sport, she told us…

“To be clear,” she said, “I’m talking about ‘free speech’ in principle, not law, since it doesn’t apply here. What does apply legally,” she added, “is that any business can discriminate in any way it sees fit as long as it’s not discriminating against a protected class. Period.”
Kohn wants gays to have that protected legal status.

She added, “I can’t refuse to give a speech to a group based on religion for instance. That would be illegal (and immoral). But I can refuse to give a speech based on a group’s political/issue views. Because [those groups are] not legally protected.”

“Baking a cake is not the same as speech, and when you operate under the laws of our country, you serve everyone. If I were a baker I would serve the Westboro Baptist Church. My free speech protections would protect me from writing “God Hates Fags” on the cake, but not protect me from baking the cake.”

When I asked if a Christian baker was then protected from the act of adding a same sex couple figurine and the name of the same-sex couple to the cake, she said she didn’t want to go into that.

“I don’t want to quote law,” Sally said, “but I’d be happy to refer you to a Constitutional lawyer who could explain this better than I could.”

Breitbart News politely declined the offer.

Laws can be unjust.

This is an ethical argument about who keeps and loses their First Amendment rights once that right becomes a for-profit business product.

This is about an American social compact that is supposed to go beyond the law when it comes to respecting one another’s sincerely held beliefs.

~ end ~

No Corp. 1st Amend? Fine. Then NONE Apply.

Well, who didn’t see this coming, huh? Via the September 19th Los Angeles Times:

High Court May Take Up Religious Challenge to Birth Control Coverage

“The Obama administration set the stage Thursday for another Supreme Court showdown on the president’s healthcare law, this time to decide whether for-profit companies can be forced to provide full contraceptive coverage for their employees despite religious objections from their owners.

The administration’s lawyers asked the justices to take up the issue this fall to decide whether these corporations can claim a religious exemption to this part of the healthcare law.  U.S. Solicitor Gen. Donald Verrilli Jr. called the issue one of ‘exceptional importance’ that needs to be resolved soon.  Dozens of employers across the country have sued to challenge the so-called contraceptive mandate in the new law… (which) says this insurance must pay for standard contraceptives, including the ‘morning after’ pill.

But some employers object on religious grounds. They went to court, arguing that they cannot be compelled by the government to subsidize birth control or abortions. Their legal claims rested on the 1st Amendment’s protection for the ‘free exercise of religion’ and on a federal law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a 1993 measure meant to strengthen religious liberty.  The challengers include the Green family from Oklahoma, who own and operate Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., a chain of more than 500 arts and crafts stores that employs more than 13,000 full-time workers… The cases have raised two large issues: Is a for-profit corporation a ‘person’ protected under religious freedom laws? And can a corporation have religious beliefs?

The Greens argue that because they are people, and they own the chain of stores, their religious beliefs deserve protection.  The administration’s lawyers argued, however, that it would be ‘unprecedented’ for a court to extend religious exemptions to corporations. No court has ‘accepted a claim that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act enables a for-profit corporate employer to exempt itself from generally applicable employment regulations,’ Verrilli said… Lawyers for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (said)…  ‘The United States government is taking the remarkable position that private individuals lose their religious freedom when they make a living,’ said Kyle Duncan, general counsel for the group, which also represents Hobby Lobby Stores. ‘We’re confident that the Supreme Court will reject the government’s extreme position and hold that religious liberty is for everyone — including people who run a business.'”

This is extraordinary and welcome.  I’m no lawyer but it’s hard for me to see how you can be a “cafeteria” constitutional republic;  because the root of the government’s argument is: the constitution doesn’t apply to corporations.  Now, they want that to mean the the 1st amendment specifically.  Okay.  Then if the 1st amendment doesn’t apply to corporations, does that mean Muslims don’t have to do business with homosexuals if they don’t want to?  Because if the right to religious freedom does not exist in a corporation, then so does it’s abuse.  If the federal government can dictate which parts of the constitution do or do not apply to corporations, what about slavery?  Hell, if one amendment doesn’t apply, then NONE of the amendments apply, right?  You can’t pick and choose this way, and I pray the majority sees it that way.