Judge: Religious expression is not protected by the Constitution

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-religious-expression-is-not-protected-by-the-constitution

HYPERLINK has full story

snip

Benton County Superior Court Judge Alexander Ekstrom ruled that while the religious beliefs of florist Barronelle Stutzman related to marriage is protected by the U.S. Constitution, living her life in accordance with her faith is not.



The sad reality is the "law" is grounded in the false narrative of "born homosexual"

In other words, the state has decided that choosing to live the homosexual lifestyle trumps choosing Christianity

It is a very sad time for this country

Do you believe that laws should be in place which elevates a deviant sexual lifestyle above religious beliefs?

 

Wait til that law gets applied against Muslims. Obama will find a way to overturn it in a heartbeat.

 

I believe the Constitution was clear that there should be no laws establishing religion or denying the free exercise thereof. The 14th amendment, on the other hand, makes it clear that people have a right to equal protection under the law. So while it seems clear to me that homosexuals have a right not to be discriminated against, it is also clear to me that no one should expect the government to establish a religious belief because doing so is unconstitutional.

 

From the linked article:

Not real hard to understand. You can't use religion as an excuse for illegal discrimination. And the judge is right - however sincere your religious motivation for breaking the law, you are still breaking the law. There has been a long string of cases, at every level in the judicial system, holding that laws trump religiously motivated violations. Intolerant or bigoted Christians don't get to break the law anymore than anyone else.

 

You believe incorrectly, as 1A left the door wide open for states to pass laws respecting establishments of religion. And 14A didn't close that door.

Do pedophiles have the same right? And if not, why not?

 

Uh no. In fact, States with official religions had to drop those official religions.

Pedophiles can't use their rights to infringe upon anothers rights, specifically a minor since a minor can't give consent.

 

Please, I've been down this road a million times, and I know exactly what I'm talking about.

Not because of anything in the Constitution, they didn't.

Obviously, but that's irrelevant to the question, since one doesn't have to get within arm's length of a child to be a pedophile.

 

Obviously a person isn't a pedophile in the eyes of the law unless he or she acts on it. Thought still aren't a crime no matter how hard you uber-religious types have tried.

 

I expect that if any state really wanted to designate an Official State Religion and give it some teeth (not like, you know, an official state bird), you would see that door slam in a big hurry. Citizens of the several states are also citizens of the United States, and if they face discrimination (or are granted special dispensations) for reasons of religion, such a state policy would be stopped on a dime.

Not as such, of course - there aren't enough admitted pedophiles to represent a class, and there probably never will be. But as individual citizens, they can't be denied service for reasons unrelated to the service.

 

Linguistically speaking, a pedophile is someone attracted to prepubescent children. It's an attraction (a phile), not an action. A pederast is someone who actually engages in sex with children (linguistically, with young boys, but legally with underage children). Pedophilia isn't illegal, pederasty is.

 

SCOTUS decided 150+ years ago that taking an action based on a sincerely held religious belief is not a viable defense for a criminal violation. Native Americans aren't allowed to smoke peyote even though it's a sincerely held part of their religion. Ditto for rastafarians and weed. It is AGAINST THE LAW for a licensed business in the State of Washington to turn away customers because of their sexual orientation. Game over. You lose. Don't like it, don't run a business. You don't have the option to break the law for any reason.

 

The title of the thread is deliberately misleading, of course. ILLEGAL expression of religion is not protected by the Constitution. But somehow, the OP forgot that word.

 

slavery and stoning someone doesn't trump law either... neither should discrimination

no where in the bible does it say you can't sell flowers to gay people

"I can't sell them flowers because God will punish me"

if one thinks their God is gonna punish them for selling flowers to a gay person, not sure what they says about their faith in God as a being a force of Good

.

 

In neither case are you correct. The Supreme Court has come down on states many times against the violations of the establishment clause. And Section 1 of the 14th in no way allows the establishment of religion. Where you got that idea is the big question. It doesn't even speak to it:

Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Adults consenting to have a relationship hurt no one. Pedophiles do.

 

What constitutes 'the free exercise of religion' is rather vague, but it sure is not what you are doing while on the clock and baking cakes or preparing a floral bouquet. That is what you do in the free exercise of a search for money.

 

Plenty of good Christians happily provide services to everyone.

Refusing services to gays is not a religious expression, but a personal decision based on discrimination, and blame God for that decision instead of himself.

 

Next we'll be throwing Christians to the lions.

 

This was not discrimination. The gay couple could have bought a cake, and if I remember the facts of the case they had bought a cake from this baker before (birthday cake I believe). The baker was not refusing to serve a particular class of people, the baker was refusing to put a particular message on the cake. Do you think everyone should be required to put any message a possible customer desires on their product?

 

If he wants to conduct business, yes. Ever hear the saying :the customer is always right"?

 

Interesting so a Bakery can not refuse to put any message on a cake? How about if you wanted a cake that said ( to the baker) "I want to (*)(*)(*)(*) your daughter". You think he cant refuse to put that message on the cake?

 

Ahem:

"...in trade and commerce, and more particularly when seeking to prevent discrimination in public accommodations," legislatures are allowed "to prohibit conduct it deems discriminatory." Ekstrom ruled that this applies "even where the motivation for that conduct is grounded in religious belief."

She is not allowed to discriminate against patrons regardless of her religious beliefs because her discrimination violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

 

I was responding to the "message" part of the post. I notice you did not discuss that.

 

So you support parential consent laws when it comes to abortion for minors?

 

ahh

and there is the false narrative

this woman had been providing services to those who engage in gay sex, she simply would not service a homosexual wedding. It was an event that she refused, not the people as she has served them in the past

I understand that facts can get in the way of a good story, but the facts are there.

 

Another radical leftwing judge that cant even read and understand the first Amendent to the Constitution.