The Democrat Party is becoming increasingly hostile to the First Amendment in toto, because it stands in the way of so much of what they want to accomplish.
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) says the 1st Amendment’s religious liberty protections don’t apply to individuals. On MSNBC last week, Wisconsin’s junior Senator claimed that the Constitution’s protection of the free exercise of religion extends only to religious institutions, and that individuals do not have a right to the free exercise of their own religion.
An Oregon judge has a similarly Stalinist take on the First Amendment.
[The Judge in the Oregon Wedding Cake Fascist Case has imposed a gag order on the defendants,] He doesn’t want Christian sympathizers to buy cakes from them, and thereby diminish their state-ordered pain.
He is determined that the state of Oregon shall beggar them and they shall remain beggared — so they don’t get to talk about their principled refusal to bake cakes for gay weddings, nor solicit business on that basis.
This is, obviously, anti-American and vengefully Stalinist.
Constitutionally illiterate like her boss Barry.
You know, despite the sheer implausibility of the event, I would love to see the look on her face when she discovers that she operates under a religion.
Sounds like typical liberal behavior to me.
….just waiting for Mikey to come along with his “Conservatives do it TOO!” distraction.
It should provide some amusement to see what kind of deranged false equivalence his left-wing handlers provide him with. “A Conservative once called President Obama a liar; therefore your point is invalid.”
What tainted Oregano have they been toking?
Scratch a progressive, find a jack-booted totalitarian. Obey!
The only thing worse than a fascist politician is that people are stupid enough to vote for them.
We have a big problem with people who see gov’t an little more than a bludgeon for punishing those they don’t like.
Seriously? Are the 2-3%er national socialists/communists within federal government hostile to the COTUS and the Bill of Rights ready to take on the majority normal heterosexual population that adhere to the rule of law and the COTUS? ROFLMAO……….we’re patiently waiting……..
Why do people pay attention to these “gag” orders? This one is obviously unconstitutional and therefore, illegal. Ignore it. It will become a civil rights case and qualified immunity probably won’t be allowed because it is so blatant. Have some guts people! Be an American and tell the judge to stuff it (respectfully).
Did anyone not see this coming? After declaring the second amendment only applies to the National Guard, deciding the first only applies to churches and not people is obvious.
Next up, the 13th amendment only applies to governments, and not individuals.
What is wrong with these people??
They held for years that the second amendment was a right of the militia, not of the individual… Until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise (in the plain language and intent of the Constitution–Penn Gillette, no bleeding heart Christian he, makes that abundantly clear in a video).
Now they try to claim that the First Amendment is only for institutions, not individuals…all the while claiming that Citizens United is a bad ruling because corporations aren’t “persons”?
The logical pretzels these people go through to maintain their falsehoods.
So this is a vote for sharia law?
So conservatives think that the 1st amendment gives you the right to discriminate?
Wow. And because someone disagrees she is a “Stalinist?” Does that make sense?
littlelettermike @ #13:
dis·crim·i·nate
dəˈskriməˌnāt/
verb
1.
recognize a distinction; differentiate.
“babies can discriminate between different facial expressions of emotion”
synonyms: differentiate, distinguish, draw a distinction, tell the difference, tell apart; separate, separate the sheep from the goats, separate the wheat from the chaff
differentiate, distinguish, draw a distinction, tell the difference, tell apart; separate, separate the sheep from the goats, separate the wheat from the chaff
“he cannot discriminate between fact and fiction”
For Progressives, only the second usage applies:
2.
make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.
However, littlelettermike makes a religion of the state and differentiates the wheat (Progressives) from the chaff (everyone else) and damns all other religion as unjust (contra-Progressive) and mired in prejudicial distinctions (morality and ethics) especially on the grounds of unicorn farts, pie in the sky and getting free sh*t by leeching off other people’s money.
The first amendment acknowledges that one has the right to do a lot of things leftists disapprove of. Liberty means you have to tolerate that some people are going to make different choices than you. You may not agree with their choices, but if you think the role of Government is to deny people the right to make choices you don’t agree with, you sir are a fascist.
Nope, and only an imbecile who was desperate to derail and deflect would say so.
Everyone knows you’re an imbecile who is only here to troll, CrayCray. So save the pixels and we’ll presume on every thread that you will jump in with the imbecile troll point of view.
Helio – despite your desperate attempt to change the subject, there is no other way to say it. If you refuse to serve someone based on sexual orientation that is discrimination.
Now its up to the courts to decide if the constitutions allows you to do that. And if the courts say “a business can discriminate because off ones religious beliefs” we might see a huge can-o-worms opened as post #12 alludes to.
you’re right mikey, you should go have sex with men and women. you don’t want to discriminate, do you.
Hmm, there’s a term for someone who forces someone to perform labor against their will. Funny how it’s still the mantra of the democrat party.
What I find astounding is mike’s inability to differentiate between selling someone who is gay a premade cake, and commissioning a baker to produce, deliver, assemble, and serve a cake.
But no, I don’t think he can’t differentiate, I think he refuses to do so as that would mean his argument falls flat.
Are bartenders discriminating against alcoholics when they refuse to sell them liquor? Are doctor discriminating against those who wish to commit suicide if they refuse to provide them with the means of doing so?
Livewire / Craig
Yes its an interesting legal question. Does the constitution allow a business to discriminate? I think we all can agree that you can’t discriminate based on race and the gov can compel a business to not discriminate based on race.
But does that apply to sexual orientation as well? Does the business owner’s religion actually compel them to discriminate? Or is that just a preference so maybe the 1st amendment actually doesn’t apply?
Currently the state of OR is saying “the constitution does not allow a biz to discriminate” Now its up to the higher courts to decide. (Which is why Sen Baldwin is no way an idiot for taking a contrarian view.)
littlelettermike:
Discrimination is not a universally evil thing. You need to learn that.
The first amendment does give permission to discriminate. Not every form of what discrimination has come to mean to meatheads like yourself, but discriminate.
You can peacefully assemble and engage in what some might consider evil-speak. Like the KKK obtaining a parade permit and carrying the “symbol of evil” stars and bars through a predominately black neighborhood.
Heck, their Constitutionally protected right to dignity accords them the protection of their Progressive KKK belief system.
Maybe a men’s clothing store does not stock fashions that are currently popular with Mexicans, Jews or blacks. Under your broad use of the concept of discrimination, Taco Bell is discriminating against Chinese.
When you insist on taking the simplified route, you too often seem to end up on the simpleton short bus.
Honestly, littlelettermike, you really are demagogue bait. Maybe you shouldn’t turn the flashing light on when you wear your useful idiot button.
Helio
During Loving vs Virginia some Christians argued that interracial marriages are forbidden by their (flawed) view of the bible.
Do you agree that that those bigoted Christians should’ve been compelled to bake a cake for an interracial marriage?
I do and I think you do too.
Therefore we should be able to agree that indeed sometimes the 1st amendment doesn’t allow a busienss to discriminate.
The baker can still hate the couple but in that case I think everyone here can agree the Gov can compel that baker.
So its not a stretch nor is Tammy Baldwin an idiot to suggest that perhaps the 1st amendment doesn’t really apply in this case.
Yup, mikey is a litle fascist. Of course he’s too cowardly to admit it, instead he is, like most of the left, trying to make words say what they don’t.
Not to steal Helio’s thunder, he is more than able to defend himself.
BUT
mike, do you agree that you ought to be able to do as you please with your property? If so, you cannot argue that a small business owner cannot discriminate however they please.
Do you know why? The business is their property. It is that simple, that cut and dry, that immune to any wiggling you may feel entitled to. Business does not exist for your benefit, it does not exit for my benefit, it exists for the benefit of the owner of that business. That I choose to patronize a business is my choice to do as I will with my own property, my money–for example.
Your continual insistence that business owners cannot do as they please with their property undermines the purpose of the law in the first place. That is why everybody here calls you a fascist. Constantly, you appeal to deprive the rights of a group of people with whom you disagree to further the rights of those in your tribe. You do this through the force of government. You are, therefore, a totalitarian who cannot handle the responsibilities of living in a free nation, where the law is applied to all groups equally.
That property law is more important to the function of society than any anti-discrimination law ought to be self-evident.
In keeping with your asinine attempt at projection:
No, I do not think those “bigoted Christians” should be forced to do anything. The people who want the cake could shop across the street at a baker who is willing to bake a cake for them.
So you are, again, projecting what you think into the minds of others. Which is, I suspect–in an amateur psychologist sorta way, why nobody likes you. Shoving words into people’s mouths does tend to do that.
Whew! You think that “the state” should put a gun to a baker’s head and force him to bake a cake he does not want to bake?
You are a sick puppy. Why don’t you and your sainted state just blow the sucker’s brains out and sell his carcass for fertilizer? Or harvest his organs? Or post his head on the courthouse gate for all to spit on?
littlelettermike, who do you trust so fully in the state that you would be willing to have him/her re-educate you and make you a perfect slug leaving a perfect trail of slime leading directly to the grand wizard of supreme rectitude and omnipotence?
You could not misunderstand my belief system any more than by making such a silly-ass assumption as this.
You are way too prone to ferret out bigotry and evil and then piss down punishment to give you some sort of perverse satisfaction.
Damned if you are just about the least tolerant jerk I have yet to meet.
mikey, the Constitution specifically enshrines the free exercise of religion for a reason. It protects the religious from bigots like you.
Not wanting to use one’s time and artistry on an event one finds that goes against their religious commandment of who is to marry, is not about hate. All of these people getting targeted and sued had no problem serving gays in a general capacity. Why can’t you respect and tolerate their point of view and agree to move on?
Because…
(All together now) He’s a fasciiiiiiiiiiiiiist!!!!