Now before the Supreme Court of the United States, Our First Amendment Rights are on trial.
All of this began with the introduction of “Public Accommodation Laws”
Federal legislation dealing with public accommodations include these:
- Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
- Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
In US law, public accommodations are generally defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments, and service establishments as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities, and service centers.
Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the handicapped and may not discriminate on the basis of “race, color, religion, or national origin.” Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law as well as religious organizations. Title II’s definition of public accommodation is limited to “any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests,” and therefore is inapplicable to churches. Section 12187 of the ADA also exempts religious organizations from public accommodation laws, but religious organizations are encouraged to comply.
A more recent phenomenon is the inclusion of LGBT “rights” within the laws granted by the States. Many states have, against the wishes of the majority much of the time, have implemented non-discrimination laws for sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Thus many have reached the flawed conclusion that gay rights are a “Civil Right.” Nowhere in Title II or III are the words Gender Identity, Gay, LGBT…etc.
An estimated 3.5% of adults in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual and an estimated 0.3% of adults are transgender. • This implies that there are approximately 9 million LGBT Americans, a figure roughly equivalent to the population of New Jersey.
That’s right, 3-4% of Americans think that they have the “right” to force their “lifestyle” down the throats of America..pun intended. There is a reason why they are called the LGBT Mafia. They use threats, intimidation and political power to force or enforce their skewed views upon everyone who doesn’t see things their way. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is federal law meant to protect businesses doing business with the government, but that law does not apply to state and local governments. If you are a religious person with deeply held beliefs at the local/state level and you disagree with their lifestyle, you’re labeled homophobic, bigot, facist…etc., and in many cases, forced into compliance by threatened prosecution, restrictions on your business or, in some cases, put out of business.
The cake baker from Colorado isn’t the first person of faith to be attacked for his religious values. We all remember the Hobby Lobby case. But there have been numerous other small businesses such as photographers who refuse to participate in LGBT events/ceremonies based upon religious beliefs.
The case before the Supreme Court now is the “Roe v. Wade” of our time.
The case before the Court now revolves around a man named Jack Phillips, who owns a bakery in Colorado. He has never discriminated against any individual or group. He has many members of the LGBT community who shop at his business daily. Then one day, two gay men, from another state, come in and ask that Jack to utilize his Artistic gifts to design a custom wedding cake for them (Even though gay marriage hasn’t been legalized in Colorado at the time). Jack politely declines and offers them other choices in his bakery. He explains to the “couple” that his religious beliefs preclude him from participating in their ceremony.
Instead of politely acknowledging Jack’s 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech and Freedom “of ” (NOT “From”) Religion, the couple decides to take legal action. Instead of going back to their home state, where same-sex “marriage” is legal and contracting a baker there. Thus, began the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, case.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, took legal action Jack in order to COMPEL him, in violation of his Constitutional Rights to comply with their ruling that he provide services to individuals or groups whose beliefs/lifestyle conflict with his deeply held religious beliefs. The result thus far has been that Jack has lost 40% of his business as he is prevented from making ANY wedding cakes for anybody.
The case before the Supreme Court appears to be “complicated,” is, in essence, a very simple one. This is the central question at issue:
Can the “State” compel an individual or entity to surrender their Constitutional Right(s) and be compelled to engage in activities or Speech of which they disagree? Does one person’s Rights, perceived or actual, out-weigh another individual’s Rights?
I make no apologies for stating that being gay…etc, is NOT a Civil “Right.” The gay couple’s perceived “Rights” are misguided and wrong. Using the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to violate another’s Rights is a complete misuse and a slap-in-the-face to those who sacrificed and died to ensure racial equality for all.
Rhetorical question…Will the Colorado “Civil Rights” Commission go after a Muslim bakery for refusing to make a Christian themed baked goods? -Yeah, Riiight!