Another Travesty Crying Out For Melons

[Flanders]

I wonder if a Republican president has the melons to pardon all of the people being unjustly punished by judges violating the 8th and 13th Amendments?

Oregon Bakers Pay $135K Fine After Refusing to Bake Cake for Lesbian Wedding
Leah Jessen
December 30, 2015

Bakers Pay $135K Fine for Not Making Lesbian Wedding Cake​

See this thread:

Those all to few lawyers who try to stop abuse by judges make a big mistake when they fight abuse based on the First Amendment. The few cases I linked would be extremely important if just one of them ever gets to the SCOTUS combining the First Amendment with these two:​

8th Amendment​

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.​

13th Amendment​

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Judges & Tea Party Conservatives | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum​

 

[Flanders]

I wonder if a Republican president has the melons to pardon all of the people being unjustly punished by judges violating the 8th and 13th Amendments?

UPDATE​

Here is another one that should have included the 8th and 13th Amendments alongside the 1st Amendment:

NY Farmers Fined $13K For Declining to Host a Same-Sex Marriage End Their Legal Fight
Kelsey Harkness
February 23, 2016

New York Farmers Fined $13,000 End Their Legal Fight​

 

[Flanders]

Bob Unruh’s article is about a homosexual case in Northern Ireland. I paraphrased one sentence that sums it up constitutionally in this country:

“No one should be forced to be the mouthpiece for someone else’s views when they are opposed to their own – whether in print or in icing sugar, OR WITH TAX DOLLARS” he said.​

Judges told law gives Christian bakers right to reject 'gay' message
Posted By Bob Unruh On 05/12/2016 @ 8:14 pm

Judges told law gives Christian bakers right to reject ‘gay’ message​

 

[regent]

Maybe a Supreme Court Judge will find it offensive to rule on religious Matters?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Clearly many on the right need to be pardoned for their stupidity and ignorance of the law, the thread premise being one of many examples.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Maybe a Supreme Court Judge will find it offensive to rule on religious Matters?

Scalia already addressed the issue:

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Employment Division v. Smith

Consequently, the thread premise is ignorant idiocy.

 

[emilynghiem]

Maybe a Supreme Court Judge will find it offensive to rule on religious Matters?

Scalia already addressed the issue:

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Employment Division v. Smith

Consequently, the thread premise is ignorant idiocy.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
You are missing the point that there are beliefs on BOTH sides of these conflicts.
Thus BOTH sides have the right NOT to be discriminated against by law or govt.

Your arguments, only defending the beliefs of YOUR side over the beliefs of the OTHER,
show ignorance or bias regarding "equal protection of the laws" without "discrimination by creed."

Not sure if "liberals" need as much forgiveness of their "ignorance" that you blame on conservatives,
or if the problem is "CLOSEMINDEDNESS" in only seeing your beliefs count but not others!
You don't even realize you are trampling on the equal beliefs of others, you are SO SURE
YOUR beliefs are the right way, and the others are "just plain wrong" -- who does THAT remind you of, CCJ, "closeminded" Christian Fundamentalist who say that about their beliefs?

Which is it, C_Clayton_Jones
is it ignorance, willfull ignorance, closedmindedness?

From my understanding of where these biases or "bigotry" comes from it's
FEAR and unforgiveness that makes people so DEFENSIVE of their
own views they cannot include the same for others, especially not of opponents.

How can you teach openmindedness while remaining closed to others views having valid beliefs behind them?

I try to defend the right of both sides to defend their beliefs and interests,
by seeking consensual solutions so both are included and satisfied.
But when you get so "onesided" this way, I cannot help you.

I am not trying to be onesided either -- same with my prolife conservative
friends, when they get so caught up in their own side they want to BAN
abortion, BAN same sex marriage, KICK liberals out of office and not include
them equally, I tell them the SAME thing that govt cannot be abused to EXCLUDE
or punish the beliefs of others.

It goes both ways, C_Clayton_Jones
If you want people to be "openminded" and include your beliefs and views,
you might start with being "openminded" and include their beliefs and views.

 

[Flanders]

Oregon Bakers Pay $135K Fine After Refusing to Bake Cake for Lesbian Wedding
Leah Jessen
December 30, 2015

Bakers Pay $135K Fine for Not Making Lesbian Wedding Cake

In all fairness Albertson’s should get hit with a big fine:

When she and her Mom went to order her cake at Albertson's on East Texas Street in Bossier City, they weren't expecting the reaction they got.

"We just need an American flag cake with Trump 2016 on it, and right when I said Trump the lady just (makes face) kinda Trump? And she was like I can make you a flag cake but I'm not going to write Trump on it," explained Gill.​

Bakery refuses to write 'Trump 2016' on cake
Tuesday, September 6th 2016, 6:53 pm EDT
Tuesday, September 6th 2016, 7:38 pm EDT
By Marie Waxel, Anchor/Reporter

Bakery refuses to write 'Trump 2016' on cake​

 

[KokomoJojo]

You are missing the point that there are beliefs on BOTH sides of these conflicts.

Thus BOTH sides have the right NOT to be discriminated against by law or govt.

and where actions are attached to those beliefs there is religion.

So you have 2 parties in a religious argument and the gvmnt coming in and deceptively claiming that they can stomp on your 'RESERVED' religious rights using 'commerical' law, that is subject to your rights.

Its subterfuge and any agency in connection with this has committed treason against the constitution.

Great observation.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Employment Division v. Smith

Ok below is a large snippet from the case cc provided. Who here has enough background in law to demostrate how the creemee supremees shit all over themselves? Actually in triplicate!


The free exercise of religion means, first and foremost, the right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine one desires. Thus, the First Amendment obviously excludes all "governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such." Sherbert v. Verner, supra, 374 U.S. at 402. The government may not compel affirmation of religious belief, see Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), punish the expression of religious doctrines it believes to be false, United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 86-88 (1944), impose special disabilities on the basis of religious views or religious status, see McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978); Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67, 69 (1953); cf. Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 245 (1982), or lend its power to one or the other side in controversies over religious authority or dogma, see Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church, 393 U.S. 440, 445-452 (1969); Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94, 95-119 (1952); Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 708-725 (1976).

But the "exercise of religion" often involves not only belief and profession but the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts: assembling with others for a worship service, participating in sacramental use of bread and wine, proselytizing, abstaining from certain foods or certain modes of transportation. It would be true, we think (though no case of ours has involved the point), that a state would be "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" if it sought to ban such acts or abstentions only when they are engaged in for religious reasons, or only because of the religious belief that they display. It would doubtless be unconstitutional, for example, to ban the casting of "statues that are to be used [p878] for worship purposes," or to prohibit bowing down before a golden calf.

Respondents in the present case, however, seek to carry the meaning of "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" one large step further. They contend that their religious motivation for using peyote places them beyond the reach of a criminal law that is not specifically directed at their religious practice, and that is concededly constitutional as applied to those who use the drug for other reasons. They assert, in other words, that "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires). As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning. It is no more necessary to regard the collection of a general tax, for example, as "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" by those citizens who believe support of organized government to be sinful than it is to regard the same tax as "abridging the freedom . . . of the press" of those publishing companies that must pay the tax as a condition of staying in business. It is a permissible reading of the text, in the one case as in the other, to say that, if prohibiting the exercise of religion (or burdening the activity of printing) is not the object of the tax, but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended. Compare Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U.S. 131, 139 (1969) (upholding application of antitrust laws to press), with Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 250-251 (1936) (striking down license tax applied only to newspapers with weekly circulation above a specified level); see generally Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 581 (1983).

Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.

(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,

are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a

valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).

 

[Flanders]

CAKE WARS UPDATE​

The baker who refused to decorate a cake was an employee of a large corporation:

Albertsons Companies Inc. is an American grocery company founded and based in Boise, Idaho. It is owned and operated by Cerberus Capital Management.

With 2,200 stores and more than 250,000 employees, . . .

Albertsons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

so I do not know how “copyrighted phrases” stacks up against involuntary servitude where small business owners lose their 13th Amendment Rights.

13th Amendment​

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, . . .

Welcome to another chapter in America’s cake wars, most of which end up in costly court battles.

XXXXX​

Connie Yeates, a spokesperson for Albertson’s released the following statement:

“We apologize to our customer in Bossier City for the situation regarding the cake that was requested. Our Bakery staff member misunderstood the training provided regarding copyrighted phrases, and incorrectly informed the customer we could not fulfill her request. We would be happy to provide the cake as the customer requested.”​

Supermarket refuses 'Trump 2016' on birthday cake
Posted By -NO AUTHOR- On 09/07/2016 @ 8:12 pm

Supermarket refuses ‘Trump 2016’ on birthday cake​

 

[Flanders]

Supreme Court rejects appeal from New Mexico photographer who wouldn't shoot same-sex ceremony
By JERI CLAUSING, Associated Press
April 7, 2014 at 2:13 p.m.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics...preme-court-rejects-appeal-over-gay-bias-case​

Here comes another one:

VIDEO ▼

Company refuses to frame photo for Trump supporter​

Question: Will the owners of the Suitable for Framing shop suffer the same fate as those who went down the same road when Obama was president?

 

[emilynghiem]

Maybe a Supreme Court Judge will find it offensive to rule on religious Matters?

Scalia already addressed the issue:

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Employment Division v. Smith

Consequently, the thread premise is ignorant idiocy.

@CClaytonJones
There are major differences here
1. Orientation and same sex marriage are considered to be BEHAVIOR. A choice of belief and practice.

Not so with either race or birth gender .

It is AGREED that accommodations laws can't be broken simply by rejecting someone for identifying as gay, but its the act of same sex weddings that is a religious practice that violate the beliefs of others . there is a HUGE legal difference between a protected class such as race or birth gender and BEHAVIOR such as same sex weddings that not all people can be forced by govt to believe in or endorse as equal where this violates their own religious beliefs which by law should be treated as equal and not discriminated against either!

It is critical to make this distinction so that it is not stupid or ignorant but everyone is educated and agrees on the difference when applying and enforcing laws.

2. With employment this is also a different area than the customer hiring a business to design or print a message.

What I suggest is a mediation waiver similar to an arbitration clause that all businesses sign with their customer . so both parties agree in advance that if any dispute arises especially dealing with conflicting beliefs that are personal, then they agree either to resolve the dispute by mediation and consensus to the satisfaction of both parties, or agree to cancel the contract and refrain from doing business together if the conflict cannot be resolved. In order to avoid legal action and expenses. If mediation is used I recommend the customer select the mediator, and for arbitration its usually the business that selects the arbitor.

So CCJ if the parties cannot even agree on a mediation clause, they should not do business together in the first place. But stick to client relations where they agree to resolve disputes in good faith that respects both sides interests and beliefs equally.

 

[Flanders]

UPDATE​

Waggoner said how the U.S. Supreme Court rules in this case will have a profound impact on the nation.

“If the Supreme Court sides with Baronelle Stutzman, it reaffirms that tolerance is a two-way street and that the government cannot use its power to crush people and crush dissent, crush those that don’t agree with the government’s ideology at that point,” Waggoner said.

“All civilizations have had the freedom to believe what they want. What has made America unique is the freedom to live out those beliefs in the marketplace in a peaceful way. That’s what’s at stake in this case.”​

Christian florist vows Supreme appeal in same-sex war
Posted By Greg Corombos On 02/19/2017 @ 7:10 pm

Christian florist vows Supreme appeal in same-sex war​