The LGBT Agenda is pitched by its ideological supporters as an expansion of civil rights, but it becomes increasingly clear that in reality it provides a tool for spiteful sodomites to harass and vilify their real or perceived opponents. The question is whether that is not the true intention.
The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear an appeal from a Colorado baker who disagreed with the notion of same-sex “marriage” who had lost a discrimination case for refusing to create a cake to celebrate such an aberration.
The case will be a major test of a conflict of laws that limit the right of businesses open to the public to freely decide with whom they want, or do not want, to conclude contracts, or to negotiate the terms of a contract. Around the nation, businesses like bakeries, florists and photography studios have said, so far with little success, that being forced to contribute to the glorification of sodomy violates their constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court’s decision, expected next year, will again take the justices into a heated battle in the culture wars. On one side are sodomites who say they are “entitled to equal treatment” from businesses that choose to serve the general public (although that argument seems beside the point, as for example the baker in the case has said he would not produce any products that glorify sodomy even if the clients ordering them were not sodomites, whereas they would gladly offer to sodomites the same products they offer to anyone else… this is simply not about who those clients are, but about what they order…). On the other are religious people and companies who say the government should respect the freedom of contract, which is a basic economic right.
In a series of decisions culminating in its 2015 ruling fabricating a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court has consistently – albeit always with a very narrow majority – ruled in favor of gay rights. But it has also said that businesses run on religious principles may sometimes be exempted from generally applicable laws, as when it ruled in 2014 that some companies could not be required to provide free contraceptive coverage for their female workers. The question remains whether such libertis should accrue only to businesses with stated “religious principles”, or whether freedom of contract is not a right that everyone should enjoy.
The new case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16-111, started in 2012, when the baker, Jack Phillips, refused to create a cake for the sodo-“wedding” reception of David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who were planning to marry in Massachusetts. The sodo-couple filed discrimination charges, and they won before a civil rights commission and in the courts.
Mr. Phillips, who calls himself a cake artist, argued that two parts of the First Amendment — its protections for free expression and religious freedom — overrode a Colorado anti-discrimination law and allowed him to refuse to create a custom wedding cake.
David Cortman, one of Mr. Phillips’s lawyers, said the case concerned fundamental rights. “Every American should be free to choose which art they will create and which art they won’t create without fear of being unjustly punished by the government,” he said.
In 2015, a Colorado appeals court ruled against Mr. Phillips. “Masterpiece does not convey a message supporting same-sex marriages merely by abiding by the law and serving its customers equally,” the court said. That point of view, however, seems disingenuous, given that the sodomite couple had ordered a cake that, through its decoration, would convey exactly that message.
In a Supreme Court brief, Mr. Phillips’s lawyers said “he is happy to create other items for gay and lesbian clients.” But he is entitled, they said, to use his artistic talents to promote only messages that are not in glaring contrast with his religious or moral beliefs.
“Thus,” the brief said, “he declines lucrative business by not creating goods that contain alcohol or cakes celebrating Halloween and other messages his faith prohibits, such as racism, atheism, and any marriage not between one man and one woman.”
The brief said Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig could have bought a cake from another baker and in fact “easily obtained a free wedding cake with a rainbow design from another bakery.”
In response, the couple’s lawyer wrote that “it is no answer to say that Mullins and Craig could shop somewhere else for their wedding cake, just as it was no answer in 1966 to say that African-American customers could eat at another restaurant.” In this way, they attempt to paragonize the principled rejection of counter-natural and risk-laden sexual behaviour with racism. This (deliberately) false analogy, sprung from minds that seem to lack even a basic understanding of sound morality, is what really lies at the basis of the entire LGBT agenda.
In a second development concerning sexual pervert couples, the Supreme Court reaffirmed on Monday its 2015 decision recognizing a “constitutional right to same-sex marriage”, ruling that states may not treat married same-sex couples differently from others in issuing birth certificates.
The majority decision was unsigned. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., dissented.
The case concerned an Arkansas law about birth certificates that treats married opposite-sex couples differently from same-sex ones. A husband of a married woman is automatically listed as the father even if he may not be the genetic parent. So far, same-sex spouses are not, because for obvious biological reasons a sodomite cannot be the genetic parent of his sodo-partner’s child. This difference will now be erased.
The case, Pavan v. Smith, No. 16-992, was brought by two married lesbian couples who had jointly planned their child’s fabrication in vitro by means of an anonymous sperm donor. State officials listed the biological mother on the children’s birth certificates and refused to list their partners, saying they were not entitled to a husband’s presumption of paternity, given that such a “presumption” would be obviously false.
The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled against the women, saying that “it does not violate equal protection to acknowledge basic biological truths.”
But in the new LGBT world, truth is a “discrimination”, and therefore must not be stated.
Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 United States Supreme Court decision, listed birth certificates among the “governmental rights, benefits and responsibilities” that typically accompany marriage.
In its unsigned opinion, the majority said on Monday that the Arkansas Supreme Court had erred in failing to apply the 2015 decision to birth certificates. “Obergefell proscribes such disparate treatment,” the opinion said. “As we explained there, a state may not ‘exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.’ ”
Arkansas uses birth certificates, Monday’s opinion said, “to give married parents a form of legal recognition that is not available to unmarried parents.” It continued, “Having made that choice, Arkansas may not, consistent with Obergefell, deny married same-sex couples that recognition.”
In dissent, Justice Gorsuch said the court had acted rashly in not asking for briefs and argument on the question presented in the case.
“To be sure, Obergefell addressed the question whether a state must recognize same-sex marriages,” he wrote. “But nothing in Obergefell spoke (let alone clearly) to the question” addressed by the Arkansas Supreme Court.
“The statute in question establishes a set of rules designed to ensure that the biological parents of a child are listed on the child’s birth certificate,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. “Before the state supreme court, the state argued that rational reasons exist for a biology-based birth registration regime, reasons that in no way offend Obergefell — like ensuring government officials can identify public health trends and helping individuals determine their biological lineage, citizenship or susceptibility to genetic disorders.”
“In an opinion that did not in any way seek to defy but rather earnestly engage Obergefell, the state supreme court agreed,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. “And it is very hard to see what is wrong with this conclusion for, just as the state court recognized, nothing in Obergefell indicates that a birth registration regime based on biology, one no doubt with many analogues across the country and throughout history, offends the Constitution.”
Obviously, if all goes according to the plan of their lesbian mothers (and “mothers”), the poor children concerned will never find out who their biological fathers are.