When Governor John Kasich said recently that he probably should be running in the Democrat Party he wasnt kidding. Although seeking office in Cuba might be even more fitting.
Taking a break from lecturing us on how we must accept amnesty the presidential contender recently weighed in on the case of the Oregon bakers fined $135000 for refusing to bake a cake for a faux wedding. Mentioned briefly in Thursdays GOP presidential debate here are his comments made on Monday at the University of Virginia:
I think frankly our churches should not be forced to do anything thats not consistent with them. But if youre a cupcake maker and somebody wants a cupcake make them a cupcake. Lets not have a big lawsuit or argument over all this stuff move on. The next thing you know they might be saying if youre divorced you shouldnt get a cupcake.
Now Kasich is a man who just loves the idea of moving on. After the Obergefell v. Hodges decision last June he said that recognition of faux marriage was the law of the land and well abide by it" and that now its time to move on." Its no wonder Republicans long ago move on from the idea of him as president.
Kasich managed to squeeze a remarkable number of misconceptions into his three sentences. First while the cupcake lines may be cute to some and possess rhetorical flair theyre nonsense. Theres not one Christian baker persecuted by governments recently who said he wouldnt bake cupcakes" or anything else for a given group; in fact these businessmen have made clear that they serve homosexuals all the time. This isnt about serving a certain type of people.
Its about servicing a certain type of event.
Only someone who hasnt bothered to ponder the matter deeply or whos intellectually dishonest could miss this simple fact. And Ill put it to you Governor Kasich: can you cite any other time in American history when the government compelled a businessman to service an event he found morally objectionable? This is unprecedented. And is it really a road we want to go down?
If so can the government compel a Jewish or black businessman to cater respectively a Nazi or KKK affair? How about a forcing a Muslim restaurateur to serve pork at an event for the National Pork Producers Council? Or is this another situation where government gets to pick winners and losers this time in matters of conscience?
Of course this is already happening which brings us to Kasichs divorc cupcake eater. The proper analogy here doesnt involve serving such a person because again the bakers in question serve homosexuals.
The proper analogy involves servicing an event celebrating a divorce.
Government wouldnt even consider compelling participation in the above or in events celebrating adultery fornication polygamy (yet) or auto-eroticism. So why the double standard? Well homosexuals have very effective lobbying groups and millions of enablers such as Cupcake Kasich.
Kasichs churches should not be forced to do anything thats not consistent with them. But…" comment is also interesting. Our First Amendment reads Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. For those who say this is only meant to restrain the central governments legislature (and Im sympathetic to this view) note that the constitution of Kasichs own state dictates that no interference with the rights of conscience be permitted." And since he was commenting on a case involving Oregon residents consider that the Beaver States constitution likewise reads No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise and enjoyment of religeous sic opinions or interfere with the rights of conscience."
Now exercise" is action; thus at issue here isnt just the freedom of religious belief but of acting on that belief. Of course there are limits in that we dont allow practices such as human sacrifice. But anything considered legitimate action under these constitutions is allowed in churches. And heres the point: none of these constitutions limit this free exercise to church property.
Thus any type of exercise allowable in church is allowable outside of it.
So for this reason alone the action against the Oregon bakers was unconstitutional. Since a person can refuse to be party to a faux wedding within a church he can also refuse to be party to a faux wedding outside of it.
Interestingly Kasich and others seem to be espousing a kind of dual truth" philosophy which I understand is part of Islamic theology. This basically states what whats religiously true" may not be true beyond the religious realm (whatever thats supposed to be). But a moral issue doesnt cease to be a moral issue because it moves down the block.
The action against the bakers is unconstitutional for another reason. Perhaps invariably part of creating a wedding cake is placing a written message on it; in the case of faux weddings this message would relate to faux marriage. Even two male figurines placed on top of the cake relate a message; note here that the courts have rule that symbolic speech is covered under the First Amendment. And where does the government have the constitutional power to compel people to be party to a message they find morally objectionable? Forced speech is not free speech.
Of course none of this would be an issue if we accepted a principle even many conservatives today reject: freedom of association. Think about it: you have a right to include in or exclude from your home whomever you please for any reason whatsoever whether its because the person is a smoker non-smoker black white Catholic Protestant or because you simply dont like his face.
Why should you lose this right merely because you erect a few more tables and sell food?
Or because you bake cakes take pictures plan weddings or conduct some other kind of commerce?
Its still your property paid for with your own money and created by the sweat of your own brow. Is a mans home not his castle?
Of course this all goes back to a Supreme Court ruling stating that private businesses can be viewed as public accommodations" which was a huge step toward the Marxist standard disallowing private property. And it has led to endless litigation with the Boy Scouts sued by homosexuals atheists and a girl (who wanted to be a boy" scout); the PGA Tour sued by a handicapped golfer who wanted a dispensation from the rules; Abercrombie & Fitch sued by a Muslim woman who wanted to wear her hijab on the job; and Barnes & Noble sued by a male employee who claimed he suddenly was a female employee just to name a few cases. It has also led now to some Americans being confronted with a Hobsons choice: cast the exercise of your faith to the winds and bow before the governments agenda or kiss making a living goodbye.
Is all of this worth it just to stop less than one percent of the population from discriminating in unfashionable ways? And remember freedom of association is like any other freedom: its only the unpopular exercise of it that needs protection. As for popular exercise its popularity is usually protection enough.
As for Kasichs desire for popularity its pretty hard to achieve when your implied campaign slogan is A chicken-hearted politician in every office and a coerced cupcake in every cupboard."
When Governor John Kasich said recently that he probably should be running in the Democrat Party he wasnt kidding. Although seeking office in Cuba might be even more fitting.
Taking a break from lecturing us on how we must accept amnesty the presidential contender recently weighed in on the case of the Oregon bakers fined $135000 for refusing to bake a cake for a faux wedding. Mentioned briefly in Thursdays GOP presidential debate here are his comments made on Monday at the University of Virginia:
I think frankly our churches should not be forced to do anything thats not consistent with them. But if youre a cupcake maker and somebody wants a cupcake make them a cupcake. Lets not have a big lawsuit or argument over all this stuff move on. The next thing you know they might be saying if youre divorced you shouldnt get a cupcake.
Now Kasich is a man who just loves the idea of moving on. After the Obergefell v. Hodges decision last June he said that recognition of faux marriage was the law of the land and well abide by it" and that now its time to move on." Its no wonder Republicans long ago move on from the idea of him as president.
Kasich managed to squeeze a remarkable number of misconceptions into his three sentences. First while the cupcake lines may be cute to some and possess rhetorical flair theyre nonsense. Theres not one Christian baker persecuted by governments recently who said he wouldnt bake cupcakes" or anything else for a given group; in fact these businessmen have made clear that they serve homosexuals all the time. This isnt about serving a certain type of people.
Its about servicing a certain type of event.
Only someone who hasnt bothered to ponder the matter deeply or whos intellectually dishonest could miss this simple fact. And Ill put it to you Governor Kasich: can you cite any other time in American history when the government compelled a businessman to service an event he found morally objectionable? This is unprecedented. And is it really a road we want to go down?
If so can the government compel a Jewish or black businessman to cater respectively a Nazi or KKK affair? How about a forcing a Muslim restaurateur to serve pork at an event for the National Pork Producers Council? Or is this another situation where government gets to pick winners and losers this time in matters of conscience?
Of course this is already happening which brings us to Kasichs divorc cupcake eater. The proper analogy here doesnt involve serving such a person because again the bakers in question serve homosexuals.
The proper analogy involves servicing an event celebrating a divorce.
Government wouldnt even consider compelling participation in the above or in events celebrating adultery fornication polygamy (yet) or auto-eroticism. So why the double standard? Well homosexuals have very effective lobbying groups and millions of enablers such as Cupcake Kasich.
Kasichs churches should not be forced to do anything thats not consistent with them. But…" comment is also interesting. Our First Amendment reads Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. For those who say this is only meant to restrain the central governments legislature (and Im sympathetic to this view) note that the constitution of Kasichs own state dictates that no interference with the rights of conscience be permitted." And since he was commenting on a case involving Oregon residents consider that the Beaver States constitution likewise reads No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise and enjoyment of religeous sic opinions or interfere with the rights of conscience."
Now exercise" is action; thus at issue here isnt just the freedom of religious belief but of acting on that belief. Of course there are limits in that we dont allow practices such as human sacrifice. But anything considered legitimate action under these constitutions is allowed in churches. And heres the point: none of these constitutions limit this free exercise to church property.
Thus any type of exercise allowable in church is allowable outside of it.
So for this reason alone the action against the Oregon bakers was unconstitutional. Since a person can refuse to be party to a faux wedding within a church he can also refuse to be party to a faux wedding outside of it.
Interestingly Kasich and others seem to be espousing a kind of dual truth" philosophy which I understand is part of Islamic theology. This basically states what whats religiously true" may not be true beyond the religious realm (whatever thats supposed to be). But a moral issue doesnt cease to be a moral issue because it moves down the block.
The action against the bakers is unconstitutional for another reason. Perhaps invariably part of creating a wedding cake is placing a written message on it; in the case of faux weddings this message would relate to faux marriage. Even two male figurines placed on top of the cake relate a message; note here that the courts have rule that symbolic speech is covered under the First Amendment. And where does the government have the constitutional power to compel people to be party to a message they find morally objectionable? Forced speech is not free speech.
Of course none of this would be an issue if we accepted a principle even many conservatives today reject: freedom of association. Think about it: you have a right to include in or exclude from your home whomever you please for any reason whatsoever whether its because the person is a smoker non-smoker black white Catholic Protestant or because you simply dont like his face.
Why should you lose this right merely because you erect a few more tables and sell food?
Or because you bake cakes take pictures plan weddings or conduct some other kind of commerce?
Its still your property paid for with your own money and created by the sweat of your own brow. Is a mans home not his castle?
Of course this all goes back to a Supreme Court ruling stating that private businesses can be viewed as public accommodations" which was a huge step toward the Marxist standard disallowing private property. And it has led to endless litigation with the Boy Scouts sued by homosexuals atheists and a girl (who wanted to be a boy" scout); the PGA Tour sued by a handicapped golfer who wanted a dispensation from the rules; Abercrombie & Fitch sued by a Muslim woman who wanted to wear her hijab on the job; and Barnes & Noble sued by a male employee who claimed he suddenly was a female employee just to name a few cases. It has also led now to some Americans being confronted with a Hobsons choice: cast the exercise of your faith to the winds and bow before the governments agenda or kiss making a living goodbye.
Is all of this worth it just to stop less than one percent of the population from discriminating in unfashionable ways? And remember freedom of association is like any other freedom: its only the unpopular exercise of it that needs protection. As for popular exercise its popularity is usually protection enough.
As for Kasichs desire for popularity its pretty hard to achieve when your implied campaign slogan is A chicken-hearted politician in every office and a coerced cupcake in every cupboard."