The lawlessness is not only the product of the mob, but has also has come to be a work of our courts and legislators. Mob violence and despotic laws may be bad enough, but when the courts uphold the end of the Rule of Law itself, the People are left with no other option than to effect a political break with the hostile elements of our society and forge a new republic.
One of the vendors that faced charges for reusing to make a cake for a "wedding" - the very nature of which runs contrary to her beliefs, has lost in court in Colorado. When the courts uphold despotic laws, or the despotic interpretation of existing discrimination laws, we become a lawless society - one in which the Rule of Law has no meaning whatsoever*.
"A Colorado judge says a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs, a ruling that a civil rights group hailed as a victory for gay rights.
Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled Friday that Jack Phillips, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, will face fines if he continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy wedding cakes.
“The undisputed facts show that Respondents (Phillips) discriminated against Complainants because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage,” Spencer wrote.
Last year, David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited the Masterpiece Cakeshop to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. The couple had planned to marry in Massachusetts and hold a reception in Colorado.
Phillips told the men that he could not bake their cake because of his religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage. He offered to make them any other baked item, but not a wedding cake. The couple immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division......"
"The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado hailed the ruling and said it serves as a warning.
“While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” ACLU staff attorney Amanda Goad said in a statement. “No one is asking Masterpiece’s owners to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple.”
Phillips was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal firm specializing in religious liberty cases. Attorney Nicolle Martin condemned the judge’s ruling.
“America was founded on the fundamental freedom of every citizen to live and work according to their beliefs,” Martin said in a prepared statement. “Forcing Americans to promote ideas against their will undermines our constitutionally protected freedom of expression and our right to live free.”
Martin said this was simply a case of a baker who declined to use his personal creative abilities to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony.
“If the government can take aware our First Amendment freedoms, there is nothing it can’t take away,” she said.
Martin added that Phillips is a devoted Christian who has an unwavering faith. She said he is a person of such deep faith that he won’t even bake Halloween-themed treats – at all.
“He’s just trying to live within a certain set of biblical principals because he believes that he answers to God for everything that he does,” Martin told Fox News.
She said this case is an example of gay rights trumping religious rights.
“It sends a message not just to other business owners, it sends a message to Americans – that if the government can take away our First amendment freedoms and tell you what to say and when to say it, there’s nothing they can’t take away,” Martin told Fox News......"
Unlike the other cases noted above, which are linked below, this New Mexico case should make one realize how dreadful the situation has become. In the others, the cases are in their early stages. This case, though has gone as far as it can within the State of New Mexico. The Supreme Court of that state has declared that a citizen has no right of discretion whatsoever. With this precedent, I find it hard to argue that anyone has the right to refuse to participate in anything that runs contrary to his beliefs. A baker will now likely be prohibited from refusing to make a cake with writing stating that God does not exist. The radical gay agenda appears to be the most vindictive and intolerant movement that this nation has seen in a very long time...........
Nazism is not illegal in the US. If a member of a neo-Nazi Party walks into a store owned by a Jewish person, or anyone else for that matter, and orders a product or service custom-made for Hitler's birthday, then the vendor should certainly be within his rights to refuse to fill that order. A vendor cannot refuse service simply because of someone's affiliations, but the law cannot rightly be held to force a vendor to participate in an event for that organization.
Want something less severe? OK, how about a vendor that refuses to make t-shirts sponsoring a Harbor Seal hunt? The vendor would not be able to refuse to make t-shirts with other messages/logos for a customer solely due to his grisly occupation, but the law again cannot be used to force someone to take actions that would effectively make one complicit in the smashing of little seal heads.
This is how the State crushes the liberties of the people- making you powerless to stand up in any way for your principles. Tying this method of control to one's occupation is the most oppressive means of doing so.
The Left needs to turn the people into slaves who have no say whatsoever in what they say, learn, or produce. As I noted in previous posts, measures such as this one are only the beginning. Soon, speaking publicly against fake marriages will be illegal. Next, Churches will be penalized for refusing to perform fake weddings. They will either lose their tax-exempt status or their authority to officiate recognized weddings altogether. If this happens, a married couple will, after a church wedding, have to schlep down to town hall to have a civil ceremony if they want their marriage recognized by the state.
One must keep in mind that governments do not have creative powers. They cannot bring rights into existence. The State is given the power to regulate and protect institutions such as marriage to prevent abuses. These would include underage brides, one spouse who is still legally married to another, etc.
Marriage existed long before any government; therefore a government cannot,despite any legislative hoop-jumping, create the legality of a marriage that, by its very nature, cannot exist. Any law that presents itself as such is nothing more than play-acting by the State.
I once believed that the primary reason for using statutory powers to pretend that same-sex marriages exist was to destroy the family While I still believe that this is the primary purpose for some, I have come to think that others have a more insidious purpose for this.
-The purpose is to establish full governmental control of society and all of its people.
Think about it. If the State can force people to act as if a government can bring the impossible into existence, and force everyone to go along with it, then what is it incapable of doing or forcing? If a society accepts that the State can conjure up institutions by going through the motions of making laws, what can stop them from removing rights or creating others that infringe on the Liberties of the rest of the people?
*Friedrich A. Hayek, the author of The Road to Serfdom was able to - during WWII, successfully predicted much of what would happen in the Western Democracies as types of central planning, restrictions of Liberty, and the end of the Rule and Law and the increase in coercion. had already begun but had not reached near the level that we see today. I find that his foresight was every bit as harp as that of Edmund Burke in his Reflections on the Revolution in France.
"―Where the precise effects of government
policy on particular people are known, where the government aims directly at such
particular effects, it cannot help knowing these effects, and therefore it cannot be
. In such a situation, Hayek argued, government ―must, of
necessity, take sides, impose its valuations upon people and, instead of assisting them in
the advancement of their own ends, chose the ends for them‖ (RS, p. 115).
Knowledge of specific effects of law at the time the law is being made has an
impact both on the law and on the government. When law is made with these particular
effects in mind ―it ceases to be a mere instrument to be used by the people and becomes
instead an instrument used by the lawgiver upon the people and for his ends‖ rather than
for the various ends chosen by various individuals (RS, p. 115). Likewise, the nature of
government changes when specific effects rather than a general framework of laws are
sought. ―The state ceases to be a piece of utilitarian machinery intended to help
individuals in the fullest development of their individual personality and becomes a
‗moral‘ institution—where ‗moral‘ is not used in contrast to immoral but describes an Ealy, Hayek on the Rule of Law, p. 13
institution which imposes on its members its views on all moral questions...........
Pursuit of substantive equality in effect destroys the Rule of Law because to achieve substantive equality the government must abandon its position of impartiality—―To produce the same result for different people, it is necessary to treat them differently‖ (RS, p. 117). At a minimum, such differential action on the part of government destroys the legal framework of general laws which allow individuals to predict government action and
shape their choices with that knowledge in mind......."