Reverse Discrimination
In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a married gay couple filed a lawsuit against a cake shop owner who refused to bake their wedding cake because gay marriage is against the cake shop owner’s religious beliefs. The case has landed in the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which granted gays the right to marry, did foresee a religious liberty conflict that stressed respect for "those who adhere to religious doctrines." Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissent in Obergefell. "Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage."
Lawyers for the cake shop owner argue "that people who disagree with the redefinition of marriage, should be able to continue to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and act on those beliefs.” In other words, freedom of religion trumps gay marriage and this newly created right of same sex marriage can be impinged upon when faced with a greater right. Otherwise, the gays have created a situation of reverse discrimination. Let me explain.
Freedom of religion is a fundamental right upon which this country was almost exclusively founded. European settlers initially migrated to the New World because of the religious strife erupting between the Protestants and the Catholics beginning around the year 1520 with the Protestant Reformation and the Counter Reformation. The New world was settled by religious seeking Europeans. Quebec was founded by the French in 1606 by Catholics and Jamestown was founded by the British in 1607 by Protestants. South America and Mexico were conquered by Catholic Spaniards. When our United States Constitution was finally drafted and signed in 1787, the founders of our country insisted upon 10 bill of rights that were not specifically delineated in the Constitution. They include
1. Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
2 Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well-regulated militia.
3 No quartering of soldiers.
4 Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
5 Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
6 Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.
7 Right of trial by jury in civil cases.
8 Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments.
9 Other rights of citizens may exist aside from the ones explicitly mentioned.
10 All powers not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution are reserved to the states.
Yet since their drafting, all of these rights under the constitution have some impingements placed upon them. Free speech and the right of association cannot create or lead to violence. Pornography can be regulated. The right to bear arms depends on which firearm one is bearing. The only right not impinged is freedom of religion. For example, the exemption from impingement of the exercise of religious freedom is clearly demonstrated in Leah Remini’s documentary: Scientology and the Aftermath. This so called “Church of Scientology” is granted tax exemption and at the same time believes that they are the prodigy of ancient aliens. Freedom of religion is sacred. A group can put the word church in front of just about any association of people and call itself a religion. Along with the exercise of this right is the avoidance or non-participation in anything which goes against your religion. Otherwise your religious right would no longer be free.
Many people confuse rights delineated in the Declaration of Independence with those delineated in the Constitution. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of “unalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all of humanity by our Creator, and which governments were created to protect. But the Declaration of Independence does not retain legal authority over the citizenry of the United States because it was drafted before our government was ever formed. Thus, pursuit of happiness is not a right.
Just because child pornography may make you happy does not make it a right. Marriage is not a right. Marriage is burdened by many laws. One cannot marry a minor or a first cousin. Supposedly one cannot marry a billy goat. One cannot marry two or more people at the same time because that would be bigamy or polygamy. Voting is not a right. A convicted felon cannot vote and an age limit of 18 is placed on all US citizens before voting. All rights in the Bill of Rights have been burdened with limits except freedom of religion.
These rights in the first 10 amendments to the constitution were drafted as a limit on the federal government. All other conceived rights and their management were reserved to the States. Yet States rights have long since been impinged upon by a hazy concept of equal protection. Equal protection prevents discrimination based on race, religion or age. Generally, business entities and political entities cannot discriminate against a particular class of people based on age, sex or religion. The classes of people based upon sexual discrimination were men versus women, not society versus homosexuals. Therefore this new suit is a type of reverse discrimination. These homosexuals are forcing their depraved lifestyle upon a citizen’s deeply held religious beliefs, beliefs which are completely contrary to their type of dysfunctional lifestyle. These gay men, exercising a right that the Supreme Court only recently manufactured, are attempting to place a burden on a citizen who has been exercising a religious freedom right that has existed at least since the founding of this country. This gay couple could have just as easily gone to the cake shop around the corner, whose owner is an agnostic or atheist or an owner who has no religious beliefs at all. These homosexuals are discriminating against this citizen’s constitutional right to the free exercise of his religion. Religious belief far outweighs a newly orchestrated right of same-sex marriage. If this farce is allowed to continue, rest assured that the Catholic Church will be sued for discrimination for not marrying homosexuals.
Lawyers for the cake shop owner argue "that people who disagree with the redefinition of marriage, should be able to continue to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and act on those beliefs.” In other words, freedom of religion trumps gay marriage and this newly created right of same sex marriage can be impinged upon when faced with a greater right. Otherwise, the gays have created a situation of reverse discrimination. Let me explain.
Freedom of religion is a fundamental right upon which this country was almost exclusively founded. European settlers initially migrated to the New World because of the religious strife erupting between the Protestants and the Catholics beginning around the year 1520 with the Protestant Reformation and the Counter Reformation. The New world was settled by religious seeking Europeans. Quebec was founded by the French in 1606 by Catholics and Jamestown was founded by the British in 1607 by Protestants. South America and Mexico were conquered by Catholic Spaniards. When our United States Constitution was finally drafted and signed in 1787, the founders of our country insisted upon 10 bill of rights that were not specifically delineated in the Constitution. They include
1. Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
2 Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well-regulated militia.
3 No quartering of soldiers.
4 Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
5 Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
6 Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.
7 Right of trial by jury in civil cases.
8 Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments.
9 Other rights of citizens may exist aside from the ones explicitly mentioned.
10 All powers not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution are reserved to the states.
Yet since their drafting, all of these rights under the constitution have some impingements placed upon them. Free speech and the right of association cannot create or lead to violence. Pornography can be regulated. The right to bear arms depends on which firearm one is bearing. The only right not impinged is freedom of religion. For example, the exemption from impingement of the exercise of religious freedom is clearly demonstrated in Leah Remini’s documentary: Scientology and the Aftermath. This so called “Church of Scientology” is granted tax exemption and at the same time believes that they are the prodigy of ancient aliens. Freedom of religion is sacred. A group can put the word church in front of just about any association of people and call itself a religion. Along with the exercise of this right is the avoidance or non-participation in anything which goes against your religion. Otherwise your religious right would no longer be free.
Many people confuse rights delineated in the Declaration of Independence with those delineated in the Constitution. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of “unalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all of humanity by our Creator, and which governments were created to protect. But the Declaration of Independence does not retain legal authority over the citizenry of the United States because it was drafted before our government was ever formed. Thus, pursuit of happiness is not a right.
Just because child pornography may make you happy does not make it a right. Marriage is not a right. Marriage is burdened by many laws. One cannot marry a minor or a first cousin. Supposedly one cannot marry a billy goat. One cannot marry two or more people at the same time because that would be bigamy or polygamy. Voting is not a right. A convicted felon cannot vote and an age limit of 18 is placed on all US citizens before voting. All rights in the Bill of Rights have been burdened with limits except freedom of religion.
These rights in the first 10 amendments to the constitution were drafted as a limit on the federal government. All other conceived rights and their management were reserved to the States. Yet States rights have long since been impinged upon by a hazy concept of equal protection. Equal protection prevents discrimination based on race, religion or age. Generally, business entities and political entities cannot discriminate against a particular class of people based on age, sex or religion. The classes of people based upon sexual discrimination were men versus women, not society versus homosexuals. Therefore this new suit is a type of reverse discrimination. These homosexuals are forcing their depraved lifestyle upon a citizen’s deeply held religious beliefs, beliefs which are completely contrary to their type of dysfunctional lifestyle. These gay men, exercising a right that the Supreme Court only recently manufactured, are attempting to place a burden on a citizen who has been exercising a religious freedom right that has existed at least since the founding of this country. This gay couple could have just as easily gone to the cake shop around the corner, whose owner is an agnostic or atheist or an owner who has no religious beliefs at all. These homosexuals are discriminating against this citizen’s constitutional right to the free exercise of his religion. Religious belief far outweighs a newly orchestrated right of same-sex marriage. If this farce is allowed to continue, rest assured that the Catholic Church will be sued for discrimination for not marrying homosexuals.
RSS Feed