In various states where laws defining marriage were passed by the vote of the citizens or duly elected representatives of the citizens, or where laws were passed declaring that a person may not be forced to participate in a religious ceremony for any reason if they do not wish to, these laws have since been declared "unconstitutional" and "discriminatory" by unelected judges whose rationale for these rulings involved taking the Constitution and stretching it a bit thin. But putting arguments against these rulings aside, I want to point something out. And you can tell me if I'm wrong, and if so, tell me why.
|You may not refuse to participate under penalty of law|
If a white supremacist goes to a black caterer and wants a white supremacy-themed wedding, and he or she wants the black caterer to handle it, baking the cake with white robed klansman on it and assorted other baked goods for the reception all featuring either white robed klansmen or else black people being hanged, how does this newly created "cannot refuse to participate" law not similarly force the black caterer to do as the white supremacist has asked, and participate in the white supremacy wedding?
If a neoNazi goes to a Jewish florist and wants the Jewish florist to create arrangements and decorations which all feature swastikas and images of Adolph Hitler and celebrate the Holocaust, does the newly created "cannot refuse to participate" law not require the Jewish florist to do all that the neoNazi has requested, or face prison and fines, just as Christians, Muslims and Jews do for refusing to participate in the newly created homosexual marriage?
If Nicole Brown Simpson's sisters own a wedding chapel, complete with catering and floral arrangements provided by them, and OJ Simpson comes in wanting to hire them to handle his marriage to Miley Cyrus, are they not now and hereafter prohibited by these newly created laws against non-participation from refusing to accept OJ's business and spend their next several weeks preparing wedding arrangements for the man they believe cut their own sister's throat and watched her die at his feet?
Let's take this even further and deal with some current and very real situations of refusal of service.
By these rulings if a bartender refuses to serve drinks to a customer who is drunk and gay, that is a violation of the law. The bartender is discriminating against the customer. The Equal Protection Clause says you can't have a law that says it is illegal to discriminate against someone who is gay, but legal if they are straight. Therefore, if you can't discriminate against a gay man, you can't discriminate against a drunk gay man either, can you?
What about all these restaurants that have signs declaring their right to refuse service? That's a threat of discrimination. The reason is irrelevant. Either discrimination is wrong or it isn't and either refusal of service is illegal discrimination or it isn't.
What if a gay man with no shirt and no shoes is refused service at a Christian wedding chapel and the reason given is that they have a policy of "no shirt, no shoes, no service?" What then?
I would like to know where in our Constitution and Bill of Rights does it say that a US Citizen cannot refuse to participate in a religious ceremony if that ceremony has been blessed by federal judges, regardless of the US Citizen's own religious beliefs or lack of beliefs, if that citizen happens to own a business?
I would like to know where this idea came from that our Constitution prohibits privately owned businesses from discriminating against customers for various reasons? The judges all point to the US Constitution, but there's nothing in the US Constitution about private citizens with private businesses discriminating against each other in business. It only prohibits unequal laws, such as hate crime legislation and affirmative action laws which define some citizens as being "more equal" than other citizens.
I'd like to point out one last thing, too. The Bill of Rights clearly declares that all citizens have the right to bear arms and that this right cannot be denied by the US Government. The Supreme Court even ruled that Lincoln's disarming of citizens after he declared martial law and invaded South Carolina was illegal and that even during martial law the government has no authority to deny citizens their rights as defined under the Bill of Rights. Yet in the 20th Century federal judges ruled that the federal government can put 'reasonable limits' on these rights, such as outlawing machine guns, background checks, waiting periods, etc. This being the case, the legal precedent is clearly there for The People to define marriage and set reasonable limits on what it means and what it does not mean. But the same federal judges who favor further limiting the 2nd Amendment, as well as several other rights as defined in the Bill of Rights apparently, have ruled that this particular limit is illegal.
Hypocrisy? Legal double standard? Blatant violation of their oath of office and their duty to uphold the law?
I'm not simply stirring shit here. These are legitimate questions. If you have a working knowledge of US laws, I'd like to know your thoughts. And even if you don't, maybe you have something useful to contribute. The more of this I see, the more it looks to me like our socialist brothers and sisters simply want to establish a class system with different laws depending on which class they define you as at any given moment and eliminate this whole "equal protection" idea and all the rights guaranteed to the People in the Bill of Rights.