Religious Liberty Law

[mossyisland]

Where am I wrong on this one? If I don't want to rent my lodge to a gay marriage, I have that choice now without legal ramifications. It doesn't protect say a retail or food service, does it? The way I understand it is it just protects the ones asked to actively participate in the wedding, right? Thoughts?

[davidees]

Here's Senator McDaniel's take on it:

Anyone who claims HB 1523 is discriminatory is Constitutionally inept.

Based on the flawed legal reasoning behind the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, Mississippians are faced with the concept known as conflicting rights.

Let's discuss.

Assuming that homosexual marriage is a fundamental right (per the U.S. Supreme Court), then on one side of the equation, there are four (4) other conflicting rights that would be implicated by state action: (a) freedom of conscience, (b) freedom of contract, (c) private property control and (d) freedom of assembly. On the other side stands the judicially created right of homosexual marriage, a single right that would be implicated by state action.

4 rights vs. 1 right.

Four are fundamental and essential, specifically protected by the language of the U.S. Constitution.

The other is based on the political musings of Justice Kennedy and the liberal "living Constitution" faction of the Supreme Court, those justices not constrained or defined by the Constitution's language. Instead, the new "rights" created by this side of the Court depends on a specious legal theory known as Substantive Due Process and an abusive interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause to take sides in the existing culture war and create previously non-existing rights pushed by political special interests.

Here's the kicker, and what the left isn't telling you: state action is generally required for any VIOLATION of the above-referenced rights.

The state action requirement stems from the fact that the constitutional amendments which protect individual rights (especially the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment) are mostly phrased as prohibitions against government action. For example, the First Amendment states that “[c]ongress shall make no law” infringing upon the freedoms of speech and religion. Because of this requirement, it is impossible for private parties (citizens or corporations) to violate these amendments, and all lawsuits alleging constitutional violations of this type must show how the government (state or federal) was responsible for the violation of their rights.

Put another way, the Constitution is a limitation on governmental conduct, not (with a singular exception) a limitation on private conduct.

With the above in mind, any "state action" by Mississippi would potentially violate the "rights" discussed above. For instance, Mississippi could have conceivably prohibited any contracts or business dealings between homosexual couples and Mississippi business entities (obviously improper). That would have been a state action.

Likewise, Mississippi could have specifically ordered its private businesses to enter contracts with homosexual couples (obviously improper). Again, state action.

But instead, HB 1523 demanded that government take no adverse action against either side. No state action.

Such inaction is precisely the balance required by the U.S. Constitution.

It doesn't matter that one right may be less popular (less PC) than another, and rights don't change with the mere passage of time.

But remember, the American left isn't happy with a balance.

They desire state action.

They desire more government. Coercion. Force.

For the government to pick a side.

They demand control, even if the state action violates FOUR distinct and longstanding Constitutional rights.

What the left proposes is to abandon the older rights for a newer one. And they want to use state government to achieve their objective.

But there is no way to justify wholesale state-sponsored discrimination over the infrequent individual discrimination that may occur.

Government action is the problem.

HB 1523 achieved a delicate balance.

It is not discriminatory.

[mossyisland]

I saw that last night and thought that was the best thing written I had seen in explaining the new law. My liberal friends on Facebook are going crazy so there must be something good in it.

[Lazy Drake]

I guess I don't get it from a business standpoint. If I am in business the only thing I care about is green, which is making money. Who cares if two gays want a cake, bake them a cake, take there money and be happy. What about a straight couple that are getting married and want a cake and one of them committed adultery in there previous marriage? Can I deny them service based on my religious belief that one of them violated the ten commandments?

The sad thing is the state will spend a ton of money to defend this law, they may or may not prevail. So many things to worry about in this state and this is what we spend our time on.

[DoublePslayer]

[mossyisland]

[Smoke68]

I think some of the bakers in your example, Mossy, draw a distinction in baking a wedding cake for a gay couple as opposed to a birthday cake for a gay person.

I don't think refusing to do the former necessarily makes someone a shallow person.

[Ole Goat]

I don't want any baker telling me when it is acceptable for me to eat his cake? Is that same baker who is ok with baking a cake for a heterosexual couple going to first ask them if they have been having pre-marital sex?

[davidees]

Some of you otherwise intelligent men are JUST NOT FREAKING GETTING IT on this issue. The issue with the cake (for example) is the baker feels that by providing a wedding cake for a wedding that he or she doesn't believe in by his or her religious conviction, he or she is participating and therefore condoning the ceremony. There is a difference in that and just flat out refusing service just because you don't like them. In cases like this in the past, florists and bakers had done much business with these people in the past, so they had no problem serving them, it's just that they couldn't in good conscience fill that one request. You can't refuse general service under laws like this, although in my opinion, in a free society, a man should have the right to do business with whomever he chooses without interference from the great leviathan that is the federal gubment, but I digress.

[Smoke68]

[DuckBoat]

It would be nice for people to have the option to do what's right vs being essentially forced to take the 30 pieces of silver.

[fireplug]

[camlock]

In general, in a supposed free country, if I spend my money, my time, my resources and I take all the risk to start and operate a business...I'm the only one the stands to lose should business go bad or any other reason, I shouldn't be forced to a damn thing unless I want to for any reason and I shouldn't be faced with any legal ramifications for not choosing to do business for any reason...that's just my .02 cents.

I realize retail or customer services to gay people was not prevalent, but we moved here to the land and started a free nation to get away from a gov't telling us when, where, and how about personal matters...in general...

[Smoke68]

Couple of things:

Please stop using the premarital sex point to make an example of how Christians are hypocritical. All Christians are hypocrites in some form or fashion, but this isn't one of them. It's not a sin to get married if you are having premarital sex.

Using divorce..... well that's a valid point and one I happen to agree with. People who are up in arms about gay marriage should long ago have been up in arms about no-fault divorce laws and the widespread lack of church discipline in this area.

[gps4]