Jump to content

Daniel2

Contributor
  • Content count

    2,834
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Daniel2

  1. I’m not sure what “making a bespoke item” means, but I think those supporting the customers have consistently said it’s not about the cake—it’s about whether or not public accommodation laws are valuable and whether or not we’ll allow discrimination. Sounds like you are questioning the need for public accommodation laws and are leaning towards favoring discrimination. The fact that you laughably dismiss that this is just one part of a a larger attack on LGBT equality and the equal civil rights we’ve been fighting for demonstrates either you are unaware or unwilling to see the current administration’s multiple attacks on LGBT equality. I’m puzzled that you believe that those of us who support EQUAL treatment under the law—that is, that our lives should be afforded the SAME protections that you and others already enjoy—somehow counts as “privilege.” The two sentences of your last paragraph entirely contradict one another. Thanks for catching my misspelling by omitting the “a” at the beginning of the word “aesthetician.” I corrected it in my original post and acknowledged the change.
  2. As has been anticipated by many, the battle ground over religious freedoms vs. civil rights related to sexual orientation isn't over. The next issue seems to be public accomodations, as well as the ongoing issue of taxation of churches engaged in anti-LGBT civil rights initiatives (conservatives are likely to prefer the term "pro-religious liberty" or "defending the First Amendment" instead of being 'anti-LGBT'). Two recent issues in the press, unfortunately, illustrate these issues.
  3. Well of course. I didn't write any law either, and I would presume that you likewise wouldn't have, unless you'd served as a member of legislature. Some laws are voted on, and others aren't. The checks and balances of our government all come into play as laws are weighted to ensure they are congruent with our constitutional principals. Whether we write the law or whether we voted for it or whether the law is in effect due to the legislature, judicial, or executive branches of our government, we obviously are bound by them so long as said laws are active. Some personal actions are allowable, and some are not. The freedom our constitution promotes allows some behaviors and prohibits some others. We are not a nation founded on Anarchy. But its gross hyperbole to suggest that our laws currently only reflect the notion that "real freedom only extends to what people can think." All of the above being said, there are two options for anyone that feels their freedoms are truly being violated: exercising the right we all have to seek redress through due process of law (as Masterpiece is doing), or, if the outcome isn't to anyone's liking, and any citizen of the U.S. truly believes our nation is unjust, find another alternative that does allow the freedoms you're seeking. I think you'll find that the United States does a pretty darn good job of protecting our freedoms and liberties.
  4. No idea what you’re talking about.... If public accomodations laws requiring you to provide the same service to everyone, irrespective of their identity, without discriminating against others based on protected classifications violate your deeply held religious beliefs, you’re entirely free to pursue another line of business that doesn’t violate your religious conscience. Case closed. Religious freedom in tact. No one coerced. The end.
  5. As with any manner of legally-protected issue regarding freedom of religious belief, dissenters against marriage between same-sex couples have never lost their ability to openly voice their concerns or personal objections to it. As with any manner of legally-protected issue regarding freedom of speech, whether there are any reprisals depends on the circumstances. All "freedoms" have some inherent legal limitations, and there are some natural and potentially unavoidable ramifications (beyond the extent of the law) that may occur as a result of how we choose to exercise those freedoms. Religious organizations always have been and still are exempt from forced participation in any ceremony they object to. That hasn't changed. Recognizing civil marriage rights for same-sex couples hasn't changed the fact that businesses (including small, privately-owned businesses) have always been subject to government regulation and have had to comply with non-discrimination laws (prohibiting them from refusing their goods or services to anyone based on a protected class) for 50+ years. Oddly enough, one has called or considered the application of these laws as "forced participation" in the last 50 years until now. You're welcome to hold whatever views about sexual promiscuity and/or deviancy that you wish, as we all are. D
  6. Another great analysis from SCOTUS Blog (a portion of which was referenced in my previous post, but once I clicked on the link, I figured it's worth sharing, as it again directly addresses the "speech" claims being made by some in this thread):
  7. Another great article about themes discussed here (i.e. suggesting the cake baker is using his creative talent as "expression" or "speech" which should exempt him from having to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex couple): To argue, as do Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Department of Justice in this case, that the exemption that would be created by a ruling for the business is narrow, is to ignore that reality. If we start to exempt from nondiscrimination laws businesses that reflect creativity and passion, such a move would undermine all nondiscrimination protections. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the organization defending the business at the Supreme Court, is taking great pains to frame this case as one about art and expression. It is using this tactic to gain support and obscure the fact that this case is part of a broader strategy to banish LGBTQ people from public life. This is not about cake. This is about demolishing the legal protections that exist against discrimination in places of public accommodation. Groups like ADF have already proposed and passed laws seeking to exempt from nondiscrimination protections any action that infringes upon an individual or businesses deeply held religious or moral belief that: “(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman; (b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and (c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.” I shudder at this final point since it means a moral or religious belief that trans people do not exist. And that is precisely what ADF and others have argued time and time again in litigation. In the past two years, they and others have advanced the arguments that it is “outlandish” for the federal government to protect transgender students from discrimination, that having a gender that does not accord with the gender assigned to a person at birth is a “delusion,” and that providing health insurance coverage for gender transition would amount to “material cooperation with evil.” If the Supreme Court sides with the bakery, the systematic rejection of LGBTQ people from public life will gain legitimacy and anti-LGBTQ movements will grow stronger. It is possible to value creative labor and religious liberty without gutting generally applicable legal protections against discrimination and opening the door to a world in which trans people are rejected from public life because people don’t believe we do or should exist. If a baker can reject LGBTQ people because of who we are, then what about the mechanic, the florist, the doctor, the teacher? This is not about cake. This is not about art. This is about survival. He makes some good points... If cakes count as expression because they involve artistry and creativity... why can't a hair stylist refuse to cut, color, and style someone's hair for a same-sex wedding? Why can't an aesthetician (edited to correct spelling) refuse to do someone's make-up or nails? Why can't any chef refuse to make food? Why can't a tailor or dressmaker refuse to sell custom-made wedding dresses or provide custom-tailored tuxedos? Why can't a florist refuse flower arrangements? Creativity is involved in a variety of roles, as is customization. And not just for same-sex weddings... what about any other type of ceremony to which the business owner objects? (bar mitzvahs, baptisms, temple sealings, non-religious weddings, anniversaries, birthdays, Courts of Honor, etc. etc. etc.). The author above makes a very compelling case that if SCOTUS allows a license to discriminate to stand here, it will become very difficult to draw the line, despite claims it will be narrowly limited.
  8. From what I’ve read, the defendant is claiming his rights are being violated threefold: as a matter of exercise, of speech, and a hybrid of the two. It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS rules and whether they’ll rule that any of those three claims of his as valid.
  9. The great thing about life in America is that while some government organizations may prosecute those who violate certain laws, it's entirely a matter of choose whether or not to personally pursue justice through legal action against someone who has violated your constitutionally-specified rights. No one will force any of us, as consumers, to do business with anyone we don't want to, and you're entirely free to choose to legally disengage, take your business elsewhere, and not report anyone who refuses you service for any reason without pressing charges. That being said and hyperbolic allegations of "forcing" business owners to act against their will and misplaced invocations of "slavery" aside, the law is very explicit and legal precedent has held for 50 years that business owners do not have a legal right to claim exemption from serving their customers' based on their religious objections to their customers' choices. The ACLU provides a great summary that religious objections to customers' choices have never been cited as legal exemptions from the requirements of public access--specifically, under the subheading below titled "Have there been other challenges like this to non-discrimination laws?":
  10. As offensive as I find this group's literature to be, I support their right to free speech, as well as their right to peaceably assemble/demonstrate. And as long as members of the group weren't passing out literature to his other customers and/or evangelizing for their cause with others of his coffee shop, I believe the owner has a legal obligation to serve them, regardless of their religious beliefs. Additionally, although the owner is likewise entitled to his own freedom of speech, the nature of the offensive language he used and the graphicness of imagery he described was entirely counter-productive to the understanding he was allegedly aiming to promote. His words and despicable behavior only reinforced the very views and opinions of the people he was apparently decrying, rather than taking advantage of an opportunity to sit down, break bread with those who are different, share how the loving relationship her shares with his boyfriend enriches his life, find some common ground, and potentially connect with those who may continue to have different beliefs, but could have met someone different than what their worldview expected. As I said, though, not only was it a missed opportunity, but it was a violation of the law. Should SCOTUS rule that business owners can withhold creative goods and services based on religious objections, we can expect more of the same. Ironically, Smac, the type of scenario you've imagined above has already been threatened in the name of religious liberty if Masterpiece Bakery wins the ability to withhold services based on their own religious beliefs:
  11. If the events turn out to be true as reported above (and they certainly seem to be so, based on the video), I absolutely would support the customers in a civil suit, and not the owners. His behavior, foul language, and outright discrimination against the patrons because of their religious beliefs were outrageous and horrendous. And I'd hope they got a huge sum of money in damages, even if it resulted in him closing his business. Individuals like that man shouldn't be in business--I'd certainly quit if I worked for him.
  12. I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying, so I'll try and answer the question and hope that it answers what you are asking... I believe that all churches should be able to preach and teach whatever they want to about homosexuality, whether their teaching be that homosexual relationships are sinful and forbidden by God; or that homosexual relationships are morally neutral and God doesn't care; or that homosexual relationships are inherently worthy and divinely approved. If a church teaches that gay relationships are inherently worthy and divinely approved, I think it's understandable most people would consider that church "pro-gay" or "gay-affirming." If a church teaches that gay relationships are morally neutral, I think it's understandable most people would call that church something along the lines of 'indifferent' with regards to it's views on homosexuality. If a church teaches that gay relationships are sinful and forbidden by God, I think it's understandable most people would consider that church "anti-gay" or "anti-homosexual." I don't believe churches should lose their tax-exempt status based on their beliefs. That being said, in recent months I've learned a little more about some of the concerns surrounding the tax-exempt status of churches and concerns about their lack of financial transparency. I would actually support more inquiry into ensuring churches are more accountable and aren't hiding illegal activity, but in all honesty, I'm not sure how that would be. I've listened to some interesting interviews with regards to the lawyers involved with the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" (I think it was called?) who often defend that imaginary line between church and state, and they have expressed some concerns I feel are compelling enough to warrant some considerations... (but to be honest, those interviews were about a lot of the mega-Evangelical Empires that go completely unregulated and around which there is little transparency and some concern about how the funds are being used--that wasn't related to the gay marriage issue or homosexuality in any way). I'm not really clear as to why churches are automatically exempted from paying taxes... I am open to discussion about maybe caps or some sort of regulation, but again, that would be in the interests of accountability, would have to be equally applied to everyone regardless of belief, and not based on any given church's dogma. Hope that answered your question, and I hope you and your family are well! D
  13. LittleNipper, it sounds as if you're upset that businesses are being required to treat same-gender couples the same way that they're required to treat their customers based on religion, race, gender, national origin, ability-status, and veteran-status. Are you equally upset that businesses can't refuse to serve people based on their religion? or race? or gender? or any other protected category? Public accommodations laws have been around for over 50 years. Why are you only expressing outrage now that businesses can't refuse services? Or have you been vocally opposing public accommodations laws the last 50 years...? Do you mean to suggest that it's only a "liberal" value and that the government shouldn't prohibit discrimination based on religion? or race? or gender? or the other protected categories? Or are you only angry that the government is saying businesses have to treat gay and lesbian couples like every other protected class?
  14. Who wouldn't enjoy "The Flintstones"? LOVED that show as a kid.... <nostalgic sigh> Yes, "gay" has meant a variety of different things over the years, from "easy going" to "happy" and "carefree" and "attracted to others of one's same gender." And it's still in use today in all of those different meanings (several Christmas Carols come to mind that preserve it's use as "happy/carefree"). Not sure that that's relevant to the thread's topic of religious liberty, freedoms of speech, and the public square... it seems like this tangent may be tilting at windmills...
  15. Hi, LittleNipper, As others have said, the example you provided isn't analogous to either the T-shirt case nor the wedding cake case. Here's how the law sees and treats them differently than what you wrote above: a) In the T-shirt case, the company was asked to print a specific message (an example of what the law views as "inherently expressive speech") on T-shirts. Freedom of speech protects business owners from having to create a product that has "inherently expressive speech" to which they personally object, find offensive, disagree with, etc. b) In the cake case, the company was asked to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple in the same way it creates wedding cakes for opposite-sex couples. Thus far, courts have ruled that customized cakes are not "inherently expressive" forms of speech, unless there is speech (letters or symbols) on the cake itself. If the cake company routinely carries, sells or creates specific wedding decorations for it's customers (icing colors, flavors, flowers, birds, bells, etc.), it cannot refuse to sell those same decorations it sells to different-gendered couples that it sells to same-gendered couples. A same-sex couple cannot force a cake company to carry same-sex wedding toppers if they don't already carry them, but anything the store does carry, the company must sell to any of it's customers, regardless of gender. (this is true in states that have passed anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation... the question hasn't yet been posed as to whether it would view this as discrimination based on gender). c) In the hypothetical adult bookstore example you provided, it doesn't matter how one defines "adult" or not... that's completely irrelevant to the legal points outlining the differences. What matters is any store cannot be 'forced' by it's customers to carry a product it doesn't choose to carry. However, once a store decides to carry any product it wishes, it can't decide to sell it's product to certain types of customers while simultaneously refusing to sell it to other customers based on said customers' status as a member of a protected class. Meaning, a company can refuse service to anyone who isn't wearing socks, shoes, or a shirt (because none of those are protected classes), but a store CAN'T refuse to service or sell the same products it sells to everyone else but refuse to sell it to Mormons, Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Caucasians, African-Americans, veterans, the disabled, etc. (in other words, to people because of their religion, race, gender, veteran's status, disability, etc.) Additionally, the bookstore in your example (which carries so-called 'adult' items, which in this case means items that are sexually-explicit in nature) doesn't routinely stock religious books. Because no customer can successfully sue said store to carry any items it doesn't want to carry, no customer can force a store to carry anything to which it objects. That same principle applies as to why a non-Mormon customer can't go into Deseret Book and force it to carry porn. But, businesses cannot refuse to sell what they already carry to customers based on the customers' status as a member of a protected class. There's no "two interpretations of the Constitutions--a positive one for secular liberals and another undermining one aimed at Christian Conservatives"--the law equally protects all. In fact, our constitution MANDATES that all are equally treated, protected, and must abide by the same rules. That's why business can't refuse service on the basis of customers' status as a member of a protected class. I hope this helps clarify.
  16. While you're free to advocate for that view, the law currently doesn't allow business owners to refuse services to anyone they want to. Public Accommodations Laws are not widely regarded to be "one-sided," but have been found to be constitutional and were established for the good of all citizens. I am advocating for nothing more than equal protection and application of those laws for all. To be blunt: for my husband's and my wedding, if any business owners had refused to rent tuxes or sell us our wedding cake, food, decorations, or flowers, or photograph our wedding, I would have simply gone and found another business who was willing to sell us what we're looking for. I don't have time, energy, effort, funds, or a desire to pursue these types of actions, not to mention I value my privacy. But I understand others will and should. I absolutely support individuals like those suing 'Masterpiece Cakes' and other discriminating businesses like them; individuals and couples who are pursuing due process of law as per the equal protections guaranteed to all citizens by our constitution. And I adamantly believe that "freedom of religion" is best protected by not allowing businesses to discriminate against others based on the "deeply-held religious beliefs" of said business owners/workers. As I've said repeatedly, nothing would undermine the protections from discrimination given to religion more than allowing people to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. And while finding out and understanding why any of us are gay/straight/bisexual/something-else is, in my view, a very important and worthwhile personal pursuit to find an answer to, it's ultimately not as significant to the legal question at hand. It does inform the level of scrutiny (if any) that sexual orientation should/will be afforded, but thus far, judges have ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation doesn't even pass the lowest/loosest level of scrutiny. And as I said in the post I made just prior to this one, I'm not sure how the types of discrimination being made here can't/shouldn't be decided solely on the basis of gender, rather than sexual orientation--at least, in so far as the specific questions being posed about the constitutionality of public accommodations laws.
  17. Hi, LittleNipper, Yes, I understand that you are the one who brought up Will and Grace, as well as Phrenology. You've also brought up several gay stereotypes and seem very focused on sexual behavior and/or identity, which isn't really what this thread is even about. Whether or not someone chooses to be sexually active based on their sexual orientation is entirely beside the point here. And whether or not a couple is sexually active is entirely beside the point here. This point involves civil marriage and how it's treated in the public realm, specifically in regards to business' ability/inability to refuse services. Sexual behaviors aren't a required aspect of any marriage, and many couples don't engage in sexual behaviors due to age, disability, disease, etc. Yet marriage serves an important aspect for all couples, even those that aren't sexually active, especially because marriage creates familial bonds involving caregiving and being able to provide for and protect one's chosen family members including financial, legal, and physical actions. As referenced above, ultimately this thread is about whether or not businesses should have a legal right to discriminate against same-sex couples' marriages by refusing to provide them with goods and services, while, at the same time, remain legally prohibited from discriminating against the marriages of interracial couples, atheist couples, Jewish couples, Muslim couples, Mormon couples, Church of Satan couples, Wiccan couples, infertile couples, veteran couples, mixed-Faith couples, couples of divergent national origins, etc. In EVERY one of those 'other' types of marriage, business owners are NOT free to withhold goods and services based on any religious objections: It doesn't matter whether a Christian baker's "deeply held religious beliefs" disagree with The Church of Satan (or Islam, or Judaism, or Mormonism, or Wiccanism)--he CANNOT refuse to bake a wedding cake for a wedding between members of The Church of Satan (or Islam, or Judaism, or Mormonism, or Wiccanism). It doesn't matter whether a religious baker's "deeply held religious beliefs" compel him to object to marriage between Caucasians and African-Americans--he CANNOT refuse to bake a wedding cake for an interracial couple. It doesn't matter whether a religious baker's "deeply held religious beliefs" compel him to object to killing in war--he CANNOT refuse to bake a wedding cake for a military wedding of two veterans getting married. It doesn't matter whether a religious baker's "deeply held religious beliefs" compel him to object to marriage between disabled individuals (whether they're able to procreate or not)--he CANNOT refuse to bake a wedding cake for a disabled couple. It doesn't matter whether a religious baker's "deeply held religious beliefs" compel him to object to intergenerational marriages (of legal age)--he CANNOT refuse to bake a wedding cake for a wedding between an octogenarian and a 19-year-old. And when it comes down to it, I truly haven't seen any evidence as to why, in this case, marriage between a same-sex couple shouldn't be protected on the basis of prohibitions against discrimination based on GENDER, rather than sexual orientation. Sexual orientation really doesn't even have to factor into this, because at the end of the day, refusing to bake a cake for a same-gender couple is a refusal to bake based on the GENDER of the couple, period, because the reality is that whether the couple is privately sexually active or not (as per my previous post about age, disability, disease, etc.), if one member of the couples' gender was different, the baker WOULD sell them the cake. And if a gay man who converted to Christianity and a lesbian woman who converted to Christianity decided to get married in their new Christian Faith, I'd be willing to bet the baker WOULD sell them the cake--so it's really discrimination based on gender, not sexual orientation. Given that, I'm genuinely not sure how a business owner can suggest that this isn't discrimination based on gender, and not really sexual orientation.
  18. I understand the above reflects your religious beliefs, and we all will have our own views and beliefs about whether or not the love and intimacy shared and expressed between a same-sex couple is inherently worthy. No one's brought up Will or Grace, nor the President, so I'm confused by some of your comments above. By the same token, not everyone finds value in what any given religion believes God says about the matter. That being said, I'm not sure what you're trying to say about counting bumps or that public wasn't private... feel free to clarify what relevance you feel it has to the topic of this thread.
  19. Actually, that's not correct. The law has held that some behaviors are so closely linked to innate self-identity that to discriminate against the behavior has been ruled to be unjust discrimination, whether by race or gender. The prime example of this is interracial marriage. While one's race isn't a matter of choice, the act of marrying someone of another race IS a chosen behavior. Loving vs. Virginia ruled it's unconstitutional to discriminate based on individuals' CHOICE of the race of one's spouse. Even when religious bakers view the BEHAVIOR of interracial marriage to be a violation of God's will, they cannot deny creating a custom wedding cake for an interracial couple. The same is true of religion. It's a BEHAVIORAL CHOICE to marry another Latter-day Saint, or another Jew, or another Catholic, or Wiccan, or to have a completely atheistic, non-religious wedding ceremony. The religious (or non-religious) ceremonies in each case are CHOSEN BEHAVIORS, but bakers who hold different religious beliefs cannot refuse to provide custom wedding cakes based on the CHOSEN religious BEHAVIOR dictating the type or location of wedding ceremony being performed. Such religious behaviors are tied to religious identity and cannot be discriminated against in the public square. Obergefell held that the government cannot treat citizens' marriages differently based on the gender of ones' spouse; that laws must treat marriages between same-sex couples the same as it treats the marriages of different-sex couples..
  20. Ummmmm..... "Sexual behavior" IS "behavior." Is anyone saying otherwise? If so, whom? What does that have to do with anything? What do facial features and body build have to do with anything? (Both of which can be altered, either surgically or through diet/exercise). Religious affiliation can be controlled, like any habit (whether positive or negative, depending on your belief system)... so, again, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here or adding to the conversation...
  21. Excellent post. Truly exceptional.
  22. Thanks for the summary--it's often helpful to ensure the conversation is based on factual information. Yes, the ADL did appeal the decision. It would be interesting to know how it happened that they came to be the organization representing the defendants, and whether or not the ACLU was involved or w/could have stepped in. Due to attorney/client privilege, I imagine we'll never know the answers to those questions. That being said, even individuals belonging to organizations designated as "Hate Groups" have a constitutional right to both free speech and to the right of due process of law. I'm glad to see that thus far, justice has been served and the courts moved to protect their rights, as well. I imagine SCOTUS will decline to hear the case, but if they do, I hope the business prevails again, because I think the legal reasoning is sound a reasonable. As I have said many times before, I may not agree with everything others say, but in the name of equal application of the law, I will absolutely defend your right to say them. I'm puzzled by what I view as an unfortunate and ironic choice to use the term "whitewashing" in your response. "Whitewashing" is defined as "a deliberate concealment of someone's mistakes or faults in order to clear their name," and it's synonymns include "cover-up, camouflage, deception, facade, veneer." I haven't seen any evidence of anyone on my side of the discussion trying to conceal, cover-up, or deceive any history or any of the other facts of the case, but welcome you to share any evidence you see that support the implication of "whitewashing." Out of curiosity, do you know if the Lexington-Fayette HRC is part of the judicial system? Or is it the creation and extension of the legislature? What those on my side of the argument ARE trying to do is ensure the conversation is based on factual information and the differences are clearly understood and articulated. One final note: thankfully, regardless of the number of judges by which the majority ruling is established, it becomes law and precedent for future rulings. Thank goodness. We've had our own close calls on my side leading up to marriage equality for same-sex couples, and obviously, not everyone agrees with the ruling, so I know the feeling.
  23. In response to the OP and the subsequent comments, this case was decided just as it should have been, and I fully support the T-Shirt maker's right to refuse to print any messages (words or symbols) they find offensive, profane, indecent, etc., just as I would support a cake decorator's right to decline to print any messages (words or symbols) they find offensive, profane, indecent, etc. Masterpiece Cakes IS different, because the owner refused to provide the very same cake he provides to straight couples (he doesn't carry same-sex wedding toppers or decorations, so he couldn't have been forced to create a cake that was discernably gay vs discernably straight). For those suggesting that these instances demonstrate an "assault on" religious freedom.... I guess I don't see it that way. In the United States of America, all citizens are entitled to seek redress through our court system if they feel they've been wronged. Preserving that ability is an important aspect of our judicial system and the means by which private individuals seek justice through the government, instead of pursuing it on their own (potentially violent) terms. It's inherent in each individuals "right to due process" and "equal protection" of the law. It IS true that lawsuits cost time and money for any side... and that is why individuals or businesses are also free to seek out attorney's fees and compensation for lost time/productivity, etc. for frivolous lawsuits. Business owners or individuals who seek justice through compensation aren't "attacking" anyone's sexual orientation, and it would be wrong for any pro-LGBT advocates to suggest that in such instances, "sexual orientation" is "under attack"------they'd be seeking justice according to the laws of our government. I would hope that none of us mistake or distort all citizens' ability to exercise their "right to due process" by seeking redress of their grievances as "an attack" on religious liberty or speech. In the examples provided here and in other threads, each of those individual rights---that of due process, speech, and religion--are working their way through the courts in tandem, just as they've been designed to do by those that drafted our government.
×