This Is The Most Important Religious Liberty Decision Since Masterpiece Cakeshop

JackRT said:

All marriages are sacred.

Click to expand...

redleghunter said:

So like the business in question, before opening up to the market they asked the question and got the legal review. They are being very forthcoming they are not serving "ham" in advance.

Click to expand...

AACJ said:

The other major concern here is product usage, people. Shall we expect a private business owner to rent a truck out to someone knowing they intend to use it to run down a crowd? Product usage, folks. Start reminding people of this. This is a major component of this whole matter of rights of business owners vs supposed rights of a particular category of people. We must argue intelligently covering all possible and pertinent issues, even if such issues are not officially mentioned in a legal case. All such components will affect the minds of judges and voters. Remember the importance of reducing arguments to possible absurd results.

Serious consideration must be given for private business owners refusing a service or product to someone if they believe their service or product is going to be used for evil or to glorify sin, such as creating a particular cake that will in turn be used to glorify sin. The racial element of civil rights law is not effected and can and will be preserved.

Click to expand...

Queller said:

And there's the problem. You (and them) seem to think there is some magical difference between a cake for a opposite-sex wedding and one for a same-sex wedding. There isn't. They are both made with the same list of ingredients.

Click to expand...

LaBèlla said:

There are two ways to broach this. Abstain or be a light. I would have made the cake and began providing baked goods to the gay community as a form of ministry. They wouldn’t expect it. But I’d do it for the sake of the gospel. That may be the lone contact they have with a believer who shows them love.

Click to expand...

redleghunter said:

• A federal appeals court has ruled for the first time that religious believers can invoke the First Amendment when declining to participate in same-sex weddings.
• The case involves a Christian couple named Carl and Angel Larsen, who operate a media production company.
• The Larsens want to expand their business to include weddings, but a Minnesota state law requires that they serve both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

A federal appeals court has revived a legal challenge to the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), ruling for the first time that religious business owners can invoke free speech rights when refusing to service a same-sex wedding.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Carl and Angel Larsen in Telescope Media Group v Lucero, a Christian couple who operate a video production company called Telescope Media Group. The Larsens want to expand their business to include weddings, but state officials say the MHRA requires the Larsens to accommodate both same-sex and opposite sex partners.

“Minnesota’s interpretation of the MHRA interferes with the Larsens’ speech in two overlapping ways,” Judge David Stras wrote for a divided three-judge panel. “First, it compels the Larsens to speak favorably about same-sex marriage if they choose to speak favorably about opposite-sex marriage. Second, it operates as a content-based regulation of their speech.”

The decision is particularly significant in view of the Supreme Court’s 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, which involved a Christian baker who declined to make custom weddings cakes for same-sex marriages. Though the baker prevailed in that dispute, the high court did not decide whether religious conservatives can use the First Amendment to skirt anti-gay discrimination laws.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which represented the baker in the Masterpiece case, also represents the Larsens. ADF is a public interest law practice that litigates around religious liberty issues.

The Larsens sued state officials in December 2016, saying the MHRA prevented them from operating their business consistent with their religious beliefs. U.S. District Judge John Tunheim sided with the state and dismissed their lawsuit in September 2017.

On appeal, the 8th Circuit said that Telescope’s videos are the Larsens’s personal speech. The Larsens’s exercise significant editorial discretion over its media productions and promote a particular message about the sanctity of marriage, the panel said.

As such, the majority said the MHRA forces the Larsens to defy their religious beliefs and create speech that is favorable to same-sex marriage. Citing the Supreme Court’s 2018 Janus decision, the 8th Circuit said that “compelling individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable,” is a core First Amendment violation. In Janus, the high court said that unions could not collect mandatory dues from non-members for First Amendment reasons.

Elsewhere in the decision, Stras wrote that the MHRA regulates speech based on content, another violation. The majority said the safer course for the Larsens would be to avoid the wedding business altogether, a type of “compelled self-censorship” that violates free speech rights.

The 8th Circuit also allowed the Larsens’s to proceed with their claim that the MHRA interferes with their right to practice religion. Stras said the couple is in a unique “hybrid situation” in which they can use their free exercise concerns to “reinforce their free speech claim.”

Judge Bobby Shepard joined Stras’s opinion. President Donald Trump included Stras on his list of prospective Supreme Court nominees.

More at link:

This Is The Most Important Religious Liberty Decision Since Masterpiece Cakeshop - Conservative Daily News

Click to expand...

creslaw said:

Then that is what you should do ... but at the same time allow the religious freedom for others to live according the convictions of their faith.

Click to expand...

Queller said:

So I take it you are a fervent supporter of extreme gun control then?

Click to expand...

Queller said:

And there's the problem. You (and them) seem to think there is some magical difference between a cake for a opposite-sex wedding and one for a same-sex wedding. There isn't. They are both made with the same list of ingredients. Therefore your analogy to a Jewish deli selling ham is totally wrong-headed.

Click to expand...

LaBèlla said:

There are two ways to broach this. Abstain or be a light. I would have made the cake and began providing baked goods to the gay community as a form of ministry. They wouldn’t expect it. But I’d do it for the sake of the gospel. That may be the lone contact they have with a believer who shows them love.

Click to expand...

AACJ said:

If you are referring to baked goods that will be used to glorify sin, then you are presenting a false dilemma. Providing a product that will be used to glorify sin is not an act of Christian love, nor is it an example of the light of Christ. There is a difference between providing necessary products and services for the sustenance of life and providing goods and services that are unnecessary and will be used to further sin.

Click to expand...

LaBèlla said:

Is that a word from the Lord or are you sharing an opinion? I didn’t judge their choice. That is something they have to settle with God.

Click to expand...

AACJ said:

Of course you judged their choice. Claiming the lack of the mentioned action is unchristian is a moral judgment. Was your statement just an opinion? If so why do you couch it in terms of a moral absolute?

Click to expand...

LaBèlla said:

I said there were two options. I shared the one I’d take. I never said their choice was wrong.

Are you working to help Christian business owners fight against legal issues like these? That would be a proactive response.

Click to expand...

AACJ said:

Are you presuming that I don't help such businesses owners in their legal battles?

Click to expand...

You presented only two choices. One right, one wrong.

Click to expand...

LaBèlla said:

I said there were two options. I shared the one I’d take. I never said their choice was wrong.

Are you working to help Christian business owners fight against legal issues like these? That would be a proactive response.

Click to expand...

LaBèlla said:

One either bakes the cake or they don’t.

Click to expand...

AACJ said:

It seems to me that presenting sound arguments is very pro-active. Especially considering that such arguments normally precede large scale change.

Click to expand...