53percenter's Blog

Although it might have been interesting to see Muslim bakers being forced to bake Mohammed cartoon cakes for Christian clients, we should all celebrate the not-even-close Supreme Court ruling establishing that Colorado bakers cannot be forced to violate their First Amendment religious liberty rights by baking a gay wedding cake:

In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the free exercise clause of the Constitution when it forced Jack Phillips to make a cake for a same-sex wedding he morally opposed under the state’s public accommodations law.

“The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression,” the majority opinion said.

“While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other member of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.”

Creative expression in any form is free speech which, along with freedom of religion, is supposedly protected in the First Amendment. People should not be compelled to write or say things they do not believe or agree with, whether it be in the form of ink on paper or frosting on wedding cakes.

In Masterpiece Cake Shop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the shop refused to make a cake for a gay couple to celebrate their same-sex marriage, lawyers representing owner Jack Phillips argued it would be an endorsement of gay marriage that would violate their religious beliefs. The Colorado courts thought otherwise:

It started over five years ago with a simple request for a wedding cake. And now, after wending its way through the system, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is finally having its day before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Many legal experts believe it will be the most significant case of the term. It involves a clash of our rights as citizens, as well as our ideals.

Two of the most precious rights Americans possess are freedom of expression and freedom to practice their religion as they see fit. Both are enshrined in the First Amendment…

It began in July 2012, when Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, who owned the Masterpiece Cakeshop, to create a custom wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex marriage. Phillips refused, saying he didn’t wish to promote a same-sex wedding due to his religious beliefs.

Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The commission decided against Phillips, declaring he had discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.

The commission ordered Masterpiece Cakeshop to change its policies, give its staff training on discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for two years on steps taken to comply with the order.

The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the decision and the Colorado Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Last year, Phillips petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming the Colorado ruling violates the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. 

In this case, as Jordan Lawrence writes in National Review, the line between providing a service and expressing a view are being deliberately blurred by liberals to destroy both free speech and religious liberty:

The government must not force creative businesses to create messages that they oppose. During the Masterpiece Cakeshop oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, the two attorneys opposing cake artist Jack Phillips argued that the justices should not protect Phillips’s freedom to abstain from creating expression he disagrees with. Their primary argument was that, in their opinion, it is too difficult to draw lines protecting people’s First Amendment right against compelled speech, so the high court should not protect Jack’s rights…

David Cole of the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the Supreme Court should conclude that anything Phillips would create under some circumstances, he must create in all contexts…

(But) a cake artist who agrees to design a rainbow cake for a Noah’s Ark–themed Sunday-school party should not be forced against his will to make the same cake for a same-sex wedding (like the one that the same-sex couple who visited Masterpiece Cakeshop eventually got for their wedding reception). Neither should a cake artist who would craft an elephant-shaped cake for a party at the zoo be forced to create the same cake for a Republican-party celebration. Nor should a cake artist who is willing to design a cake saying “I’m dreaming of a white Christmas” for a Christmas party be required to make that cake for a party hosted by Aryan Nations.

The Masterpiece Cakeshop case is different than saying a hotel or restaurant cannot refuse service to people based on their sexual orientation. Baking a wedding cake is a creative process and you cannot force a baker to create something that violates his religious beliefs anymore than you can force a writer to put on paper opinions he or she vehemently disagrees with,

That gay marriage is a looming threat to religious liberty as observed here, and may lead to an era of religious persecution not seen in since the days of the Roman Empire, are seen in the chilling redefinition of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty by Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin, and the Senate’s only lesbian.

Baldwin made her remarks on the June 27, 2015 broadcast of Up With Steve Kornacki on MSNBC. In a transcript of her remarks posted on Newsbusters, Baldwin ignored the fact that it was religious persecution in Europe that led to people fleeing here seeking religious freedom on an individual as well as institutional level:

Certainly the first amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don’t think it extends far beyond that. We’ve seen the set of arguments play out in issues such as access to contraception. Should it be the individual pharmacist whose religious beliefs guides whether a prescription is filled, or in this context, they’re talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country. I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.”

Baldwin, in arguing that there is no individual right to religious liberty and expression, misreads the Constitution with its mandate stating Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It is a key phrase in the First Amendment, leading off the Bill of Rights. These are individual rights fought for in the American revolution. These rights are not limited to institutions but apply to all individuals, just as the Supreme Court has decided the Second Amendment applies to individuals and not just to state-ordained militias.  

Baldwin had been asked the question, “Should the bakery have to bake the cake for the gay couple getting married? Where do you come down on that?” She came down on the side of government coercion and the proposition that church is something you do on Sunday for an hour and otherwise shouldn’t act on your religious beliefs in your daily life.

In Iran, gay wedding cake and pizza requests are handled a bit more harshly and with more finality than a simple statement from a business owner that his or her faith won’t allow them to cater the affair. If two gays contemplating marriage had walked into a Tehran pizza shop like Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana, the pizza shop that refused to cater a gay wedding, hanging in the public square and not a simple refusal would have been a likely outcome.

The Hobby Lobby case also revolved around the belief of the owners that people should be free to act on their faith in their daily lives which includes their business life. It is a belief shared by many, including the Founding Fathers.

So do scores of Catholic and non-Catholic institutions and businesses who argue either that the way they run their private businesses is an extension of their faith or that a church, something the federal government seeks to redefine, is not something that happens one hour a week on a Sunday but 24/7 through the hospitals, schools, soup kitchens and charities they may operate. They argue that acting out their faith through their works should not be illegal.

To gay advocates, acting on your sincerely held religious beliefs is bigotry. They ask that their lifestyles be respected as well as their newly discovered right to marriage, found in the “penumbras and emanations” of the Constitution that also gave us the right to abortion. Neither abortion nor marriage is mentioned specifically in the Constitution, but religious liberty and those who saying acting on your faith is bigotry are physicians sorely in need of healing themselves.

Liberals’ definition of religious liberty is not that much different than Lenin’s and Stalin’s. Investor’s Business Daily once quoted Cardinal George regarding ObamaCare and its imposition of the contraceptive mandate on religious institutions:

“Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union,” Chicago’s Francis Cardinal George recently wrote.

“You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship — no schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice and works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. We fought a long Cold War to defeat that vision of society.”

One wonders what would happen, or should happen in Sen. Baldwin’s view, if a gay couple walked into a bakery owned by African-Americans and asked for a Confederate flag on their wedding cake. The irony here is that those who profess to be the most tolerance exhibit the most intolerance. If you demand tolerance of your lifestyle, you should exhibit tolerance of other people’s religious beliefs. Otherwise it is you who are the hypocrite and the bigot. 

Justice Anthony Kennedy may have tipped his hand early in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, noting in comments during oral arguments:

Did Anthony Kennedy tip his hand during oral arguments in a key religious liberty/free speech case today? All eyes were fixed on the perennial swing Supreme Court jurist as attorneys argued in Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and conservatives had to like Kennedy’s brushback to Colorado’s lawyers early in the hearing. According to the Wall Street Journal’s live blog, Kennedy wanted to know how the state tried to accommodate the baker’s rights to speech and religious expression, and he expressed his dissatisfaction with the response:

Justice Anthony Kennedy told a lawyer for the state that tolerance is essential in a free society, but it’s important for tolerance to work in both directions. “It seems to me the state has been neither tolerant or respectful” of the baker’s views, he said.

Well said. Indeed, the road to oppression and the end of liberty is paved with political correctness. Tolerance should be a two-way street.

Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.               

Karma finally has caught up with Bill Clinton. It wasn’t supposed to turn out this way, in his mind, and it’s all Donald Trump’s fault (as is everything wrong with the world, if you are a national Democrat). Had Hillary brought him back to the White House as the historic  “first gentleman,” none of the humiliation that he now is enduring would be his lot. Harvey Weinstein would still be raising megabucks for Democrats, Charlie Rose would still be interviewing bien pensant  politicians, actors and writers, and the thriller novel  purportedly “co-written” by James Patterson and Bill Clinton would be receiving nothing but adoring reviews and softball questions on the publicity tour.

Instead, the explosion of the #MeToo movement, aimed at hyping the gravity of sexual improprieties by powerful men with powerless women (this means you, Donald “you can grab ’em by the pus*y” Trump!) has unleashed the furies long bottled up by the political utility of Bill Clinton.

Thus, Craig Melvin of NBC News dared to ask Bill Clinton and his “co-author” James Patterson about Monica Lewinski, and whether she was owed an apology.

As American Thinker readers already know, all hell has broken loose over the awkward, self-serving, disingenuous answers offered by Clinton, especially the suggestion that he is the victim here, because he left office $16 million in debt, and that, “This was litigated 20 years ago. Two-thirds of the American people sided with me.”

But that was then, this is now. Female voters are the single biggest demographic slice of the nation that favors Democrats in national elections, more specifically, unmarried female voters, the kind of females most likely to endure unwelcome attentions and worse. The genie is out of the bottle, the toothpaste has exited the tube, and tens of millions of women are very angry.

Back when he was in office and his wife had prospects for the presidency, it was worthwhile covering up Bill’s offenses. But Hillary’s defeat means that there is no upside at all and considerable downside for Democrats in defending him.

Thus we have the spectacle of Democrats discovering their indignation twenty years after the fact. Mika Brzezinski was one of the first highly visible media figures to call out Bill:

“It has been for decades an unbelievable double standard that the Clintons have used and abused, where nobody is allowed to go there on this issue,” Brzezinski said. “And in the age of #MeToo, women are supposed to go there, and men, by the way.”

“We’re supposed to be able to say what the difference is between right and wrong, and when you have done something wrong, you are supposed to own it and not talk about facts, distorted facts and obstructed facts.”

Her MSNBC colleague Katy Tur wondered why Clinton couldn’t just apologize:

“Why was he so combative in that interview? Why didn’t he just say ‘hey, listen, it’s a different time, I feel badly for the way things went down, I feel badly for how Monica Lewinsky was treated, I’m sorry’?”

But this morning, with time to reflect, the media are getting even more aggressive. Will Rahn, Managing editor for politics at CBS News, is calling on Clinton to “go away.” He is, to borrow a term that his veep made famous, an ”inconvenient” ex-president, a reminder not only that the Democrats were willing to sacrifice powerless women for political gain, but that a good economy can excuse presidential lying under oath when it comes to impeachment.

Honestly, Bill Clinton does not look like a healthy man to me, and for that matter, there is good reason to doubt the health of his wife, Hillary. I wish neither of them ill health, both on humanitarian grounds and on the delight I take in seeing the consequences of their actions coming due in the months and years ahead.

As for James Patterson, I have to wonder if he regrets his little adventure in “co-writing.” It couldn’t have been money that motivated him, for he is reputed to be the best-selling living author. I speculate that it was entrée to better dinner parties and public events that persuaded him to adapt his winning best-seller formula. And now his reputation is not enhanced but harmed by his linking of his reputation to Bill Clinton’s.

Screen grab, NBC

The late Jim McDougall, a business partner of the Clintons in their Arkansas days who went to prison, fanously said, “I think the Clintons are really sort of like tornadoes moving through people’s lives,” he once said. “I’m just one of the people left in the wake of their passing by.”

There is more karma yet to unfold. Count on it.

In the long run, it may be a blessing that the Supreme Court has not upheld unrestricted freedom of speech and religion for Christians.  The Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case was an opportunity to refresh the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to Christians.  The Court chose not to do that.  Because a member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission vilified Christianity as “despicable,” the Court ruled that the plaintiff’s rights had been denied on the state level.  (Ya think?)

Perhaps it is best that the Court weaseled out, because it may hasten the day when American followers of Christ recognize that government is controlled by people who hate them and that they must stand united for their faith or lose the right to profess it publicly.  This is an idea of how they can do that.

Every Christian-owned business with any potential connection to weddings should prominently display a sign that reads, “In the name of Jesus Christ, this establishment does not provide goods or services for the purposes of same-Sex ‘marriage.'”  This is for not only every Christian-owned bakery, but every business selling foods that might be served at a wedding; every men’s, women’s, and children’s clothing store that selling clothes that might be worn at a wedding.  Every Christian jeweler, gift shop, florist, travel agency, photographer, musician, wedding venue, event planner publicly declares his conviction not to provide services for same-sex ceremonies claiming to be weddings.  Every Christian limo service, aesthetician, hair stylist and barber declare resistance in the name of Christ.  Every Christian counselor publishes that he will not counsel same-sex couples before or after any putative marriage ceremony.  While there are probably not a lot of “gay” grooms visiting barbershops in rural Texas, what can the government do to punish a defendant class that includes 100,000 businesses?

It was not possible to organize direct resistance in the pro-life cause because abortion is a private and secretive deed that does not require active participation by Christians who are opposed to it.  Same-sex “marriage” demands passive participation by those who remain silent, and active participation in the form of services provided to these same-sex ceremonies.

For two thousand years, Christians faced terrible suffering to fulfill their commission to publicize their faith.  Why are believers in a faith that specifically calls for boldness so unwilling to fulfill the duty in their own country?  Because it takes community organizing.

The “In the Name” movement can enroll tens of thousands of businesses.  Additionally, millions of individual Christians working in the private or public sectors can declare “I support ‘In the Name.'”  Christian privately owned corporations can pledge to support this movement.  All who enroll in this movement need to commit to direct action, whatever that may be, in the service of the declaration against same-sex “marriage.”  This movement can become a community with the power to rid public boards of bureaucrats who call Christianity despicable.

Christian unity is the only practical answer to domestic religious persecution.  What can the government do if 75,000,000 Americans finally decide to have the courage of their convictions?  That question needs to be answered.

When Italy’s voters handed a majority to two populist, anti-euro parties almost 3 months ago, the political establishment as aghast as America’s establishment was on November 9, 2016. An outsider unbound by – even contemptuous – of the norms that kept national policies within the bounds favored by the elites was about to take office. In each country, but in different ways, the respective  establishments attempted to frustrate the will of the voters and prevent the outsiders from taking office.

Donald Trump took office on the constitutionally-prescribed date, thought he attempt to unseat him continues. In Italy the attempt took the form of the mostly-symbolic president of the Republic of Italy declining to certify the prime minister and cabinet proposed by the coalition government of the two populist parties, the Five Star  and the League. Christopher Caldwell described the situation in The Weekly Standard:

By May, the parties were ready to roll, with a broad coalition agreement and a full team of cabinet members. But at that point Italy’s mostly ceremonial president, Sergio Mattarella, stepped in. He blocked the appointment of economics minister Paolo Savona, on the grounds that Savona had long been skeptical about the common European currency, the euro.

The vast majority of Italians are skeptical about the euro, too, of course. Their skepticism is part of what brought M5S and the League to power in the first place. But confronted with an assertion of official authority, politicians and the public have tended to roll over. Yes, the establishment did run up too much debt in the past—about $2.7 trillion, as it happens. But that means one false move could spell catastrophe! There was a lot of warning about “lo spread,” as the obsessively charted difference between German and Italian bond rates is called. President Mattarella asked Carlo Cottarelli, a longtime employee of the despised International Monetary Fund, to lead a technocratic government, hopefully until 2019.

Big mistake! Italian voters, like the Trump base, do not like being told by elites that their concerns and their votes are of not weight.  The populists did not meekly submit:

But this time was different. The two new anti-establishment leaders did not fall into line. They called the Cottarelli appointment a scam. Matteo Salvini of the League called for fresh elections in the fall. Luigi Di Maio of M5S called for nationwide demonstrations on June 2 and the impeachment of Mattarella. Strange that Savona’s opposition to the euro was a disqualification to serve in government, Di Maio said, since, to judge from governments past, being a liar or a thief was not. So much of the country rallied behind Di Maio and Salvini that not even the pro-euro Democratic party (PD), chased out of office over the winter, dared to back Cottarelli.

On Monday, May 28, there was the beginning of a run on Italy’s bonds. The market was more nervous about the “responsible” Cottarelli than it had been about the “irresponsible” Salvini and Di Maio.

The elites had gone too far in their contempt for the voters. Yesterday, the new populist government was sworn in. It is a rebuke of elites, and of the European Union-centric worldview of the transnational bloc, even more stinging than President Trump’s withdrawal from globalist multilateral arrangements like the Transpacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Accord.

So powerful is this impulse toward both nationalism and populism that even columnist Roger Cohen of the New York Times has hailed the new government in Italy while expressing his disgust with it.  

…let me make it clear that the victorious parties entering government in Italy — the xenophobic League and the out-with-the-old-order Five Star Movement — bring together bigotry and incompetence to an unusual degree. They are a miserable bunch borne aloft on the global anti-liberal tide.

Still, they won. The results of democratic elections have to be respected. I have immense respect for the wisdom, however hard to discern, of voters, even if I may profoundly disagree with their choices. That is why, when it seemed earlier in the week that Sergio Mattarella, the Italian president, had blocked the formation of this government over concerns that the proposed finance minister favored Italy’s withdrawal from the euro, I despaired.

Later on in his column, Cohen darkly hints of the EU being able to frustrate the will of Italian voters – after playing the Hitler card:

With democracies, you get to throw the bums out when they mess up, not block them from assuming the power they won at the ballot.

I know, Hitler was appointed chancellor in 1933 after a democratic election. Vigilance is imperative, particularly in these troubling times when independent judiciaries and a free press are under consistent attack. But a core beauty of the European Union is that its interlocking institutions are designed precisely to ensure that no country can go off on what the Germans call a Sonderweg — the sort of wayward path of nationalism and mysticism and racism that led Germany, and all of Europe, to ruin.

Yes, European nationalism has a dark side, but transnationalism’s fondness for disregarding the will of ordinary people is the current danger. An undemocratic European Union bureaucracy regulates the smallest details of life, and the EU tries to impose mass migration of populations hostile to local values and unwilling to assimilate on the countries of Europe. It is not xenophobia to resist the imposition of sharia zones.

Financial markets may not like instability caused by threats to the euro. But they will like even less the results of top-down social, demographic and economic transformations that harm majorities in the EU’s member states.