Equal protection - 14th ammendment. Defense for bakers re: SSM

[BobRyan]

The 14th amendment promises equal protection under the Law. The SCOTUS has already stated that pastors will not be required to violate their religious convictions - and so Pastors cannot be forced to participate in SSM ceremonies.

So then this presents an "Equal Protection" opportunity for bakers that find themselves under assault by an SSM attack against their business as long as they advertise their services in a similar way. Something like "we are a Christian owned business and we market to all customers that do not wish to violate our religious convictions".

 

Thus even atheists would be welcome customers - so long as they too did not wish to violate the religious convictions of the owners of that business.

 

in Christ,

 

Bob

[BobRyan]

 

Canadian Supreme Court Rules Biblical Speech Opposing Homosexual Behavior is a ‘Hate Crime’

“The Bible is clear that homosexuality is an abomination,” one flyer that was found to be in violation stated, citing 1 Corinthians 6:9. 

 

http://christiannews.net/2013/02/28/canadian-supreme-court-rules-biblical-speech-opposing-homosexual-behavior-is-a-hate-crime/

 

Here we have someone commenting on how things have gone in Canada on this subject.

http://www.blazingcatfur.ca/2015/06/27/canada-legalized-gay-marriage-ten-years-ago-heres-what-to-expect-next-america/

 

They predict we (like Canada has done) will soon find ourselves treated to new "heresy trials" where Christians are exemplified as pariah for holding to certain Bible teachings as if the Bible was "true" on that point.

I'd be interested to know the source for that. I was born in Montreal and lived in Canada for thirty years. There are numerous Christian radio stations that discuss the Bible and play Christian music. When I was growing up, stores were closed for the Sabbath, although that is no longer the case, same as here.

 

You may be referring to the publicly owned CBC radio/TV network (similar to PBS). I wouldn't be surprised if they don't broadcast regular Sunday Christian services as a matter of policy since they would then be obligated to give time to other religions as well.

 

However, the CBC covers Christian funerals just as they would the funeral of anyone who warrants national coverage, including live coverage of services from inside church. They also cover religious topics in general in talk shows and other formats as it pertains to the historical and societal influence of religions. If they were doing a segment on Christianity and homosexuality, it would be appropriate to quote Scripture.

 

Canada is fundamentally a Christian nation, but it strives to maintain the same separation of church and state as in the U.S. It's built into their Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

Are you sure about that?

 

 

Canadian Supreme Court Rules Biblical Speech Opposing Homosexual Behavior is a ‘Hate Crime’

 

“The Bible is clear that homosexuality is an abomination,” one flyer that was found to be in violation stated, citing 1 Corinthians 6:9. 

 

http://christiannews.net/2013/02/28/canadian-supreme-court-rules-biblical-speech-opposing-homosexual-behavior-is-a-hate-crime/

 

Here we have someone commenting on how things have gone in Canada on this subject.

 

http://www.blazingcatfur.ca/2015/06/27/canada-legalized-gay-marriage-ten-years-ago-heres-what-to-expect-next-america/

 

They predict we (like Canada has done) will soon find ourselves treated to new "heresy trials" where Christians are exemplified as pariah for holding to certain Bible teachings as if the Bible was "true" on that point.

I'd be interested to know the source for that. I was born in Montreal and lived in Canada for thirty years. There are numerous Christian radio stations that discuss the Bible and play Christian music. When I was growing up, stores were closed for the Sabbath, although that is no longer the case, same as here.

 

You may be referring to the publicly owned CBC radio/TV network (similar to PBS). I wouldn't be surprised if they don't broadcast regular Sunday Christian services as a matter of policy since they would then be obligated to give time to other religions as well.

 

However, the CBC covers Christian funerals just as they would the funeral of anyone who warrants national coverage, including live coverage of services from inside church. They also cover religious topics in general in talk shows and other formats as it pertains to the historical and societal influence of religions. If they were doing a segment on Christianity and homosexuality, it would be appropriate to quote Scripture.

 

Canada is fundamentally a Christian nation, but it strives to maintain the same separation of church and state as in the U.S. It's built into their Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

Are you sure about that?

 

 

Canadian Supreme Court Rules Biblical Speech Opposing Homosexual Behavior is a ‘Hate Crime’

 

“The Bible is clear that homosexuality is an abomination,” one flyer that was found to be in violation stated, citing 1 Corinthians 6:9. 

 

http://christiannews.net/2013/02/28/canadian-supreme-court-rules-biblical-speech-opposing-homosexual-behavior-is-a-hate-crime/

 

Here we have someone commenting on how things have gone in Canada on this subject.

 

http://www.blazingcatfur.ca/2015/06/27/canada-legalized-gay-marriage-ten-years-ago-heres-what-to-expect-next-america/

 

They predict we (like Canada has done) will soon find ourselves treated to new "heresy trials" where Christians are exemplified as pariah for holding to certain Bible teachings as if the Bible was "true" on that point.

[BobRyan]

We could always look at what the Bible says on the subject

 

Rom 1

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

 

1 Cor 6

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

Lev 18

22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

What about the nation that approves of such things?

 

24 ‘Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. 25 For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. 26 But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you 27 (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); 28 so that the land will not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you. 29 For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people.

 

I think that in Canada  you cannot read some of these texts over public airwaves... merely reading them is forbidden

[Gregory Matthews]

In  regard to your opening post:  As a knowledgeable attorney would say:  Your position is a novel one.

[BobRyan]

Equal protection -- apparently the Attorney General of the state of Texas - agrees.

[Gregory Matthews]

If  you read that actual statement of the Attorney General you will see that he does not fully agree.

[pierrepaul]

 

 

 

 

Here we have someone commenting on how things have gone in Canada on this subject.

http://www.blazingcatfur.ca/2015/06/27/canada-legalized-gay-marriage-ten-years-ago-heres-what-to-expect-next-america/

 

They predict we (like Canada has done) will soon find ourselves treated to new "heresy trials" where Christians are exemplified as pariah for holding to certain Bible teachings as if the Bible was "true" on that point.

 

 

Are you sure about that?

 

 

 

 

Here we have someone commenting on how things have gone in Canada on this subject.

 

http://www.blazingcatfur.ca/2015/06/27/canada-legalized-gay-marriage-ten-years-ago-heres-what-to-expect-next-america/

 

They predict we (like Canada has done) will soon find ourselves treated to new "heresy trials" where Christians are exemplified as pariah for holding to certain Bible teachings as if the Bible was "true" on that point.

 

 

Are you sure about that?

 

 

 

 

Here we have someone commenting on how things have gone in Canada on this subject.

 

http://www.blazingcatfur.ca/2015/06/27/canada-legalized-gay-marriage-ten-years-ago-heres-what-to-expect-next-america/

 

They predict we (like Canada has done) will soon find ourselves treated to new "heresy trials" where Christians are exemplified as pariah for holding to certain Bible teachings as if the Bible was "true" on that point.

I really, really, really wish that alleged Christians would not resort to propagating bald-faced lies. The Supreme Court of Canada did not, and I emphasize did not, hold that "Biblical Speech opposing Homosexual Behaviour is a Hate Crime."

 

[pierrepaul]

Below are extracts from the Whatcott decision, paragraphs 192 and 199.

[192] In the instant case, Flyers D and E expressly call for discriminatory treatment of those of same-sex orientation.  Flyer D urges that the rights of homosexuals and lesbians should be reduced by stating:  “We also believe that for sodomites and lesbians who want to remain in their lifestyle and proselytize vulnerable young people that civil law should discriminate against them” (emphasis added).  Flyer E urges: “Our acceptance of homosexuality and our toleration of its promotion in our school system will lead to the early death and morbidity of many children” (emphasis added).  Mr. Whatcott therefore combined expression exposing homosexuals to hatred with expression promoting their discriminatory treatment.  In my view, it was not unreasonable for the Tribunal to conclude that this expression was more likely than not to expose homosexuals to hatred. [Note: the "emphasis added" was added by the court, not I.]

[199] ... The biblical passage, in and of itself, cannot be taken as inspiring detestation and vilification of homosexuals. While use of the Bible as a credible authority for a hateful proposition has been considered a hallmark of hatred, it would only be unusual circumstances and context that could transform a simple reading or publication of a religion’s holy text into what could objectively be viewed as hate speech.

The flyers referred to in paragraph 192 were held to be "hate speech" under the Saskatchewan provincial legislation (not a hate crime - criminal charges can only be brought under federal legislation). The flyers referred to in paragraph 199 (those referencing Matthew 18:6) were held not to be hate speech. And while Flyers D and E, the ones held to have been "hate speech" did contain biblical references, it was not the Bible passages that were considered hateful.

This is not to say that the decision ought not to be criticized, but falsely exaggerating and misrepresenting what the court ruled and decided is not a rhetorical tactic in which Christians should be indulging. Revelation 21:8 contains a few words about liars.

[CoAspen]

This is becoming a real problem on these forums. Posting innuendo, half truths and outright misinformation in support of some opinion. Is this how SDA's want to be known? Truth does not seem important to many, especialy when it comes to peoples agendas. Rather sad isn't it.

I don't buy the excuse that people don't know what they are doing when posting such, it is just plain lying!

[pierrepaul]

The problem IMO is that we are living in the age of the "outrage". Reasoned, nuanced discourse is shunted aside in favour of outrageous headlines. The outrage is not the province of the right, the left, the religious or the non-religious. It is ubiquitous.

Not to long ago a Texas state legislator introduced a bill shielding from civil action and prosecution those use used a firearm in self-defence or defence of others or property. The leftwing "outrage industry" proclaimed that Texas was legalising the shooting of students. Never mind the fact that close to 30 or more states allow school personnel to be armed (usually at the discretion of the school board); never mind the fact that long-standing self defense laws already allow the use of deadly force in defence of self, others or property - the outraged proclaimed that Texas wanted open season on students.

In Canada many years back, a law was passed creating a "bubble zone" outside abortion clinics wherein it was illegal to accost or harass persons entering or exiting the clinic and wherein it was illegal to demonstrate, protest, etc. Some guy made a sign with a bible verse and stood inside the forbidden zone. He was arrested, and then the "outrage industry" proclaimed that Canada was throwing people in jail/gaol for quoting the Bible (never mind that had he held up his sign outside the forbidden zone, he'd not have been arrested - the arrest was not for quoting the bible, it was for protesting inside the forbidden zone).

We saw this with the mis-reporting and misunderstanding of the infamous McDonalds coffee burn case (never mind that the evidence showed that McDonalds served their coffee 20+ degrees hotter than industry norms, that there had been hundreds of reported 3rd degree burn cases, and that the ultimate award to the injured party didn't cover her medical costs (we have much less of this tort litigation in Canada as medical costs are picked up by the state). But the "outrage" industry had a field day complaining about the stupid lady, the greedy lawyers and the stupid juries. By the time the injured lady was able to tell her story, the media had moved on. I don't know how many, if any, of the comedians, new-casters, reporters, internet pundits, etc. ever apologized to her.

[BobRyan]

Here is the post 

 

There are two sources with links - reporting on events in Canada pertaining to same sex marriage laws and consequences. I don't pretend to be the source - rather I point to the source.

Canadian Supreme Court Rules Biblical Speech Opposing Homosexual Behavior is a ‘Hate Crime’

“The Bible is clear that homosexuality is an abomination,” one flyer that was found to be in violation stated, citing 1 Corinthians 6:9. 

 

http://christiannews.net/2013/02/28/canadian-supreme-court-rules-biblical-speech-opposing-homosexual-behavior-is-a-hate-crime/

 

 

 

Here we have someone commenting on how things have gone in Canada on this subject.

http://www.blazingcatfur.ca/2015/06/27/canada-legalized-gay-marriage-ten-years-ago-heres-what-to-expect-next-america/

 

They predict we (like Canada has done) will soon find ourselves treated to new "heresy trials" where Christians are exemplified as pariah for holding to certain Bible teachings as if the Bible was "true" on that point.

 

 

Are you sure about that?

 

 

 

 

Here we have someone commenting on how things have gone in Canada on this subject.

 

http://www.blazingcatfur.ca/2015/06/27/canada-legalized-gay-marriage-ten-years-ago-heres-what-to-expect-next-america/

 

They predict we (like Canada has done) will soon find ourselves treated to new "heresy trials" where Christians are exemplified as pariah for holding to certain Bible teachings as if the Bible was "true" on that point.

 

 

Are you sure about that?

 

 

 

 

Here we have someone commenting on how things have gone in Canada on this subject.

 

http://www.blazingcatfur.ca/2015/06/27/canada-legalized-gay-marriage-ten-years-ago-heres-what-to-expect-next-america/

 

They predict we (like Canada has done) will soon find ourselves treated to new "heresy trials" where Christians are exemplified as pariah for holding to certain Bible teachings as if the Bible was "true" on that point.

 

Another example -- where I am not the source -- rather I provide the source.

 

===================================

n 1997, a Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission board of inquiry fined a Christian businessman $4,500 for running an advertisement in The Star Phoenix newspaper that simply listed four biblical passages that condemn homosexual behavior [Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26 and 1 Corinthians 6:9]. The ad did not even provide the actual text of the verses. Two stickmen holding hands were pictured in the advertisement, with the international negative symbol [a red circle bisected by a slash] over the figures. The board ruled that the symbols, when combined with the biblical citations, "would expose or tend to expose homosexuals to hatred or ridicule." According to this Canadian agency, the Bible is now hate speech.

http://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/al-mohler/the-bible-as-hate-speech-gays-win-big-in-canada-1220787.html

================ another review of that same case in Saskatchewan

The Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatchewan upheld a 2001 ruling by the province’s human rights tribunal that fined a man for submitting a newspaper ad that included citations of four Bible verses that address homosexuality.

Ad placed by Christian corrections officer in Saskatoon, Canada, newspaper

A columnist noted in the Edmonton Journal last week that the Dec. 11 ruling generated virtually no news stories and “not a single editorial.”

Imagine “the hand-wringing if ever a federal court labeled the Quran hate literature and forced a devout Muslim to pay a fine for printing some of his book’s more astringent passages in an ad in a daily newspaper,” wrote Lorne Gunter in the Edmonton, Alberta, daily.

Under Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Code, Hugh Owens of Regina, Saskatchewan, was found guilty along with the newspaper, the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, of inciting hatred and was forced to pay damages of 1,500 Canadian dollars to each of the three homosexual men who filed the complaint.

The rights code allows for expression of honestly held beliefs, but the commission ruled that the code can place “reasonable restriction” on Owens’ religious expression, because the ad exposed the complainants “to hatred, ridicule, and their dignity was affronted on the basis of their sexual orientation.”

The ad’s theme was that the Bible says no to homosexual behavior. It listed the references to four Bible passages, Romans 1, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 on the left side. An equal sign was placed between the verse references and a drawing of two males holding hands overlaid with the universal nullification symbol – a red circle with a diagonal bar.

Owens, an evangelical Christian and corrections officer, said his ad was “a Christian response” to Homosexual Pride Week.

“I put the biblical references, but not the actual verses, so the ad would become interactive,” he told the National Catholic Register after the 2001 ruling. “I figured somebody would have to look them up in the Bible first, or if they didn’t have a Bible, they’d have to find one.”

 

http://www.wnd.com/2003/02/17314/

 

 

Edited July 4, 2015 by BobRyan

[BobRyan]

Note in the case above - "The Court of Queen’s Bench in Saskatchewan upheld a 2001 ruling "  -- no fliers mentioned in that case.

 

And in the other example given --

http://www.blazingcatfur.ca/2015/06/27/canada-legalized-gay-marriage-ten-years-ago-heres-what-to-expect-next-america/

 

 

No fliers in that case either.

 

 

[pierrepaul]

BobRyan - I didn't mean to be criticizing you; rather I intended to criticize the headline writers for "Christiannews.net" who published a false, deceptive and inaccurate headline. The actual facts in the case are reported in the actual Supreme Court decision, available for free on a number of websites in Canada.

Any first year Canadian law student knows that criminal law is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal Parliament and that therefore there can be no "hate crime" under provincial legislation. When non-lawyers comment on legal matters about which they know less than nothing, such inanities result. However, there are over 100,000 lawyers in Canada, any one of which could have set them straight in a 2-minute telephone conversation.

Moreover, if the "reporters" who wrote that article had actually read the Supreme Court decision (or taken the time to contact someone who could read it for them) they could not honestly have included the following statement in their article.

“The Bible is clear that homosexuality is an abomination,” one flyer that was found to be in violation stated, citing 1 Corinthians 6:9.

While that statement is technically true it is misleading, as a simple review of the actual Supreme Court decision would reveal. 1 Corinthians 6:9 was NOT the part of the flyer that was held to be hateful. Nor was the statement "The Bible is clear that homosexuality is an abomination" the part of the flyer that was held to be hateful. It would be as if I published a hateful anti-Semitic screed, cited Matthew 27:25, and then whined that "A pamphlet citing Matthew 27:25 was held to be hate speech".

As for the "christianheadlines.com" reference about the Owens case - the Owens case was overturned on appeal in 2006 - that's NINE years ago. Here is the case https://ccrl.ca/doc/Owens decision april 06.pdf, if you're interested. That Court of Appeal decision is well known by anyone here in Canada who follows this stuff. That's why we have courts of appeal and that's how the system works here.

In matters of law, the only authoritative source are statutes, regulations and the actual text of the judgements, not articles by "reporters", bloggers or other pundits, and certainly not articles from the professional "outrage" industry.

[Dr. Shane]

There is an obvious difference between a member of the clergy and a baker.  While I support religious rights and, because they are the first rights of the First Amendment, I believe they should trump other rights when there is a clash.  However the reality is that gay rights will probably win out and to some extent I think that is a fulfillment of prophecy.  Paul does tell us to submit to civil authorities so we are to do this unless it would cause us to violate God's law.  God's law does not prohibit the baker from baking for the sinner so should the civil authorities require him or her to do so, he or she should do exactly that.

The job of the clergy is to teach others to practice a religious doctrine.  Gay marriage laws will not require pastors, priests and rabbis to marry gays nor teach that the Bible endorses the gay lifestyle.  The job of a baker is to produce baked goods.  One can easily see how gay marriage laws could be enforced to prevent a member of the clergy from doing his or her job and so there is reason for concern there.  However gay marriage laws are not likely to prevent bakers from producing donuts and cup cakes.

I do not think the Adventist teaching teach that Adventist business men and women should refrain from serving a specific type of sinner.  Of course, we do not want to encourage sin.  Yet if a gay couple contacts a photographer, the photographer agreeing to take pictures of their wedding isn't encouraging the sin.  By not taking the pictures, the photographer is not going to prevent the marriage from happening and certainly not stop the homosexual behavior.  So the discussion of this type of religious liberty is really about non-Adventist business people who do not want to provide services because in their belief they would be partaking in the sin.  An example would be a Catholic or Muslim man who owns a motel with a policy that he will not rent rooms to neither gay couples nor unwed heterosexual couples.  Should he be allowed to withhold services due to his religious convictions?  I think so but I think the courts will eventually say no.