Re: Both sides see high stakes in gay rights Supreme Court case

On 12/3/22 3:06 PM, John Dillinger wrote:
> 
>   <http://apnews.com>
> Both sides see high stakes in gay rights Supreme Court case
> By JESSICA GRESKO
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court is being warned about the
> potentially dire consequences of a case next week involving a
> Christian graphic artist who objects to designing wedding websites for
> same-sex couples.
> 
> Rule for the designer and the justices will expose not only same-sex
> couples but also Black people, immigrants, Jews, Muslims and others to
> discrimination, liberal groups say.


Blacks have DNA and the 14th Amendment to prove they are persons 
although the Constitution doesn't acknowledge that Gay DNA to show that 
persons have gay DNA to prove that "person's" are hetero or gay. like 
religious persons have no DNA to prove they have a soul allowing their 
Souls to be called a part of a PERSON. Immigrants were person's at the 
point of conception because they are never made a person by being 
naturalized they only gain citizenship with NATURALIZATION so they had 
to be a person with 14th Amendment RIGHTS when they first step into the 
U.S. Jurisdiction otherwise people visiting and illegally entering would 
have ZERO RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE, Because they weren't born in U.S. 
jurisdiction to make them a person. Religion has the RIGHT of the person 
to exercise their religion but gays have no DNA to prove they are a Gay 
person or RIGHTS specific to their sexual delusion or belief being a 
RIGHT as the RIGHT to exercise and to impose on my life equally.

In short the FACT there is no gay DNA and it's all in the mind of the 
person.... it's either a religion or it's a mental illness.



> 
> Rule against her and the justices will force artists - from painters
> and photographers to writers and musicians - to do work that is
> against their faith, conservative groups argue.

INCLUDING the Atheists who will be forced to create religious art.

Which means that the Marxist/Communist will have to offer their service 
to create the religious information for the RELIGIONS for Proselytizing.

Which means the Marxist sand Communists and the Atheists and the Muslims 
will be forced to engage in promoting the CHRISTIANS RELIGION and the 
MORMON RELIGION... even a printing press or web site that promoted 
Judaism will be forced to print or advertise or proselytize for the 
other religions....  as will all the secular artists.  And it would also 
apply to Government services that would also be forced to engage in 
producing things like license plate art for Religious groups or persons 
and distribution on PBS and other GOVERNMENT propaganda sites and 
productions that would be forced to offer equal services to secular and 
Religious persons who seek to pay for their own writing or art or 
advertising.





> 
> Both sides have described for the court what lawyers sometimes call "a
> parade of horribles" that could result if the ruling doesn't go their
> way.
> 
> The case marks the second time in five years that the Supreme Court
> has confronted the issue of a business owner who says their religion
> prevents them from creating works for a gay wedding. This time, most
> experts expect that the court now dominated 6-3 by conservatives and
> particularly sympathetic to religious plaintiffs will side with Lorie
> Smith, the Denver-area designer in the case.
> 
> But the American Civil Liberties Union, in a brief filed with the
> court, was among those that called Smith's argument "carte blanche to
> discriminate whenever a business's product or service could be
> characterized as 'expressive,'" a category of businesses that could
> range from "luggage to linens to landscaping." Those businesses, they
> said, could announce, "We Do Not Serve Blacks, Gays, or Muslims."

Or women or secular or trans persons or Marxists or anyone they 
choose... it's called property RIGHTS and your intellectual property 
(like your BRICK and MORTAR store are your property) that's your 
creativity is your property....  be it still in your head or be it mass 
produced.

You can't LEGISLATE a NEW "Mozart" musical work be created... and so you 
can't demand intellectual or physical services on demand.

Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, *except as a* 
*punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted* 
, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their 
jurisdiction.

Being forced to do work even when paid is NOT Constitutional, because 
even when paid, the work is still involuntary servitude.  And without 
having been duly convicted of a crime... using that servitude as 
punishment... is violating the 13th Amendment.



> Smith's attorneys at the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom say
> that's not true. "I think it's disingenuous and false to say that a
> win for Lorie in this case would take us back to those times where
> people ... were denied access to essential goods and services based on
> who they were," said ADF attorney Kellie Fiedorek, adding, "A win for
> Lorie here would never permit such conduct, like some of the
> hypotheticals that they're raising."
> 
> Smith's case follows that of Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who
> objected to creating a wedding cake for a gay couple. The couple sued,
> but the case ended with a limited decision. Phillips' lawyer, Kristen
> Waggoner, is back before the high court Monday arguing for Smith.
> 
> Smith wants to begin offering wedding websites, but she says her
> Christian faith prevents her from creating websites celebrating
> same-sex marriages. That could get her in trouble with state law.
> Colorado, like most other states, has a public accommodation law that
> says if Smith offers wedding websites to the public, she must provide
> them to all customers. Businesses that violate the law can be fined,
> among other things.
> 
> Smith, for her part, says Colorado's law violates the Constitution's
> First Amendment by forcing her to express a message with which she
> disagrees.
> 

It violates her RIGHT to exercise her religion... if she has to include 
other religions or secular or Atheists into her personal exercising of 
religion religion. That RIGHT doens't end where commerce begins... there 
is no Commerce clause that suggests that Government commerce REGULATION 
is superior to RELIGIOUS RIGHTS of a person who exercises BOTH RIGHTS at 
the same time and is exercising THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; at the same 
time as exercising Commerce RIGHTS.  And we have Commerce RIGHTS as 
proven by the Constitution's commerce clause limiting those Powers to 
the United Sates in the Commerce clause.

   "The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely 
because they elected to refrain from commercial activity," says Justice 
Roberts. "Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing 
Congress to 'regulate Commerce.'"

And thereby creating the question of whether the Commerce Clause can 
authorize Congress to make laws on RELIGION while a person is negaging 
in the act of exercising their religion?


Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

It's NOT likely that the Commerce Clause will be permitted to destroy 
the 1ts Amendment's RIGHT to exercise your own religion since Muslims 
have a religious code on Borrowing money... that would possibly be 
invoked by other religions to force a bank to treat Muslims the same as 
all other religions...


> Among Smith's other opponents are the Biden administration and 20
> mostly Democratic-leaning states including California, New York and
> Pennsylvania. The states told the court in one of 75 legal briefs
> filed by outside groups in the case that accepting Smith's arguments
> would allow for widespread discrimination.

Where is there a power delegated to the United States that allows for 
forcing people to treat one another equal, the equal protection clause 
applies to Government NOT we the people. We the People don't have 
jurisdictions where we enforce laws.  Which means that the Government 
can't discriminate but they have no delegated power to make laws forcing 
WE THE PEOPLE to be subject to that equal protection clause.

*Amendment XIV*
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and 
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States 
and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce* 
*any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens* 
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, 
liberty, or property, without due process of law; *nor deny to any* 
*person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws* .

No power to make laws about WE THE PEOPLE treating anyone equal it ONLY 
applies to the States and the Government and with no power to make laws 
to to achieve that goal. It was speaking to the already delegated powers 
being subject to the equal protection of the law for every person 
engaging Jurisdictional powers...  NOT mandating that persons be forced 
by law to engage in enforcing any equal protection.

> 
> "A bakery whose owner opposed mixed-race relationships could refuse to
> bake wedding cakes for interracial couples," the states said.

*Lies to try to scare people*

Marriage is NOT a law that person's and stores enforce...  SO they have 
the RIGHT to marry since they are person's be they BLACK or any other 
race, race is in the DNA and can be seen to be a part of being a person.

Gay-sex/Gender on the other hand is NOT in the DNA and neither is 
hetero-sex/Gender so the sex is a preference NOT the core permanent 
attribute of a person.

As for the the owner of a store opposing a mixed race-relationship, they 
can have opinions of their own based on religion or personal feelings 
and the government has no delegated power to use force to change that 
opinion. The irony is that by forcing someone to bake a cake for a gay 
wedding or an inter-racial wedding that violated their "religious 
belief" is stepping over the line of RIGHTS and LIBERTY and breaching 
the concept of SLAVERY...  so to repair the wrong done hundreds of years 
ago you would invoke that very slavery and impose it UNCONSTITUTIONALLY 
on a store owner?

Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, *except as a* 
*punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted* 
, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their 
jurisdiction.

What is the Store owner convicted of and was the PUNISHMENT PHASE OF 
sentencing where they were sentenced to SLAVERY or involuntary 
servitude?  If NOT then it's all a moot question since there is no 
DELEGATED POWER to enslave the Store owner and that STORE still has the 
religious RIGHT and property RIGHTS to ignore a government issued 
license to marry....  and refuse to bake a cake.

Of course the Government is also then obliged to NOT dole out government 
  money to that bakery... because for Government to engage in making 
laws and enforcing them when they do not afford equal protection for DNA 
proven persons... and since those dollars such as Small Business loans 
form the Government would violate EQUAL ACCESS and EQUAL PROTECTION no 
tax dollars can be used for any of that business.

Although the more accurate question would be, can that happen for gays 
being denied and I say NO because gays are NOT really gay, they are 
mentally ill and delusional, so as a religion or as the mentally ill 
"if" they can marry legally and I note that (gays are NOT are NOT 
legally/Constitutionally a "gay person") because they have no proof they 
are gay while a Black person has DNA proof they are a Black person.

Which makes gay to be a religion like a Christian Soul or gay is a 
delusion created by the mental illness.  Either way being gay isn't 
supported as being a type of a person in the 14th Amendment as are races 
and GENDERS and person's exercising Religion that are persons based on 
DNA or the Religious clause in the Constitution being as it is a 
separate RIGHT of a person that is expressed in the Constitution so 
naturally all your RIGHTS are to have equal protection for all persons.

But you have no, RIGHT to buy a wedding cake.

> A "real
> estate agency whose owner opposed racial integration could refuse to
> represent Black couples seeking to purchase a home in a predominantly
> white neighborhood; or a portrait studio whose proprietor opposes
> interracial adoption could refuse to take pictures of white parents
> with their Black adopted children."
> 

Again they lose all Government association that would link them in 
finance or partnerships as Grants or contract working and connections 
with for the Government with that policy on races...

But the Government marriage policy which they all have a RIGHT to have 
an opinion about, and is NOT a law the bakery or other businesses and 
Government aren't a party to, can't bind the bakery or others to 
Government sector limitations on how government enforces those laws on 
its self... And it's NOT the person who is being denied the cake it's 
the Government's equal protection that is being denied service. Which is 
why I said that by doing that to blacks would mean the government can't 
be connected to them in any way, the same as with religion NO SBA LOANS 
or appropriations from laws because the laws are required respect the 
equal protection clause.


But NOT so with gays unless they claim it's their religion or mental 
illness.  Because it isn't like RACE/GENDER where it's in the DNA and is 
protected by the equal protection clause for all persons.


> Those race-based examples could get particular attention on a court
> with two Black justices, Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson,
> who are married to white spouses and another justice, Amy Coney
> Barrett, who has two adopted children who are Black. But the states
> gave an example involving a person's national origin too. "A tattoo
> studio could ink American flag tattoos on customers born in the United
> States while refusing to sell identical tattoos to immigrants," they
> said.
> 

It was on purpose they used that but it's superfluous BS since DNA shows 
race as part of all person's genetic material.  Gays are NOT and TRANS 
are not, so they are NOT real except in the gays/trans minds.

All races are protected by the equal protection clause to equal 
government access.

Which means that any store business or person that can't meet those 
standards set by government for it's own participation in equal 
protection of persons will have to be denied access to government 
resources that their store doesn't meet the required equal access to 
ensure the Government isn't violating the equal protection clause.



> Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center,
> representing a group of law professors, hypothesized other examples of
> what could happen if Smith succeeds at the high court.
> 
> "A web designer could refuse to create a web page celebrating a female
> CEO's retirement - violating Colorado's prohibition on sex
> discrimination - if he believed all women have a duty to stay home and
> raise children. Similarly, a furniture-maker - who considers his
> furniture pieces to be artistically expressive - could refuse to serve
> an interracial couple if he believed that interracial couples should
> not share a home together. Or an architect could refuse to design a
> home for an interfaith couple," she told the court.
> 
> Smith's supporters, however, among them 20 mostly Republican-leaning
> states, say ruling against her has negative consequences, too. A
> lawyer for the CatholicVote.org education fund told the court that if
> the lower court ruling stands and Smith loses, "a Jewish choreographer
> will have to stage a dramatic Easter performance, a Catholic singer
> will be required to perform at a marriage of two divorcees, and a
> Muslim who operates an advertising agency will be unable to refuse to
> create a campaign for a liquor company."
> 
> The Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty put it differently, telling
> the court that a Jewish baker could have to fulfill the request of a
> Neo-Nazi who wants a cake saying "Happy November 9th!" - a reference
> to Kristallnacht, the night in 1938 when Nazis burned synagogues and
> vandalized Jewish businesses throughout Germany and Austria.
> 
> Alan B. Morrison, a constitutional law expert at Georgetown
> University, underscored that Smith doesn't currently do wedding
> websites, making the case particularly speculative and, he says,
> problematic. Still, Morrison chuckled at some of the hypothetical
> scenarios both sides came up with, suggesting they are "a bit
> overblown."
> 


Overblown is a good way to describe it.  Government is the one being 
regulated by the "equal protection clause" NOT the private sector's 
commerce.

The over lap is when the Government injects its self into private sector 
commerce with tax dollars and special indemnity clauses and Contracts 
for private sector services.



> The examples, he said, are "the kind of thing a law professor would
> think of."



-- 
-Reality Matters-