Tags
bleeding heart liberalism, codification, emotion, Masterpiece Cakes v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, rule of law, social-justice, Supreme Court decision, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy
Unified Patriots by Bob Montgomery
The Supreme Court decision handed down yesterday regarding the non-obligation of cake bakers to bake wedding cakes for “same-sex” marriages will be parsed and deciphered and analyzed by many far more scholarly and politically savvy than I, but I wanted to focus on one little snippet from the majority opinion written by (who else?) Anthony Kennedy.
“But Kennedy also stressed the importance of gay rights while noting that litigation on similar issues is likely to continue in lower courts.
“Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” Kennedy wrote.”
My questions to Justice Kennedy in re his official use of his time, our money and our constitution, would be these: A. “..the importance of gay rights” means important to whom, exactly?; and B. exactly who is it who cannot treat “gay persons and gay couples as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth”?
As I say, I am not your ace constitutional scholar, but I have been under the impression for many, many years that the limitations on freedom of both thought and deed expressed in the Constitution, particularly in the Bill of Rights, were limitations on the government and it’s officers. In other words, if the lawmakers decided that a certain group or class were not to be discriminated against, it was the Government who couldn’t discriminate against them, and those entities explicitly enumerated and in what matters, while preserving their own Constitutional rights as enumerated.
I also thought that freedom of speech, as mentioned in the First Amendment, included all forms of expression, even what Anthony Kennedy’s “Our society” viewed as negative ones.
Further, what “rights” do gays have that Anthony Kennedy thinks are so important? If they have Constitutional rights as individuals, they are already protected by statute and by the Constitution itself, but as far as I know, not as a class. In other words, Congress has not yet passed a law specifying “sexual orientation” as one of the “protected classes’” which the Supreme Court must “protect”, as they say[…]
PUMABydesign001's Blog 