Judicial Repeal of the 1st Amendment?

[Daniel L. Gard]

Religious freedom (i.e. the free exercise of religion) continues to be under assault. Unless that religious freedom conforms to a particular religious perspective.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/01/484291451/judge-blocks-mississippi-law-protecting-religious-objections-to-gay-marriage

The law that was struck down (HB 1523), as enacted by the people of Mississippi through their elected legislature, protected the following (from the NPR article):

Here's Section 2 of the bill:

    "The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:

    "(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;

    "(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and

    "(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth."


The court has ruled that this theology is outside the approved religion of the federal courts and is no longer allowed to be legally exercised. The following is also from the article and describes the new official religion:

Susan Hrostowski, one of the plaintiffs in the case, also spoke to Morning Edition after the decision was announced.

"I'm an Episcopal priest, and I'm kind of crazy about the gospel, and I'm crazy about Jesus. And his message was that we should love one another, so I found this bill to be offensive from that perspective," she said. "But then also, as a lesbian — I've been with my wife for 27 years now, and we have a son. And so for both of those reasons, I just fought to make sure that people like me weren't mistreated in the state of Mississippi."

She said she was elated with the decision, and remembered back to a moment during the hearing when the case of Obergefell v. Hodges — the Supreme Court case that legalized gay marriage in all 50 states — came up:

    "The judge was asking the state, what were the nonreligious reasons for this bill? And they said, 'Well, Obergefell tipped the tables of justice away from people who are against gay marriage.'

    "And Judge Reeves said, 'Well, isn't that like saying Brown v. Board of Education tipped the tables away from segregationists?'

    "You know, when you have an oppressed population and they make some gains, that doesn't mean the oppressor has the right to retaliate. ...

    "Everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs. But not to the point that practicing those would impinge on my beliefs, and on my freedoms."

That final line,  "Everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs. But not to the point that practicing those would impinge on my beliefs, and on my freedoms" is insightful. The practice of her religious beliefs now can impinge on the beliefs and freedoms of others but not the other way around.

[Brian Stoffregen]

That final line,  "Everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs. But not to the point that practicing those would impinge on my beliefs, and on my freedoms" is insightful. The practice of her religious beliefs now can impinge on the beliefs and freedoms of others but not the other way around.

How do my beliefs that support same-sex marriages infringe on your beliefs that oppose them? There is nothing that prohibits you from practicing your beliefs. Don't marry a man. Don't let your sons and grandsons marry men. Don't let your daughters and granddaughters marry women. You can hold those beliefs without forcing the whole nations to live by them, like Jews refusing to eat bacon without eliminating hogs from the North American continent. The laws do not infringe on you practicing your beliefs.


There were, and perhaps still are, a number of people who object to interracial marriages, even though they have been legal throughout the U.S. since a 1967 Supreme Court Case.


Many parents & grandparents believe that "sleeping together" before marriage is wrong. Then they are faced with the dilemma when children or grand-children move in with boy/girl friends about how should they respond. It can become an even greater problem with a child wants to come home for a visit with their "partner".  We live in a world that often acts contrary to our beliefs; but this same world doesn't force us to act contrary to our beliefs. Young people can remain virgins until they are married even if a majority of their friends don't. Jews can refrain from nonkosher foods even if a majority of their neighbors eat them. People can worship on the Sabbath or Sunday even if a majority of Americans don't.

[Dan Fienen]

Would that it were so simple.  If you are opposed to same-sex marriage you don't have to enter into one and no one will force you into it.  But if your beliefs prohibit you from participating in a same-sex marriage or providing goods or services to facilitate a same-sex marriages there are a number of businesses you will have to avoid or get out of or face crippling fines.  If you gather together with a group of similarly minded believers and want to establish a college in California, you'd better watch out because if a current proposed law is passed you will need to conduct the college according to approved same-sex and transgender rules.

The law is that same-sex marriage is legal and while some of us believe that is a bad idea there is nothing that we can do to force it to stop.  From where I sit it sure seems that there is an attempt going on to force the rest of us to accept it.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Would that it were so simple.  If you are opposed to same-sex marriage you don't have to enter into one and no one will force you into it.  But if your beliefs prohibit you from participating in a same-sex marriage or providing goods or services to facilitate a same-sex marriages there are a number of businesses you will have to avoid or get out of or face crippling fines.  If you gather together with a group of similarly minded believers and want to establish a college in California, you'd better watch out because if a current proposed law is passed you will need to conduct the college according to approved same-sex and transgender rules.

Yup, and it's been that way since at least the early 3rd century. Hippolytus lists occupations that one had to give up if one was going to become a Christian. Why should the 21st century be different?

The law is that same-sex marriage is legal and while some of us believe that is a bad idea there is nothing that we can do to force it to stop.  From where I sit it sure seems that there is an attempt going on to force the rest of us to accept it.

Yes, you have to accept it. It's the law. You could have neighbors that are married same-sex partners and they could be raising children. That doesn't mean that you have to believe that it is right or like the law. I don't like the speed limit on some of the highways I drive on, but I have to obey them regardless of what I like or believe. (I believe that I can drive safely at 100 mph, but my belief doesn't make it legal.)

[Steven Tibbetts]

Yup, and it's been that way since at least the early 3rd century. Hippolytus lists occupations that one had to give up if one was going to become a Christian. Why should the 21st century be different?

No, Brian, it has not "been that way since at least the early 3rd century."  As evidence I offer the 4th through 21st centuries.  As well as your own support (as a Christian pastor) for Christians to do things that, according to the same list by Hippolytus, a Christian cannot do.

And, of course, Hippolytus wasn't reporting the Emperor's list of occupations that one had to give up if he was going to become a Christian.  One way in which the 21st century is different.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Fienen writes:
If you are opposed to same-sex marriage you don't have to enter into one and no one will force you into it.  But if your beliefs prohibit you from participating in a same-sex marriage or providing goods or services to facilitate a same-sex marriages there are a number of businesses you will have to avoid or get out of or face crippling fines.
I comment
Yes, as we have said before. If you run a hotel and have "beliefs" that say you cannot rent to African-Americans, or Irish, or Catholics or gays or lesbians; then you will face civil sanctions, because society has - by large majorities - agreed that those running places of public accommodation may not discriminate against those groups. That does not prevent you from holding those beliefs. It does place some restrictions on how businesses can operate. You have a constitutional right to your beliefs; there is nothing in the constitution that says you have an unlimited right to run a hotel and discriminate. But we have said this before.

Pastor Fienen:
If you gather together with a group of similarly minded believers and want to establish a college in California, you'd better watch out because if a current proposed law is passed you will need to conduct the college according to approved same-sex and transgender rules.
Me:
No. No. No. You are being intentionally ignorant here. Run your college any way you want. But if you want to have public, tax money used to pay tuition or other costs, then there may be some restrictions on how you operate. Simple solution. Run your college with your own money and with the money of people who agree with you. But we have said this before.

Pastor Fienen:
The law is that same-sex marriage is legal and while some of us believe that is a bad idea there is nothing that we can do to force it to stop.
Me:
The law is that anyone can own almost any kind of weapon they want and while some of us believe that is a bad idea, there is nothing that we can do to force it to stop. The law could be that everyone is required to join the military services for a term of duty. If that were the law - and it could be - there is nothing that pacifists or others opposed to military service could do to stop it. But we have said this before.

Pastor Fienen:
From where I sit it sure seems that there is an attempt going on to force the rest of us to accept it.
Me:
From where I sit it sure seems that you are trying to be intentionally ignorant. You do not have to "accept" same sex unions. You are required to recognize that they exist. You do not have to "accept" couples living together before marriage; but you cannot pass laws prohibiting this from happening and you must - unless you are really dense - accept that it happens. But we have said this before.
Sometimes, faithfulness to one's beliefs means that, as testimony to that faith and those beliefs, one must suffer civil sanctions.  But we have said this before.

[Steven W Bohler]

If I borrow money from the bank to buy a car, can the bank insist that I only buy a Ford and that I am forbidden to buy a Chevy, and I can only buy from their list of "approved" dealers?  If I borrow money from the government (in the form of student loans), can the government insist I only attend a school on their "approved" list which teaches what the government wants/approves/directs? 

If a homosexual wants to marry, can a baker refuse to bake them a cake (we already know the answer to that one)?  If a Christian wants to attend a Christian college, can the government prevent them (it looks like we know what that answer will be, at least in California)?

[DCharlton]

I'm sure there are good arguments against the Mississippi law, but the argument against it being on this thread seems make the 1st Amendment superfluous.  If all it means is that in matters of religion people and organizations are free to do what the government decides to permit them to do, it doesn't amount to much.

[Donald_Kirchner]

In this case I tend to agree with the personal opinion of State Attorney General Jim Hood.

[DCharlton]

In this case I tend to agree with the personal opinion of State Attorney General Jim Hood.

Thank you for pointing that out.  That is a helpful critique of the law in question and of similar laws proposed in other states.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Bohler asks (and you will have to relay my answers, I'm not sure he reads my postings):
If I borrow money from the bank to buy a car, can the bank insist that I only buy a Ford and that I am forbidden to buy a Chevy, and I can only buy from their list of "approved" dealers?
I answe
They might have something to say about the kind of car you buy. And if a bank gives you a mortgage, they have a right to insist that the house meets certain standards.

Pastor Bohler asks:
If I borrow money from the government (in the form of student loans), can the government insist I only attend a school on their "approved" list which teaches what the government wants/approves/directs?
I answer:
In a way, yes. The government can insist that its money not be spent in ways that will sustain or advance discrimination or racism or other things deemed harmful to the public good. It is the public's money and those caring for that money - government and regulatory agencies - have the responsibility to see that it is not spent in ways that work against the public good.

Pastor Bohler asks:
If a homosexual wants to marry, can a baker refuse to bake them a cake (we already know the answer to that one)?  If a Christian wants to attend a Christian college, can the government prevent them (it looks like we know what that answer will be, at least in California)?
I answer:
No, the government cannot prevent a Christian from attending a Christian college. You tell me how they could do that. If you want to spend your own money on a Christian college, you can go wherever you want. If you are using public money, that may not be the case; but in no way can the government prevent anyone from attending a Christian college.

[Matt Hummel]

Guys! Guys! Guys! (and assorted Gals, too!)

Calm down! There is no need to worry. They are only coming for stupid people who don't hold the right opinion. So we really don't need to say anything. After all, when if they come for us, there will be plenty of people to say something, amiright?

Guys?    Hello?      Anyone there?

[Daniel L. Gard]

Guys! Guys! Guys! (and assorted Gals, too!)

Calm down! There is no need to worry. They are only coming for stupid people who don't hold the right opinion. So we really don't need to say anything. After all, when if they come for us, there will be plenty of people to say something, amiright?

Guys?    Hello?      Anyone there?

Yep.

Another development that is nothing to worry about.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/1/christianmingle-loses-lawsuit-must-now-include-gay/

You will conform. You will be silent and never ever exercise your religion if you do not conform.

Nothing to worry about here. Nothing at all.

[Donald_Kirchner]

That is quite different, Dr. Gard, from suggesting that the judge's decision in the Mississippi case might virtually repeal the 1st Amendment.

[Sorry. Auto correct strikes again. :-( ]

[Daniel L. Gard]

That is quite different, Dr. Garden, from suggesting that the judge's decision in the Mississippi case might virtually repeal the 1st Amendment.

I am not "suggesting" anything. I am stating what I believe to be a fact. The "free exercise" clause is meaningless under recent judicial legislation. Yes, you may believe whatever you want. You may even advocate for it in public (though soon that will be challenged as well). But just as "sex" once meant male or female and now has been redefined to mean whatever a court chooses for it to mean, so also "free exercise" is being redefined to mean holding beliefs but not actually living by them.

This is, in my opinion, the de facto judicial repeal of the 1st Amendment.

Anyone who is OK with this has to understand that they will come after you eventually.