Please watch the video before you comment. My comments on the matter: This case will seem cut and dry to those who support either side but for me; I see this as a double edge sword. A situation in which people must tread lightly with their choices, their fight, and their decisions. What Im about to say will stir up a hornets nest Im sure, but if you know me by now Im a firm believer in the freedom of speech and I tend to practice this freedom on a regular basis. You may agree or disagree with me but these are my thoughts. Many of us can appreciate the couples desire to celebrate their event. Nobody prevented them from getting married or celebrating their marriage. The owner did not tell them they couldnt come into his store nor did he refuse to sell his baked goods to them. The owner chose not to create a cake for their event. The couple could have easily gone elsewhere to get a cake for their event. If the owner didnt provide Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, or other themed cakes would we be seeing the same level of publicity? Of course not. Someone who needed a cake of this type would go elsewhere to find someone to provide this service and none would demand or force the owner to provide this service. Secondly would the lack of providing Hanukkah and Kwanzaa cakes be considered an act of discrimination and racism? Even though the owner does not and has never provided this service? The thought of it is ludicrous. This is where it gets very very tricky and either way opens Pandoras box..... If you believe the owner of the bakery must comply then his first amendment and religious beliefs are irrelevant. This also conveys our constitution and bill of rights mean nothing, and any law can override them. ***The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.*** However, if you believe the owner has the right to uphold his religious beliefs then this must apply to ALL religion; Christian, Muslim, Catholic etc....as the first amendment does not say only applies to Christians and Baptists but ALL religions and not all religions are religions of peace. ***A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that are intended to explain the meaning of life and/or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. From their beliefs about the cosmos and human nature, people derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.*** Some radicals of certain religions believe if you do not practice their religion then you are inferior and must die. Some radicals believe it is their religious right to wed girls once they reach the age of seven. Some radicals believe if you and your children are starving and you beg in the street then you are to be executed. And we must allow all of these and much more in support of their freedom to exercise their religious belief as it states in our first amendment. So I say be careful and think about the things you fight for as each has its consequence. If you set precedence here and say it is the owners right first to practice his religious beliefs then it must be respected for all, and what a dangerous time to enforce this.
Posted on: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:15:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015