Where to draw the “lines” on your conscience?
After reading The Chicago Tribune article Editorial titled, Wedding cakes and conscience, I thought about George Orwell 1984 line in Wikipedia.
“Smith discovers that O’Brien was truly working for the Ministry of Love (Miniluv), the ministry in charge of torturing dissidents.”
The article gives a different perspective which I was not aware of until after reading.
Should the Supreme Court force a person to “surrender their beliefs?” and require them to use their creative talents to accomidate what the article compared a Jewish baker to do, “put a swastika on a cake”
King Solomon
And I saw something else under the sun: In the place of judgment–wickedness was there, in the place of justice–wickedness was there. (Ecclesiastes 3:1)
And moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment,…. Courts of judicature, where judges sit, and, causes are brought before them, and are heard and tried; such as were the Jewish sanhedrim, of which the Midrash and Jarchi interpret it;
that wickedness was there, wicked judges sat there, and wickedness was committed by them; instead of doing justice they perverted it; condemned the righteous, and acquitted the wicked; and oppressed the widow, fatherless, and stranger, whose cause, being just, they should have defended. (Excerpt Gils Bible Commentary)
In My Opinion
If interested read the article. The plaintiffs feelings may have been hurt, but I wonder if the outcome of this case, forcing a person to use the creative talents of their mind, to conform to the “Ministry of Love?”
You Decide
Wicked, perverted, justice, vindictiveness, wisdom, folly, or 1984, when the Supreme Court Decides?
Sources
Chicago Tribune HERE
Wikipedia HERE
Gils Bible Commentary HERE
Rudy u Martinka 
Freedom of conscience is paramount. That doesn’t mean that one should be cruel or ugly in acting on their conscience. But to force others to conform in the personal choices of others whom they do not wish to and against their spiritual beliefs seems to me to be directly counter to everything our Founding Fathers held dear. In all of my review of the personal notes, letters and other writings and personal statements, I cannot think of one that believed that others should be forced to do something against their beliefs or even in their disbelief. There is an old statement that when fascism comes to the Unites States, if it does, it will be in the name of ‘liberalism’. I think we’re seeing it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, should we force a Muslim baker to create a cake with a picture of Mohammed? Should we force a Muslim to create a cake for a same sex marriage?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Seems only Christians are fair game.
Regards and goodwilll blogging.
LikeLike
Don’t lose your head accusing a Muslim of being bigoted,
Regards and goodwill blogging.,
LikeLiked by 1 person
One of the things that that Chicago Tribune article did is crow about the popular acceptance of same-sex marriage. In fact, the elites have forced “the popular acceptance” of same-sex marriage down our throats using the legal system. Perhaps I am being cynical, but I fear all they are doing here is recognizing they don’t have enough “popular acceptance” get away with ruining a baker for defying them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A majority does not make a matter right.
Free speech is not the right argument to use in this case. Freedom of religion should have been used instead, in my opinion.
According to past decisions, based on the interpration of the First amendment, the courts have no business ruling on this matter based on their own interpretation to keep separate church from state.
The first amendment to the US Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” The two parts, known as the “establishment clause” and the “free exercise clause” respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court’s interpretations .
How they interpret this case as not being an act of prohibiting the free exercise of religion is beyond me.
Unfortunately, I believe the courts are going to rule against the bakers.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
LikeLike
The lawyers have done to the Constitution what the Pharisees and the Sadducees did to the Bible. What the actual document says matters less than the way they want to interpret it. Instead of making the Constitution what was intended — a way of governing where we respect each others rights — they have made it a tool for getting what they want, something they can use to assert their importance. The Law is just to complex for you or I to understand. You have to be an expert.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I question the expertise to be something else than justice and equity.
In my opinion, some of the results of the esteemed justices qualify them as experts `in ‘Madness and Folly’
Regards and goodwill blogging.
LikeLiked by 1 person