LGBT vs. Religious Rights
LGBT CIVIL RIGHTS vs. RIGHTS TO CONSCIENCE
James Scott Berry
COMMON GAY SENSE
LGBT/CIVIL RIGHTS vs. RELIGIOUS RIGHTS TO CONSCIENCE
James Scott Berry
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT:
1. ALL BAKERS MUST SERVE THE PERSON WHO COMES ASKING FOR NON-PARTICIPATORY SERVICE. AS LONG AS NO SERVICE, SUPPORT OF, OR PROVISION FOR AN ACTION OR EVENT IS BEING REQUESTED, THE CUSTOMER SHOULD BE SERVED.
2. BUT THE CUSTOMER'S REQUEST FOR SERVICE OR PROVISION FOR AN ACTION OR EVENT CANNOT BE FORCED UPON THE MORAL CONSCIENCE OF ANY OF THE BAKERS. WHAT THE SUPREME COURT IS DOING TODAY IS HIGHLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND BLATANTLY DENYING UNALIENABLE RIGHTS...THIS ACCORDING TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION AND JEFFERSON'S CLEAR EXPLANATIONS OF "CONSCIENCE RIGHTS" AS NOTED BELOW.
3. THE RIGHTS TO CONSCIENCE AND LIFE, LIBERTY AND HAPPINESS OF ALL SIDES IS GUARANTEED AND SUPERSEDE ALL LAWS. NO ONE CAN BE FORCED TO PARTICIPATE IN ANOTHER PERSON'S PURSUIT OF LIFE LIBERTY AND HAPPINESS NOR CAN THEY BE FORCED TO ENABLE, ENHANCE, OR PROVIDE FOR ANY ACTION, EVENT, OR CELEBRATION THAT DEFILES THEIR CONSCIENCE. THIS IS THE HIGHEST LAW IN OUR LAND SUPPORTED BY CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS AND PRECEDENT, THE FIRST AND MOST IMPORTANT OF THE AMENDMENTS, AND SOLIDIFIED BY THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN MAKE NO LAW, INCLUDING CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS, OPPOSING OUR HIGHEST UNALIENABLE FREEDOM.
THIS IS THE BEDROCK AND THE VERY ESSENCE OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.
4. THE SUPREME COURT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DECIDE MORALITY FOR ANY PERSON'S NON-INJURIOUS CONSCIENCE RIGHTS...EVER!
TELL THE TRUTH NEWS
AND THE WORLD
SUPREME COURT CHRISTIAN BAKER VS GAY "RIGHTS" TRANSCRIPT
Many in the LGBT Left community and many in the Religious Right community have at least two commonalities:
1. They both sincerely hate each other.
2. They both deny the constitutional rights of the other.
There is no reason that the LGBT community and the Religious Right community cannot get along. Both should allow one another their Constitutional rights to pursue life, liberty (freedom), and happiness according to one’s own value system.
One of the greatest problems with the Christian world (and secular) is that they cannot explain how Jesus and Paul were the greatest teachers of the Separation of Church and State. Jesus said, "My Kingdom is NOT OF THIS WORLD. We cannot legislate people into the Kingdom of God nor should we try to force them into Christian Theocratic rule.
One of the greatest problems with the LGBT community, our liberal generation, and the constantly lying, hypocritical, and disingenuous liberal media is that they cannot, or will not, define unalienable rights. These rights are granted by the Creator and enshrined in the First Amendment to the point that no law or civil law may oppose them.
The Constitution guarantees every person the right of moral conscience and choice to engage in or refrain from any celebration, action, or event of others in their pursuit of life, liberty, happiness. Each individual is free to act as their own moral authority, as long as their choice is non-injurious toward others.
However, a refusal to provide for, enhance, or in any way participate in another person’s pusuit of life, liberty, and happiness or in their celebration, action, or event can never be absurdly construed as injurious.
Whether oriented toward men, women, or children (thankfully, the latter is not yet legal in the USA) orientations are not actions and a person cannot be denied service because of them.
However, all sexual activities and all marriages are actions and no one in America can Constitutionally be forced into a contract to support or provide for any action which they deem sinful or immoral. Your moral decisions regarding any actions belong to you and you alone, not to a court of law.
The right to choose supportive action or to choose to be non-supportive of a petitioner’s action or event, and one’s right to label the event as moral or immoral, sin or not sin, has already been granted to the individual by God the Creator!
Therefore, judges, including the Supreme Court, have absolutely no jurisdiction in one’s moral decision to label or participate in the event. The Courts opinions are totally irrelevant to the unalienable rights pre-ordained by God. The purpose of the Court is simply to secure and ensure the individual’s unalienable right to opinion and conscience and his subsequent right to act upon his or her opinion or conscience.
WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT, THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, THAT THEY ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, THAT AMONG THESE ARE LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. THAT TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, GOVERNMENTS ARE INSTITUTED AMONG MEN, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED…American Declaration of Independence.
One’s right to pursue happiness in gay or straight “marriage” does not preclude or deny the Constitutional right of another to refuse providing for another’s "sinful" happiness. The right to support or refuse support of or service for an action or event is only the legal right of the one who is being petitioned to violate their conscience.
Why can't the Court decide?
Because in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW” that hinders or prohibits a person’s right of thought, of moral opinion, of reason, of religion, or moral conscience and the right to act accordingly. Therefore, there can be no law to enforce other than for the Court's responsibility to secure and uphold the petitioned individual’s right to conscience and choice of action.
Going into public business does not negate the law or Constitutional rights of the individual service provider. And again, the Constitutional rights of the Gay/LGBT couple are not negated by someone’s non-participatory or non-supportive choice, nor is it injurious to the petitioner for the petitioned to refuse providing for, enabling, or enhancing any action or event that the petitioned considers sinful or immoral.
Eight times Thomas Jefferson addressed the issue of the superiority of TheUnalienable Right to Conscience (belief, religion, opinion, expression, association, and support or rejection of the ideas, actions, or celebrations of anyone else) above all civil authority or Civil Law.
1. "No provision in our constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority." --Thomas Jefferson to the New London Methodists, 1809. Me 16:33
In other words, the dearest, most precious, and most important thing in our Constitution to every American should be the right of the belief, conscience, and opinion of the individual, and the right to express and act upon his or her beliefs. The Government may make NO LAW, including any Civil Laws, that might force an American Citizen to participate, enhance, support or provide for another persons rights, beliefs and actions. Period. NO LAW!!!
2. Jefferson said..."our Constitution... Has not left the religion (thought or non-religious reason or conscience) of its citizens under the power of its public functionaries, were it possible that any of these should consider a conquest over the consciences of men either attainable or applicable to ANY desirable purpose." --Thomas Jefferson: reply to New London Methodists, 1809. Me 16:332
In other words, no law, or civil rights law, may take precedence over the right of conscience to participate or not participate in any action. The Constitution gives only the individual the right and the power of their own conscience to dictate what actions they will or will not participate in.
3. Thomas Jefferson: "and thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the constitution, which expressly declares, that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or protecting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”: thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others."
4. "It is inconsistent with the spirit of our laws and constitution to force tender consciences." --Thomas Jefferson: proclamation Concerning Paroles, 1781. Fe 2:430, papers 4:404
5. "The error seems not sufficiently eradicated that the operations of the mind as well as the acts of the body are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." --Thomas Jefferson: notes on Virginia Q. xvii, 1782. Me 2:221
(Nor is it injurious to say to another “you are sinning and i will not provide for, enable, or enhance your sinful event.” JSB)
6. "[The] liberty of speaking and writing... Guards our other liberties." --Thomas Jefferson: reply to Philadelphia democratic republicans, 1808. Me 16:304
7. "We are bound, you, i, and everyone to make common cause, even with error itself, to maintain the common right of freedom of conscience." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. Me 10:378
8. "That form [of self-government] which we have substituted [for that which bound men under the chains of monkish ignorance and superstition] restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion." –Thomas Jefferson to Roger C. Weightman, 1826. Me 16:182
Congress shall make no law hindering someone's right to religion, thought, opinion, or conscience. What part of "no law" do those who would betray our Constitution not understand? The "free exercise of religion" is not absurdly restricted to religious people or religion itself, but, as Jefferson points out, is about thought, opinion, philosophy, and conscience of the atheist and agnostic as well.
The liberal, misinformed idea that civil rights take precedent over Creator endowed religious and conscience rights is simply unconstitutional wishful thinking.
PART I SUMMARY
Whether the legal action or event is a porn shoot, a wedding, a church service, a funeral, or a birthday party:
1. The right to hold the legal event is the Constitutional right of the organizers and participants on the one hand
2. The right of opinion and conscience to label and refuse to provide for, enhance, or support the event remains solely the Constitutional right of the one petitioned/requested.
3. This God given right of conscience and choice cannot be subjugated by any law or civil law of man or government.
4. The opinion of the court (as to the moral justification/labeling of the event as sinful or not, or provision for the event) is irrelevant and is Constitutionally unlawful to impose.
No one, even for exchange of money for public service, can be forced, compelled, or contracted to participate in another’s happiness, event, or action.
Although she may serve the general public, even a prostitute has the right to refuse to service a John.
"And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this State, by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”: thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others." Thomas Jefferson
1. LGBT If the LGBT hating Westboro Baptist Church held a convention in NYC, could they go to a local gay baker and force him to bake a cake for the their "WBC Morality Convention" or the “God Hates Fags” Convention?
Do Tim Cook and LGBT Community truly believe that the gay baker should be sued for not participating in such an event when he is supposed to serve ALL of the public? Is the LGBT baker required to bake them a cake even though such an action of legal hate defiles the LGBT's baker’s moral conscience?
The Gay/LGBT Baker is not hindering the rights of the anti-gay haters to life, liberty, and the pursuit of their happiness by refusing to support, provide for, or in any way participate in an action which may defile his or her own Gay conscience. According to our First Amendment, no law can be made hindering the right to discriminate against what one considers an immoral action.
Again, it is not in the court's purview to determine anyone’s non-injurious moral choices.
2. BLACK/RACIAL Could a black baker be sued or be forced to bake a Cake for the KKK’s “I have a Dream Conference” where the dream is a white only America and all blacks, Jews and non-whites have to leave?
Do Tim Cook and the LGBT, and the Black Lives Matter communities really believe the black baker should be sued for not participating because he is required by law to serve ALL the public regardless of his own moral convictions?
Does it not matter that such constitutionally allowed prejudice defiles the conscience of that black baker? Does he or she have to support or participate in or bake a cake for such an event of legal and constitutional hatred? Is the black baker required to support actions he considers to be sinful and that defile his conscience?
3. MY MARRIAGE I am legally divorced. Therefore, I can legally and constitutionally get re-married. However, the Priests in the Catholic Church will not marry me since (1) I am not Catholic, (2) because my first marriage was not annulled, and (3) I am divorced and my ex-spouse is still living.
Also, most fundamental and many conservative church ministers of various denominations will not marry me until my former spouse dies because I made a vow, “to death do us part.” Therefore, they consider that my re-marriage would be sinful and adulterous.
One of my good friends is a fundamentalist preacher. He will not re-marry me though it is my Constitutional right. Do we have to hate each other? Of course not. We remain friends to this day. He can live his life according to his beliefs and values and I, mine! Why do the LGBT now claim King and Queen-ship to the hate-filled rhetoric against another's Constitutional rights?
According to our Constitution, these priests and ministers cannot and should not be compelled to violate their religious convictions both as individuals and as organizations, nor can they be forced to marry me EVEN THOUGH MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE EXISTS.
The basis of their right to reject and discriminate AGAINST MY ACTION OF MARRIAGE does not bring irreparable harm to me and their discrimination is based not on my orientation but on the action of re-marriage.
If the minister's wife is a baker in public service, she also has the right to refuse service, not to me personally, but to my action or event.
The Constitutional freedoms of religious participatory opinion and action were not written directly for priests and ministers, but for every individual citizen of the USA within churches or businesses or society at large without any hindrance or interference of civil law.
We are in America! WE MUST OBEY THE CONSTITUTION. WE CAN RESPECT ONE ANOTHER'S RIGHTS EVEN WHILE DISAPPROVING OF AND NOT PROVIDING FOR EACH OTHER'S ACTIONS OR EVENTS!
4. RACIAL NON-PARTICIPATORY SERVICE VS. PARTICIPATORY CONTRACTUAL ACTION
TO CLARIFY: No one can be discriminated against because of race, desires (orientation), opinion, religion, etc., but any conduct based on those desires is open to legal, constitutionally supported discrimination against the act or event.
We must clarify and reiterate, many times, that Rights to Conscience do not entail threats or harassment. Rights to Conscience also do not entail discrimination against the person, but against the person’s conduct or action. The requested participant has the right of non-participation or non-support of any conduct or action that he/she deems immoral, sinful, or defiling their conscience.
For example: An interracial couple can rightly expect to be served in a restaurant because there is no necessity of a contractual agreement nor action requiring provision, participation, or support. There is no action being performed by a person in being born white or black. Asking for food does not entail a request of service in support of a specific event or action being performed by the interracial couple.
However, if the couple requests catering services from the owner of that restaurant for their upcoming wedding, that request can be denied based upon the caterer’s legal right to discriminate against any action deemed sinful or any action defiling his conscience. The petitioned cannot be denied his constitutional right to determine his own moral conscience and to act accordingly, however silly or unreasonable his reasoning and conscience may be.
The inter-racial couple's right to marrige is not being hindered nor are they injured by someone’s labeling their action or event to be immoral, sinful, or against their conscience. The Courts have no right to determine for any individual the moral distinctions between an interracial marriage, party, or pornographic movie.
This is the right of every person in America, citizen or non-citizen, because every human being is born with the unalienable right to non-injurious conscience, opinion, religion or non-religion, against which there can be no civil law.
5. MORALITY OF MARRIAGE VS. SEXUAL EVENT If a gay couple go into a bakery and order sandwiches and some cookies, they will be and should be served. There is no action or event involved for which the baker/restaurant is being asked to provide services for.
But if the Gay or LGBT couple ask the baker to supply a cake and cookies and sandwiches for a weekend orgy or porno shoot, does the baker have to comply? Why or why not?
Do you think there is a LEGAL difference between providing for an orgy, a porno shoot, a wedding, a birthday party or a Linda Sarsour event?
If you believe that there are legal moral differences between the different types of events that dictate how the baker should respond (given none are illegal events), then you are completely ignorant of the Constitution and intent of our founding fathers, and what our laws actually mean.
The participation in what an individual considers an immoral event cannot be forced upon the individual under the guise and unconstitutional claim of civil rights or public business obligation.
The morality of comparative events or actions is not up to a judge, a minister, or a court to decide. The right to label any action or event as holy or unholy, good or bad, moral or immoral, sinful or not sinful is wholly limited to the Constitutional right of the individual of the business being asked to participate.
THERE IS NO EXCEPTION. JUDGES MAY NOT IMPOSE THEIR OPINION OTHER THAN TO UPHOLD THE UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO CONSCIENCE AND ACTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL. The judge may not judge or act as a judge between the parties because the right of opinion labeling and participatory choosing has already be granted to the defendant by the Creator judge. Only the Creator-God of the defendant’s conscience is above the defendant/baker concerning his/her freedom of participatory choice.
6. DEMANDS OF SERVICE FROM ESTRANGED/DIVORCED FAMILY OR FRIENDS A man may be oriented toward non-monogamy and have strong desires for multiple sexual female or bi-sexual relationships, but if he acts upon them, his wife has every right to discriminate against his actions and divorce him.
If she is a professional baker and the ex-husband gets remarried, should he be able to sue his ex-wife for not baking a wedding cake for him? According to the Tim Cook Doctrine, yes. According to the Constitution, no.
Can we simply respect each other’s rights? Can we not get along? There is no need to let hate and unconstitutional demands on each other keep us divided as human beings even if we do not participate or provide for each other’s actions.
Let us all support the right of LGBT Unions. (Remember, Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." America may be Christian based, be we are not Christianity ruled or Bible enforced.)
Everyone has the right to pursue life liberty and happiness according to their value system as long as that system does not harm or infringe on the rights of others.
Let us all support the Constitutional rights to conscience of those with different, religious or more “morally puritan” or "morally different" values than our own!
Why can't we do this?
J. Scott Berry
If you have learned anything, you can contribute at HERE.