The “Law of the Land”?


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.

>>>>>> Let me interject here that, while I am uninformed, I suspect that one of the big  reasons Congress has not yet added “sexual orientation” to it’s list of protected classes in any civil rights legislation is that, as we all know, there are various and sundry forms of “sexual orientation” and if left that broad, the Gommorrah Slouch would become a Sprint. <<<<<<<<

But enough of that. My point is that in Masterpiece Cakes v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, even though his vote was to protect the religious rights of the business owner, said majority opinion being viewed as “narrow” by all early commenters because the Court talked about the gentleman not getting a fair hearing by the Colorado Board as central to their ruling, Kennedy still found it necessary to pour out his heart over the social plight of the gay community, as he also did in his  majority opinion remarks in Obergfell V. Hodges, the infamous case pronouncing same-sex wedding normalcy the “law of the land”.  Repeating, unless I missed it, there is no national civil rights statute in force which would give the judiciary the go-ahead to rule that government agencies cannot discriminate against same sex marriages.  Or same-sex anything else, for that matter.

And that, in sum, is what disturbs me greatly about the state of the American jurisprudence these days.  Justice in the civil, legal sense is supposed to be based on law, not on social trends, fads, the date on the calendar or anything else.  I cannot come to terms with the, heh,  judicial “trends” these days of bench rulings based on purported “social injustice”.   Even if it were true that, name your group –  gays,  globalists or anybody else –  were looked down on, snubbed, offended, avoided or not hired, by private citizens or private organizations,  a bleeding heart rationale for a judicial ruling is not codified law, it is simply an emotion.  And while everybody, even Supreme Court Justices, are allowed to express their feelings, their emotions, those feelings, emotions, even their “observations” about the state of “society” today, are not “the law of the land”.

>>>>>>”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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”<<<<<<<<

The "narrow" ruling in  Masterpiece Cakes v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission  is an insult, because the Court said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was “hostile” to Mr. Phillips. Again, whether commission members “felt” hostile toward him, or whether it is just the Justices who “felt” that the commission was “hostile” is irrelevant.  The case should have been decided not on personal or procedural matters in the state of Colorado but on the First Amendment to the Constitution, which protects religious liberty, and on current US Civil Rights legislation, or “law”, which currently does not protect the group known as “gays”.

And, yes, I’m still miffed about the treatment of the County Clerk in Kentucky who followed not only Kentucky, but US law in her official capacity regarding marriage licenses and was treated as a lawbreaker. AND NOT JUST BY THE JUDICIARY AND NOT JUST BY DEMOCRATS.

And at the risk of being repetitive, let me say once more for emphasis that we have 864 federal judges in this country and only 535 federal legislators.  What’s wrong with this picture?

Okay. I’m done now.


0 0 vote
Article Rating
Poor. No advanced degrees. Unorganized. Feeble. Disjointed. Random. Past it. .... Intrigued, Interested, Patriotic and Lucky.

Leave a Reply

Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 5, 2018 3:31 am

You should have presented the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, Bob. Best analysis I’ve seen and you are absolutely correct. The U.S. government is involved in “social justice” – which has nothing to do with the Constitution. It would be interesting to ask Justice Kennedy does the 1st Amendment get dumped in favor of the sexual orientation tyrannical minority? Ultimately, the entire 1st Amendment will be destroyed – freedom of association is already passe with the Justices, along with the iron fist over religious freedom. What’s left of free speech appears to only be allowed for the Leftist media,… Read more »

Jaded ByPolitics
Jaded ByPolitics
June 5, 2018 5:26 am

“Justice in the civil, legal sense is supposed to be based on law, not on
social trends, fads, the date on the calendar or anything else.”

Perfect summation!

vassar bushmills
June 6, 2018 11:26 am

Couldn’t be said better, Bob