This blogger was so wrong in his last entry entitled Christians Not Coming Out To Affrim Church Teachings In A Secular World, but time will tell if it is so, after all appeals from a case in Oregon have been exhausted, if Christians will have their way in a world run by a secular government, or a government that adheres to a clear separation between church and state.
Melissa Klein of Oregon not only mixed ingredients to make cakes that she sold out of her now closed bakery Sweet Cakes, she and her husband also incorporated their religion into their business. Based on their belief that homosexual marriage is a sin, they refused to accept an order for a wedding cake from two lesbians, As a result, they were ordered to pay $135,000 in damages. [1]
This entry addresses mainly the religious beliefs of the Kleins and peripherally the ruling against them which is being appealed. The case would likely be adjudicated based on the constitution and the state laws of Oregon, but this entry speculates on a possible legal outcome should the case reach the United States Supreme Court ("USSC") on the issue of religious freedom in light of the United States Commerce Clause [2] and the very amorphous concept called "substantial effect" that the USSC read into it. [3]
The Kleins are Christians and believe that homosexual marriage is a sin, relying on Leviticus 18:22 [4], [5] but did not go as far as citing Leviticus 20:13 [6]. Their extrapolation that Leviticus 18:22 would condemn females who sleep with females may or may not be reasonable but beliefs are not subject to the standard of reasonableness. However, for the Kleins to conclude that homosexual marriage is necessarily sinful would require a judgment.
Judging others is against the teaching of Christ. [7] Perhaps examining their own sins relative to the sins of others, practicing humility that is fundamental to the Gospels and not judging may be good for their souls, even if God agrees with their belief. Ultimately God holds the scale that measures the weight of sins a person carries in life based on the totality of the circumstances that encompasses both facts and intent.
If the Kleins' judgment is correct, that the couple offering to purchase a wedding cake from them will engage in lesbian sex, occasionally or insatiably, then the Book of Leviticus that is part of the Old Testament which is against homosexual sex, is the right authority to rely on to reject the lesbian couple's offer based on the Klein's unwavering belief that homosexual marriage that ultimately leads to homosexual sex is a sin against God, regardless of any other subsequent parts of the Bible that may or may not have have modified or overruled certain parts of Leviticus. For the Kleins, it is about their beliefs and their right as US citizens having the freedom of religion under the US Constitution.
Many people in the world do not have freedom of religion. This freedom is a precious by any standard. For the government to impose a penalty upon the Kleins for their refusal to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple is to take away the Kleins' freedom to exercise their religion under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution [8] in the performance of their daily work for their daily bread.
The freedom to exercise one's religious beliefs in the United States is not unbridled. A clear separation of church and state is maintained, notwithstanding the reference to God on all United States notes and coins, a currency no Buddhists, Muslims, agnostics, atheists or Satanists would refuse to gladly receive and spend. One possible argument that the Kleins must bake the wedding cake for the lesbian couple under the laws of the United States may be found in the Commerce Clause [9] that on its face regulates only interstate--not intrastate--commerce, commerce with foreign nations and Indian tribes [10] and further under the "substantial effect" doctrine [11] that had been read into the Clause by the USSC even though the Kleins only bake cakes for local consumption and do not sell across state lines because the equipment and ingredients that the Kleins use to bake their cakes are not all manufactured and grown locally within the state (these facts are assumed) and therefore state lines have been crossed. It is also possible that the parts that go into their baking equipment had been shipped from overseas, and that some of their equipment were assembled in another country, not to mention that the vehicle, its components and the fuel they use to transport the raw materials used for baking are likely not products of the state of Oregon.
The cakes that the Kleins bake are therefore inextricably connected to the international and interstate stream of commerce, so much so that they would have no other option but to be subjected to and abide by the laws of the United States prohibiting discrimination. Otherwise, if the Kleins can reject homosexuals based on their religious beliefs, then other supposedly intrastate businesses would also be able to do so, forcing homosexuals that engage in homosexual sex to not only go from one baker to another, but also from one technician, tax adviser, marriage counselor, lessor and seller of housing (those not subject to the US Fair Housing Act) [12] to another to obtain what every other non-homosexual US citizen would be entitled to obtain with without being subject to discrimination.
With marriage being legal in all 50 states and federal benefits extending to all married couples regardless of sexual orientation, the Kleins' right to exercise their right under the Freedom of Religion in Amendment 1 of the US Constitution must unfortunately yield to the Commerce Clause found in same Constitution that secures the calm flow of commerce unimpeded by unending lawsuits balancing the arbitrariness of rejection and the authenticity of beliefs while the Kleins continue to reap benefits from the stream of interstate and international commerce that is maintained by the laws of the United States.
This is not a conclusion that sits well with this blogger, nor is the alternative superior. To exist in this modern society where Caesars are ubiquitous, one must rely on their laws (not God's) to guarantee an efficient commerce without being shackled by different beliefs for it is nearly impossible to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God [13]--a true separation of Church and state, of God and Godlessness. That is not to say that one who has to make a living using commerce regulated by the US government cannot practice any religious beliefs. Believers in God can always go toward Christ, the Son of God, with prayers and toward sinners with an abundance of Christian humility, forgiveness and love with the enduring hope that good can emanate from their lifestyles taken after that of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Joseph and Jesus, and that all sinner's souls will be saved.
[1] http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/07/sweet_cakes_same-sex_discrimin.html
[2] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Commerce+Clause
[3] http://nationalparalegal.edu/conLawCrimProc_Public/CongressionalPowers/SubstantialEffect.asp
[4] http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/03/sweet_cakes_discrimination_hea.html
[5] https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Leviticus%2018:22
[6] https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Leviticus%2020:13
[7] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:1-5
[8] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
[9] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Commerce+Clause
[10] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
[11] http://nationalparalegal.edu/conLawCrimProc_Public/CongressionalPowers/SubstantialEffect.asp
[12] http://fairhousing.foxrothschild.com/2011/01/articles/fha-basics/exemptions-to-the-fair-housing-act-not-many-but-here-are-some/
[13] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2012:17
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment