An American Hero

CNN interviews the Army vet who stopped the Colorado Springs killer last Saturday night:

-----

Horror in Colorado Springs

Another gay club shot up:  5 dead, 25 or more injured.  Nauseating.

 

The 22-year-old shooter is said to be the grandson of a MAGA state representative in California.

-----

Invasion of the Flying Mattresses

It happened in Denver, last Saturday.  Coming soon to a neighborhood near you.

Supreme Court Rules, 7-2, for Colorado Baker

Embed from Getty Images

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Monday in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for two gay men, as the New York Times reports:

The court’s decision was narrow, and it left open the larger question of whether a business can discriminate against gay men and lesbians based on rights protected by the First Amendment.

The court passed on an opportunity to either bolster the right to same-sex marriage or explain how far the government can go in regulating businesses run on religious principles. Instead, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion turned on the argument that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which originally ruled against the baker, had been shown to be hostile to religion because of the remarks of one of its members.

At the same time, Justice Kennedy strongly reaffirmed protections for gay rights.

“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” he wrote, “all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

Read the full ruling here.

There was some confusion of thought among the learned justices, it seems. This dizzying schematic diagram shows their various opinions, dissents, and concurrences.

The gay couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, appeared on CNN yesterday:



Baker Phillips appeared on the Today show yesterday:




What I say:  First, the ruling applies only to this particular case, and turns on the technicality of some careless remarks by members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when they were considering the baker's case.  So nothing is settled yet, and there is no reason to get excited one way or the other.

Second, as shown by the divisions among the justices themselves, the larger question is a thorny one, and it will be difficult to weigh the competing claims of religious belief and sexual orientation in order to come up with a rule of law that will satisfy everyone, one that all reasonable people of good will can in good conscience support.  As Justice Kennedy said in the majority opinion,

any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying “no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,” something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons.

I well recall in the legally segregated South of my childhood that every restaurant, cafe, motel, and ice cream stand had a prominent sign behind the cash register:  We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.  As a kid, I thought nothing of it; only much later, as an adult in the post-civil rights era, did I realize that the message was code for "We don't serve Negroes, so don't even ask."

Of course it would be ridiculous, not to say unconscionable, for any business today to deny service to anyone on account of race, or religion, or ethnicity, or for almost any other reason except being drunk and disorderly, or unable to pay.  And in fact, I would venture to say that most business owners of any kind are too eager to get some greenbacks in the till to worry about such things.  As long as your credit card is good and you don't break up the furniture, you're good to go in our consumer nation, right?

And the laws should rightly penalize any business that discriminates against a paying customer for no good reason:  whether you are selling lettuce or light bulbs, cars or candy, hamburgers, hotel rooms, or helicopter rides, your personal beliefs and opinions about the customer are irrelevant, and you treat everyone the same, selling the same goods or services to all comers (the exception being certain sales prohibited by law, such as selling booze to minors, etc.)  This is a settled principle in our modern society, and rightly so.

However, when the goods sold are not essentially the same for all customers, personal preferences notwithstanding (a shirt is a shirt is a shirt; a cup of coffee likewise, and so on, and so on), then perhaps there is room for discussion--and especially, it seems to me, when communication is involved, or artistic talent (for at bottom, Art is always Communication of some sort, whatever else it may be).  And if communication is involved, then the First Amendment, which we all revere, comes into play--and if that guarantees our freedom to speak our minds as we will, does it not also strongly imply the right not to speak what we do not will?  Forced speech is not free speech, is it?

Let us get down to cases:

• Suppose that you are a printer, and someone wants you to print up a thousand copies of a flyer for a KKK rally, something you find utterly abhorrent.  Should the law require you to fill that order?
• Or, say, you are a sign maker, and a very good one too, the old-fashioned kind who uses actual paint and brushes:  if someone comes into your shop and asks for a sign saying "Death to Jews," must you (a Gentile, as it happens, with no anti-Semitic feelings) paint it or face the penalties of law?
• Or again, if you are a seamstress specializing in custom-decorated clothing, and a biker brings you his leather jacket wanting "Fuck the Police" embroidered in great big letters on the back, should the law compel you to fulfill his request?

We could multiply examples ad infinitum here, but I think the point is clear enough:  if you are in the business of selling communication in one form or another, should the law protect your scruples, whether based on religious beliefs or not--or force you to violate your conscience, and ruin you if you fail to comply?  We are not talking here of great corporations selling housewares or hardware or trips to Tahiti, or the Moon--we are talking of individuals and small business owners whose livelihood is at stake.  People who are just trying to make a living and get by, like everyone else.  People who are, in the vast majority of cases, not bothering you or working against you, and not even thinking about you until you interfere with them.

Make no mistake: I sympathize strongly with Charlie and David. As my truckbuddies know from reading my story, I take a passionate, very personal interest in marriage equality, but not, I hope, an unreasonable one.  Today we have liberty, we have justice, we have the right to marry, something almost inconceivable forty years ago when I came out.  Let us rejoice in this magnificent turn of history, and not lose sight of the main thing:  our common humanity.  Let us not forget that we live in society with others, who also have a right to liberty and equal dignity under the law.  The search for a wise, humane balance of competing rights and liberties is and has been the eternal question of American democracy from the very beginning.

Frankly, your Head Trucker is inclined to side with the baker.  In the grand scheme of the universe, a cake is a silly little thing, a trivial thing, a ridiculous thing: here today and eaten tomorrow. If I were in the market for a wedding cake, I would certainly much rather take my business to someone who would bake it gladly and gratefully, rather than force another person to do it against his will and in violation of his conscience, which would do me and you and all of us no good at all, breeding resentment and even hatred. As history has shown times without number, in all ages and climes and countries, it is but one little step to go from oppressed to oppressor.

Of course, others may disagree with me, including some of my truckbuddies.  But we must all find a way to get along peaceably--as we always have, eventually, in our history, usually through the high art of compromise. How shall we decide such things, and where should the line be drawn?  And when I say "we," I mean straight and gay, religious and atheist, all the many colors of the human rainbow:  for every story has two sides, if not more, and every voice must have its say.  Is that not the first principle of democracy?

The Supreme Court has passed on the question, for now.  So come, let us reason together.

Another Marriage Victory in Colorado

On July 9, Adams County Judge Scott Crabtree struck down Colorado's same-sex marriage ban. This afternoon, as USA Today reports, the federal district court in Denver has done the same thing:

Judge Raymond P. Moore's ruling Wednesday was in response to a lawsuit filed July 1 by six gay couples who asked the court for an injunction ordering that the state's ban no longer be enforced.

Colorado Republican Attorney General John Suthers and Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper had requested a stay so the issue could eventually be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court — though both agreed the state ban should be declared unconstitutional.

The couples filed the lawsuit after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled against Utah's gay marriage ban but put the ruling on hold pending an appeal.

The ruling in this case, Burns v. Hickenlooper, is stayed until August 25, allowing the state time to appeal to the Tenth Circuit or the Supreme Court. Full text of the ruling is here.

It's been a crazy month in Colorado as judges, state officials, and county clerks have been scrambling to stay on top of the rapidly changing legal landscape. Freedom to Marry explains:

On July 9, a judge in state court issued a ruling in Brinkman v. Long that Colorado's marriage ban was unconstitutional. Shortly after, county clerks in Denver County and Pueblo County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, joining the Boulder County clerk, who had begun issuing marriage licenses when the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit (which has jurisdiction over Colorado) affirmed that same-sex couples should have the freedom to marry. Over the past few weeks, the state of Colorado has tried to stop clerks in Denver, Boulder, and Pueblo County from issuing marriage licenses as the appeal in Brinkman proceeds to the Colorado Supreme Court. Last week, the CO Supreme Court ordered Denver clerks to stop issuing marriage licenses (but did not issue any orders about Boulder and Pueblo County).

Update, 7/24: The Colorado Attorney General has filed an appeal of the case with the Tenth Circuit.

Marriage Victory in Colorado

Yesterday, Adams County District Judge Scott Crabtree struck down Colorado's same-sex marriage ban as a violation of constitutional guarantees of Due Process and Equal Protection, as Freedom to Marry reports:

In the ruling, Judge Crabtree explained how civil union - which Colorado has had in effect since 2013 - is a lesser, unequal form of family status that does not compare to marriage. He writes:

The fact that the State has created two classes of legally recognized relationships, marriages and civil unions, is compelling evidence they are not the same. If civil unions were truly the same as marriages, they would be called marriages and not civil unions. If they were the same, there would be no need for both of them. The fact that Colorado denies same gender couples the same right to apply for federal benefits that it grants to opposite gender couples is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

Read the full ruling here.

Notably, Judge Crabtree was appointed by Republican Governor Bill Owens in 2001. He is the fifth Republican-appointed judge to rule in favor of the freedom to marry, following judges in New Jersey, Kentucky, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

This is the 24th consecutive ruling in favor of marriage equality since the U. S. Supreme Court's Windsor ruling last year: a complete list is here.


And in other news, the U. S. Supreme Court declined without comment to hear an appeal brought by a Pennsylvania county clerk seeking to stop same-sex marriages in that state.

Also, the Utah Attorney General announced that he will appeal last month's 10th Circuit ruling striking down Utah's marriage ban directly to the Supreme Court.

Freedom to Marry has a comprehensive nationwide database of all 75+ marriage cases now pending, resolved, or on appeal here.

Marriage Equality Comes to Rhode Island

Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee signs the marriage equality bill on the
steps of the statehouse this afternoon in a special ceremony.  At left with curly hair is openly gay House Speaker Gordon Fox.

Rhode Island today became the tenth state to enact marriage equality when Governor Lincoln Chaffee signed a bill that passed the state senate last week by 24-12, and passed the state house of representatives today by 56-15. Read the Governor's remarks at the signing ceremony here. Marriages will begin there on August 1, making all of New England a land of equal marriage rights. It also boosts to 16%, or about 1 out of 6 Americans, who live in states where same-sex marrige is permitted.

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, Thomas Tobin, responded by issuing a pastoral letter to his flock, telling them that homos are "immoral," same-sex marriages are "objectively sinful," and attending a gay wedding would "harm their relationship with God and cause significant scandal to others." So if you dance at your gay cousin's wedding, you will burn in hell, fucker - just keep that in mind.

Also in the news: yesterday, Colorado civil unions began taking place.

Updated marriage map from the Human Rights Campaign (click to enlarge):
Orange = marriage; gold = broad civil unions/domestic partnerships;
yellow = limited domestic partnership.

Newsbites, 2/11/13

A scattering of good news from around the world today.

Rome:  Pope Benedict Resigns.



Washington:  Panetta Extends Military Benefits to Gay Spouses.

Denver:  Colorado Senate Passes Civil Unions Bill.

Texas:  The Pork Boys Do Mardi Gras.

This past weekend, with soupe a l'oignon, Porkchops Jambalaya, fried biscuits, King Cake, and quite a few other delectable delights. Now that M.P. has had his computer overhauled and added several terrabites of memory, I hope he'll be able to send me a pic or two of the beautifully set Mardi Gras table he laid, and I'll post those along with a complete menu later in the week.

For those of you unlucky enough, alas, to have no Cajun friends who know how to party: How to make perfect Shrove Tuesday pancakes.

How to Get a Bear in Bed

Method 1: Shoot him with a tranquilizer dart.



If you are out of tranquilizer darts, I suggest several well-timed shots of vodka instead. Works for me.