Clickbait title?
I discussed Juneteenth as a good thing because the end of "official" slavery in the United States was a big deal. As a result of the Civil War we got the 13,14 and 15th Amendments to the constitution. The 13th outlawed involuntary servitude except in the case of punishment for crimes.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]
I have noted in the past that the 13th Amendment abolished BOTH slavery AND involuntary servitude. This means that when this amendment was drafted and passed that the legslators understood that one can be made to "serve" involuntarily yet not have the status of slave.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
No state may pass or enforce any law that abridghes the "privileges or immunities" of citizens.
Well out "bill of rights" is a set of immunities. We are [supposedly] "immune" from abridgement of free speech, free exercise of religion, etc.
So one of the things I hope will happen as a consequence of the Juneteenth federal holiday is a [re]familiarization of these amendments and their implications. Which brings us to MasterPiece Bakeshop.
When the Supreme Court failed to rule for Masterpiece on clear first amendment "free exercise" grounds, I said it was a grave error.
The downside of this decision is that it failed, spectacularly to support the idea that enumerated rights trump these so called "protected classes" and the privileges they are afforded. Clarence Thomas discusses this in his concurring opinion.
Court of Appeals concluded that Phillips’ conduct was not expressive and was not protected speech. It reasoned that an outside observer would think that Phillips was merely complying with Colorado’s public-accommodations law, not expressing a message, and that Phillips could post a disclaimer to that effect. This reasoning flouts bedrock principles of our free-speech jurisprudence and would justify virtually any law that compels individuals to speak. It should not pass without commentThank you Justice Thomas. Imagine the state telling you to post a sign to disclaim something the state forced you to do.
This grave error is why MasterPiece is once again in the legal cross-hairs.
I've mentioned before that in addition to the 1A argument, the lawyers for Masterpiece should forward a 13th Amendment argument against involuntary servitude. A business can decline to do work, even their primary business, for any client. I've had it happen to me. I don't have to like it (I didn't) but I cannot force someone to provide me with a good or service. Nor should I be able to engage the state as my personal enforcer except for very limited circumstances.
In addition, since it is clear that this baker is being harassed *due* to their religion (they stated as much and they have not, to my knowledge gone to any other "faith based business"), they should counter-sue.
Lastly, per the linked article:
"The high court later ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed anti-religious bias in sanctioning Phillips for his refusal to make the same-sex-wedding cake, though the justices did not rule on whether businesses can refuse services to gays or lesbians over religious objections."These people think that they are the equivalent of the diner counter sitters of the past. They are not. The baker doesn't have a "no niggers" sign in the window. He doesn't relegate them to a separate part of the store or make them enter and exit through the back door. Nor does he charge them more than others. He simply will not lend his time and effort (which he cannot get back because time gone is gone forever and ever) to behavior he doesn't agree with. That's his right. He has the right to decide where and when his time and effort is spent.
13th Amendment. Slavery and involuntary servitude is over with in America. Perhaps SCOTUS can put that in writing and put and end to this case once and for all.
