What’s at stake in the Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court decision


(Pixabay)

 

 

 

 

 

Listen to the 10 min audio

Read the transcript:

TOM LAMPRECHT: Harry, I’d like to take you back to a subject we covered about a week ago. It was the oral arguments concerning Jack Phillips’ Masterpiece Cakeshop that went before the Supreme Court.

David French wrote a piece in the National Review entitled “Four Promising Takeaways from the Masterpiece Cakeshop Oral Argument.” He makes some interesting observations about what the Justices asked and where their questions might lead as we await a decision by the Supreme Court.

DR. REEDER: Not only him, but John Stonestreet, as well as a couple of other opinion piece writers, they all make their case and then they qualify it by saying many people have been terribly disappointed and misled by trying to read the oral arguments.

And, most poignantly, not the presentation, but the interruptions. And the Supreme Court Justices, by the way, love to interrupt in a way to try to find out is the lawyer really on their point or not. Well, what was really interesting, of course, was Justice Ginsberg’s question in the oral arguments, “Well what if a homosexual couple had come in just to buy something off the shelf?”

Well, immediately, the lawyer said to Justice Ginsberg what Jack Phillips has been saying all along, “Well not only would I sell it, I have sold many of my items to those who would be practicing homosexuality or even those who have been engaged in a same-sex marriage.”

When you are asked to shape and sculpt a cake for a particular purpose that becomes a matter of artistic expression which, historically, has been covered under the issue of free speech and that you are not coerced to engaged in speech that you don’t want to make, nor are you prevented from speech that you desire to make.

Justice Kennedy the pivotal vote

Where everyone really is focused, Tom, is upon Justice Kennedy because he is pretty well considered the swing vote on this. And both sides look with expectation – the side of those who are declaring that Jack Phillips does not have the right to withhold his participation in the ceremonial development and expression of a same-sex marriage cake that he was requested to make are saying that it’s a matter that he’s hiding behind the freedom of religion that’s really bigotry.

In other words, all of these thousands of years that we have believed that marriage is one man and one woman for one life has actually been a veil of bigotry – that somehow, we have been enlightened now that sexual behavior is now a civil right and a part of one’s being.

And you’re going to find that coming forward through this argument called “the argument of dignity.” In other words, you are denying someone’s dignity if you do not affirm and celebrate in their sexual choices.

Your sexual behavior is not your being, your sexual behavior is something that you’re doing. And the doing reflects your being and that is made in the image of God. You have the ability to do sex as God designed it to be done, which is in the context of a marriage.

Well, interestingly, Justice Kennedy, who has also been an advocate of “gay rights” has also been an advocate of freedom of speech. His question pointed in that direction because he particularly focused on the civil rights commission and their denigrating statements concerning Mr. Phillips’ choice.

And when Mr. Kennedy pointed out that not only did one, but two of these commissioners make such statements declaring that Mr. Phillips’ embracing of his right in terms of what he should speak and what he can’t speak is a matter of bigotry, that is exactly what Justice Kennedy questioned is that they would question the dignity of Mr. Phillips concerning his embracing of the right of free speech.

TOM LAMPRECHT: Justice Kennedy asked the question, “Commissioner Rice says, ‘Freedom of religion is used to justify discrimination is a despicable piece of rhetoric.’” Kennedy asked about that and then, also, Justice Gorsuch picked up and ran with that, as well.

DR. REEDER: And so you’ve got to connect the dots, here. Jack Phillips is saying, “My freedom of speech right means that I don’t have to participate in something that I religiously believe is inappropriate.”

Justice Kennedy, when he wrote in the Obergefell Decision, he wrote in that the fact that the people’s right to believe that it is wrong must be honored and if they believe that it is a wrong behavior, they must not be coerced to support it.

And so now we’re about to find out is Justice Kennedy not only for the fact that homosexuality should not be banned, but he is also on record as saying that those who religiously disagree with homosexuality should not be required to participate. And we’re about to find out, does he believe his own statement in original opinions that he has written concerning these issues.

TOM LAMPRECHT: Harry, all of these authors of these different articles that we’ve referenced today have said be careful when you try to look into the crystal ball and try to make a prediction, because oftentimes even though the questions the justices ask might lead you down a road to one conclusion, oftentimes you’re disappointed. Dare you go out and speculate?

DR. REEDER: I’m loathed to speculate right now. I’m praying. I’m praying that this is a broad opinion that affirms the free speech and free practice of religion of Mr. Phillips. Not a narrow one that is just associated with this one wedding cake.

I have two concerns. Of course, obviously, that his right to freedom of speech in terms of being coerced in his artistic expression to do that which he does not believe is right and, therefore, an attack upon freedom of religion – that we have the freedom to believe that sexuality in Christianity is to be within the bounds within a heterosexual marriage – that is what I am praying the decision is going to uphold.

Not just a narrow one in terms of wedding cakes itself, which means we’ll be back in the Supreme Court very soon on some other issue. I’m praying for that. I do believe Justice Kennedy is going to be the pivotal vote where he is going to come out.

I think those who affirm the First Amendment should be somewhat encouraged from what he’s saying because he went so far as to say when one of the lawyers, Mr. Cole, who is declaring that Jack Phillips’ belief is an attack against their dignity, it was Justice Kennedy in the oral arguments that said, “What they do sexually is not their identity, it’s what they’re doing. Sex is what you’re doing, it’s not who you are.”

He is the one who himself affirms that sexuality is not a matter of being, it is a matter of doing and so, as I said, my hope is that Justice Kennedy is going to uphold his previous declarations that laws against homosexual practice should not preclude freedom of speech and freedom of religion within Christianity, thereby, coercing Christians to artistically support homosexuality and same-sex marriage and/or compromise our beliefs that God has revealed very clearly that sex is a gift from Him, sacred, to be used in the boundaries of marriage between a man and a woman committed for life. Let me just say I have more hope now after the oral arguments than I did before.

Dr. Harry L. Reeder III is the Senior Pastor of Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham.

This podcast was transcribed by Jessica Havin. Jessica is editorial assistant for Yellowhammer News. Jessica has transcribed some of the top podcasts in the country and her work has been featured in a New York Times Bestseller.

11 hours ago

Are you afraid to answer the phone?

Millions of Americans fear answering their phone due to a plague of billions of robocalls. These calls have made a mockery of the national Do Not Call Registry and touch on several public policy questions.

We had seemingly ended the problem of unwanted telemarketing calls. Congress authorized the Do Not Call Registry in 2003 after more than a decade of calls disrupting the peace and quiet of our homes. Fines of $11,000 per violation largely put telemarketing companies, with hundreds of thousands of employees, out of business.

609

Why have unwanted calls returned? VOIP technology (voice over internet protocol) allowed anyone with a computer and an internet connection to make thousands of calls. A handful of responses can make thousands of calls worthwhile when the cost is almost zero. Furthermore, technology makes robocallers mobile and elusive.

By contrast, telemarketing firms employed hundreds of people at call centers. The authorities could find and fine telemarketers. Firms had to comply with the Do Not Call registry, even if forced out of business.

Technology further frustrates the control of robocalls. Spoofing makes a call appear to be from a different number. Spoofing a local number increases the chance of someone answering, defeats caller ID, and makes identifying the calls’ source difficult.

By contrast, technology allowed the elimination of spam email. It’s easy to forget that fifteen years ago spam threatened the viability of email. Email providers connected accounts to IP addresses and eventually identified and blocked spammers. Google estimates that spam is less than 0.1 percent of Gmail users’ emails.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) banned almost all robocalls in 2009 (political campaigns and schools were excepted). Yet the volume of calls and complaints from the public rise every year. And the “quality” of the solicitations is lower: legitimate businesses employed telemarketers, while most robocalls seem to be scams.

Telephone companies and entrepreneurs are deploying apps and services to block robocalls. The robocallers then respond, producing a technological arms race. The technology of this arms race, however, is beyond me.

I’d rather consider some issues robocalls raise. The root of the problem is some people’s willingness to swindle others. Although we all know there are some bad people in the world, free market economists typically emphasize the costs and consequences of government regulations over the cheats and frauds who create the public’s demand for regulation. People can disagree whether a level of fraud warrants regulation, but free marketers should not dismiss the fear of swindlers.

Robocalls also highlight the enormous inefficiency of theft. Thieves typically get 25 cents on the dollar (or less) when selling stolen goods. Getting $1,000 via theft requires stealing goods worth $4,000 or more. In addition, thieves invest time and effort planning and carrying out crimes, while we invest millions in locks, safes, burglar alarms, and police departments to protect our property. America would be much richer if we did not have to protect against thieves or robocallers.

Finally, having the government declare something illegal does not necessarily solve a problem. Our politicians like to pass a law or regulation and announce, “problem solved.” Identifying and punishing robocallers is difficult; the FTC had only brought 33 cases in nearly ten years. And less than ten percent of the over $300 million in fines and relief for consumers levied against robocallers had been collected. Government has no pixie dust which magically solves hard problems.

The difficulty of enforcing a law or regulation does not necessarily imply we should not act. The Federal Communications Commission, for instance, recently approved letting phone companies block unwanted calls by default, and perhaps this will prove effective. We should weigh the costs of laws and regulations against a realistic projection of benefits and laws failing to solve problems as promised should be revised or repealed.
Still, a law that accomplishes little can have value. Cursing robocalls accomplishes little yet can be cathartic. A law that costs little might provide us satisfaction until technology solves the problem.

Daniel Sutter is the Charles G. Koch Professor of Economics with the Manuel H. Johnson Center for Political Economy at Troy University and host of Econversations on TrojanVision. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Troy University.

12 hours ago

VIDEO: Culverhouse vs. UA, Trump and Biden battle in Iowa, the Bentley saga could be over and more on Guerrilla Politics

Radio talk show host Dale Jackson and Dr. Waymon Burke take you through this week’s biggest political stories, including:

— Why did the media get the story with Hugh Culverhouse, Jr. and Alabama so wrong?

— Is the Iowa slap-fight between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden a 2020 preview?

— Now that former ALEA head Spencer Collier has settled his case with the state over his firing, is the sordid Bentley saga over?

65

Jackson and Burke are joined by State Representative Mike Ball (R-Madison) to discuss medical marijuana, the prison special session and the lottery.

Jackson closes the show with a “parting shot” that calls out Joe Biden for lying about the lack of lies and scandals in the Obama administration.

VIDEO: Culverhouse/UA, Trump and Biden battle in Iowa, the Bentley saga could be over and more on Guerrilla Politics

Posted by Yellowhammer News on Sunday, June 16, 2019

Dale Jackson is a contributing writer to Yellowhammer News and hosts a talk show from 7-11 am weekdays on WVNN.

13 hours ago

Alabama team targets international connections at SelectUSA Investment Summit

Alabama is home to a diverse lineup of international companies, and the state’s business recruiters are looking to expand those ranks.

The economic development team is in Washington D.C. at the 2019 SelectUSA Investment Summit, which starts today and is the premier foreign direct investment (FDI) event in the U.S.

349

FDI is a significant part of Alabama’s economy. Last year alone, it came from 16 different countries, for a total of $4.2 billion in investment and 7,520 new and future jobs.

Since 2013, the state has attracted $12.8 billion in FDI, according to the Alabama Department of Commerce. It’s spread across a variety of sectors, including automotive, aerospace and bioscience.

“Team Alabama is looking to capitalize on a record-breaking year for FDI in the state, by continuing to build partnerships with world-class international companies looking to grow in the U.S.,” said Vince Perez, a project manager for the Alabama Department of Commerce.

SHOWCASING ALABAMA

SelectUSA is led by the U.S. Department of Commerce, and its annual summit regularly attracts top industry leaders and investors from around the globe. This year’s event is expected to draw more than 2,800 attendees from more than 70 international markets and 49 U.S. states and territories.

Participants of the past five summits have announced $103.6 billion in greenfield FDI in the U.S. within five years of attending, supporting more than 167,000 U.S. jobs.

“We are excited to have another opportunity to showcase Alabama’s vibrant business climate that’s been cultivated over the years through business-friendly policies,” Perez said.

“This year’s Investment Summit is very timely as we will be armed with the recently passed Incentives Modernization Act, which upgraded our already-strong incentive tool kit, making us more marketable than ever.”

The measure targets counties that have had slower economic growth. In particular, it expands the number of rural counties that qualify for investment and tax credit incentives. It also enhances incentives for technology companies.

Joining the Commerce Department at the SelectUSA Summit are PowerSouth, the North Alabama Industrial Development Association, the Economic Development Partnership of Alabama, Alabama Power Co., and Spire.

Speakers at the summit will include key government and industry leaders who will discuss opportunities in a broad range of areas and industries, such as energy, infrastructure, agriculture and technology.

FDI supports nearly 14 million American jobs, and it is responsible for $370 billion in U.S. goods exports. The U.S. has more FDI than any other country, topping $4 trillion.

(Courtesy of Made in Alabama)

A ‘Story Worth Sharing’: Yellowhammer News and Serquest partner to award monthly grants to Alabama nonprofits

Christmas is the season of giving, helping others and finding magic moments among seemingly ordinary (and occasionally dreary) days. What better way to welcome this season than to share what Alabamians are doing to help others?

Yellowhammer News and Serquest are partnering to bring you, “A Story Worth Sharing,” a monthly award given to an Alabama based nonprofit actively making an impact through their mission. Each month, the winning organization will receive a $1,000 grant from Serquest and promotion across the Yellowhammer Multimedia platforms.

Yellowhammer and Serquest are looking for nonprofits that go above and beyond to change lives and make a difference in their communities.

Already have a nonprofit in mind to nominate? Great!

Get started here with contest guidelines and a link to submit your nomination:

125

Nominations are now open and applicants only need to be nominated once. All non-winning nominations will automatically be eligible for selection in subsequent months. Monthly winners will be announced via a feature story that will be shared and promoted on Yellowhammer’s website, email and social media platforms.

Submit your nomination here.

Our organizations look forward to sharing these heartwarming and positive stories with you over the next few months as we highlight the good works of nonprofits throughout our state.

Serquest is an Alabama based software company founded by Hammond Cobb, IV of Montgomery. The organization sees itself as, “Digital road and bridge builders in the nonprofit sector to help people get where they want to go faster, life’s purpose can’t wait.”

Learn more about Serquest here.

15 hours ago

Alabama Power wins Electric Edison Institute awards for power restoration efforts following Hurricane Michael

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) awarded Alabama Power with the EEI “Emergency Assistance Award” and the  “Emergency Recovery Award” for its outstanding power restoration efforts after Hurricane Michael hit Alabama, Georgia, and Florida in October 2018.
The Emergency Assistance Award and Emergency Recovery Award are given to EEI member companies to recognize their efforts to assist other electric companies’ power restoration efforts, and for their own extraordinary efforts to restore power to customers after service disruptions caused by severe weather conditions or other natural events. The winners are chosen by a panel of judges following an international nomination process.

181

Alabama Power received the awards during the EEI 2019 annual conference.

Alabama Power’s extraordinary efforts were instrumental to restoring service for customers across Alabama, Georgia, and Florida quickly and safely,” said EEI President Tom Kuhn. “We are pleased to recognize the dedicated crews from Alabama Power for their work to restore service in hazardous conditions and to assist neighboring electric companies in their times of need.”

Hurricane Michael, the strongest storm to make landfall during the 2018 hurricane season, was a Category 5 hurricane with peak winds of 160 mph. The storm hit Mexico Beach, Fla., on October 10 before being downgraded to a tropical storm and traveling northeast through Georgia and several Mid-Atlantic states. Alabama Power sent more than 1,400 lineworkers and 700 trucks to help restore service to customers over the course of two and a half months.

Hurricane Michael also resulted in 89,438 service outages in Alabama Power’s territory. Due to their tireless work, Alabama Power’s crews restored power to 100 percent of customers within four days after the storm, dedicating more than 124-thousand hours to the recovery.

(Courtesy of Alabama NewsCenter)