Christian Bake Shop Must Serve Gakes

[WorldWatcher]

Would you do this to a Muslim? Would you force him to sell something that isn't halal just because the law says so? Hmm? Your logic is flawed.

Public Accommodation laws do no such thing.

If a Muslim business didn't sell halal compliant foods as part of their business model, they would not be required to start providing such foods because a customer ordered it.

On the other hand if a Muslim business DID offer non-halal foods as part of their business model, then they could not refuse to sell something they offered to a customer based on the criteria outlined in Colorado Revised Statutes 24-34-601(2).

The baker in question advertized and routinely supplied as a core function of their business wedding cakes, therefore under Colorado law they cannot discriminated based on various criteria (including sexual orientation) by not selling to a customer because of that critiera.

**************************

Public Accommodations laws have never required a business to sell goods or services they don't already provide to the general public, they only require that goods and services already offered be provided in a non-discriminatory fashion.

What is so hard about that concept that people don't get, resulting in fanciful red-herrings that have nothing to do with what the law actually does?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

And what you don't understand is that he had cakes already made to order. The couple could have simply bought one already made off the shelf.

This is false, the baker did not have pre-made wedding cakes that he would have sold the couple. He specifically refused to sell them a wedding cake. He would have sole them a birthday cake, a blank cake, an anniversary cake, - but he refused to sell them a wedding cake.

Colorado Statutes clearly indicates that denial of "full and equal" access to goods and services based on the criteria outlined in C.R.S. 24-34-601 is a violation of the law.

The fact that he would not sell them any wedding cake is an undisputed fact agreed to by both the claimant and the baker.


>>>>

 

[TemplarKormac]

Would you do this to a Muslim? Would you force him to sell something that isn't halal just because the law says so? Hmm? Your logic is flawed.

Public Accommodation laws do no such thing.

If a Muslim business didn't sell halal compliant foods as part of their business model, they would not be required to start providing such foods because a customer ordered it.

On the other hand if a Muslim business DID offer non-halal foods as part of their business model, then they could not refuse to sell something they offered to a customer based on the criteria outlined in Colorado Revised Statutes 24-34-601(2).

The baker in question advertized and routinely supplied as a core function of their business wedding cakes, therefore under Colorado law they cannot discriminated based on various criteria (including sexual orientation) by not selling to a customer because of that critiera.

**************************

Public Accommodations laws have never required a business to sell goods or services they don't already provide to the general public, they only require that goods and services already offered be provided in a non-discriminatory fashion.

What is so hard about that concept that people don't get, resulting in fanciful red-herrings that have nothing to do with what the law actually does?


>>>>

And you missed the entire point of my post. It would be unwise of me to further explain it. In both cases you are forcing someone to act against their faith, statutes be damned. One other thing, you must learn to differentiate between theory and actualization. I did not make such an assertion.

What is so hard about people making allowances for a person's faith? Is it necessary that they have to tout the law over the religious beliefs of someone else? Worship the laws of man over the laws of God, in essence.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And what you don't understand is that he had cakes already made to order. The couple could have simply bought one already made off the shelf.

This is false, the baker did not have pre-made wedding cakes that he would have sold the couple. He specifically refused to sell them a wedding cake. He would have sole them a birthday cake, a blank cake, an anniversary cake, - but he refused to sell them a wedding cake.

Colorado Statutes clearly indicates that denial of "full and equal" access to goods and services based on the criteria outlined in C.R.S. 24-34-601 is a violation of the law.

The fact that he would not sell them any wedding cake is an undisputed fact agreed to by both the claimant and the baker.


>>>>

Repeatedly citing statutes to me won't further your argument. In essence this law is like telling a Jewish delicatessen to serve pork and non-Kosher meats all for the sake of "Public Accommodation." Furthermore, you are (by citing that law) indicating to a man of faith that homosexuality is more important that him honoring his faith as feels obligated to do. Simply put, and from what I hear, gay rights trump religious rights.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Would you do this to a Muslim? Would you force him to sell something that isn't halal just because the law says so? Hmm? Your logic is flawed.

Public Accommodation laws do no such thing.

If a Muslim business didn't sell halal compliant foods as part of their business model, they would not be required to start providing such foods because a customer ordered it.

On the other hand if a Muslim business DID offer non-halal foods as part of their business model, then they could not refuse to sell something they offered to a customer based on the criteria outlined in Colorado Revised Statutes 24-34-601(2).

The baker in question advertized and routinely supplied as a core function of their business wedding cakes, therefore under Colorado law they cannot discriminated based on various criteria (including sexual orientation) by not selling to a customer because of that critiera.

**************************

Public Accommodations laws have never required a business to sell goods or services they don't already provide to the general public, they only require that goods and services already offered be provided in a non-discriminatory fashion.

What is so hard about that concept that people don't get, resulting in fanciful red-herrings that have nothing to do with what the law actually does?


>>>>

And you missed the entire point of my post. It would be unwise of me to further explain it. In both cases you are forcing someone to act against their faith, statutes be damned. One other thing, you must learn to differentiate between theory and actualization. I did not make such an assertion.

What is so hard about people making allowances for a person's faith? Is it necessary that they have to tout the law over the religious beliefs of someone else? Worship the laws of man over the laws of God, in essence.

First question, do you think that a business should be allowed to discriminate against blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, handicapped?

Second question, do you think that if the owner of a business claims they have a religious belief that they shouldn't serve blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, handicapped that they should be granted a special exception?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Repeatedly citing statutes to me won't further your argument. In essence this law is like telling a Jewish delicatessen to serve pork and non-Kosher meats all for the sake of "Public Accommodation."

False.

Public Accommodations laws have never required a business to sell goods or services they don't already provide to the general public, they only require that goods and services already offered be provided in a non-discriminatory fashion.

Repeating a falsehood and then arguing against a falsehood is known as a Strawman argument, a form of logical fallacy.

>>>>

 

[TemplarKormac]

Article II, Sections 3, 4 30b, and 31 of the Colorado Constitution:

"Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."

"Section 4. Religious freedom. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his opinions concerning religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state. No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination against his consent. Nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship."

Section 30b. No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian or Bisexual Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.

"Section 31. Marriages - valid or recognized. Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state."

 

[TemplarKormac]

Repeatedly citing statutes to me won't further your argument. In essence this law is like telling a Jewish delicatessen to serve pork and non-Kosher meats all for the sake of "Public Accommodation."

False.

Public Accommodations laws have never required a business to sell goods or services they don't already provide to the general public, they only require that goods and services already offered be provided in a non-discriminatory fashion.

Repeating a falsehood and then arguing against a falsehood is known as a Strawman argument, a form of logical fallacy.

>>>>

Making a genetic argument, aren't we?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Public Accommodation laws do no such thing.

If a Muslim business didn't sell halal compliant foods as part of their business model, they would not be required to start providing such foods because a customer ordered it.

On the other hand if a Muslim business DID offer non-halal foods as part of their business model, then they could not refuse to sell something they offered to a customer based on the criteria outlined in Colorado Revised Statutes 24-34-601(2).

The baker in question advertized and routinely supplied as a core function of their business wedding cakes, therefore under Colorado law they cannot discriminated based on various criteria (including sexual orientation) by not selling to a customer because of that critiera.

**************************

Public Accommodations laws have never required a business to sell goods or services they don't already provide to the general public, they only require that goods and services already offered be provided in a non-discriminatory fashion.

What is so hard about that concept that people don't get, resulting in fanciful red-herrings that have nothing to do with what the law actually does?


>>>>

And you missed the entire point of my post. It would be unwise of me to further explain it. In both cases you are forcing someone to act against their faith, statutes be damned. One other thing, you must learn to differentiate between theory and actualization. I did not make such an assertion.

What is so hard about people making allowances for a person's faith? Is it necessary that they have to tout the law over the religious beliefs of someone else? Worship the laws of man over the laws of God, in essence.

First question, do you think that a business should be allowed to discriminate against blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, handicapped?

Second question, do you think that if the owner of a business claims they have a religious belief that they shouldn't serve blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, handicapped that they should be granted a special exception?


>>>>

Your entire basis is a slippery slope fallacy. It would be detrimental for a business to alienate a great segment of the population. However, by no means do homosexuals constitute a majority of the population. I am no fan of discrimination, I am however an advocate of religious freedom, and the right of a man to cede to his conscience.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Article II, Sections 3, 4 30b, and 31 of the Colorado Constitution:

Section 30b. No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian or Bisexual Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.

Hate to break the bad news, but that section of the Colorado State Constitution is not operative, it was struck as unconstitutional in the case of Romer v. Evans shortly after it was passed.

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

 

[syrenn]

Artists? Wow really digging deep for this one huh. Reality is you have nothing.

yes.... wedding cakes are works of art. I CHOOSE who will get to have my work....


unless you get one at your local safeway..... as i would not consider a box cake with Crisco icing..... art.

I know..for some reason windbag needed to make up that all cakes are works of art because he needs to connect this to free speech or he has nothing.

actually, if the bakery takes that stance in court.... they may just win. Ive not seen the level of work this place does or the amount of skill of what they can produce is..... If it is more then a safeway cake..... not some boxed cake with neon frosting roses..... they can argue what they produce are individual works of art.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And you missed the entire point of my post. It would be unwise of me to further explain it. In both cases you are forcing someone to act against their faith, statutes be damned. One other thing, you must learn to differentiate between theory and actualization. I did not make such an assertion.

What is so hard about people making allowances for a person's faith? Is it necessary that they have to tout the law over the religious beliefs of someone else? Worship the laws of man over the laws of God, in essence.

First question, do you think that a business should be allowed to discriminate against blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, handicapped?

Second question, do you think that if the owner of a business claims they have a religious belief that they shouldn't serve blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, handicapped that they should be granted a special exception?


>>>>

I notice you refused to answer the questions.

Your entire basis is a slippery slope fallacy.

Maybe you should look up what "slippery slope fallacy" actually means before trying to use it.

Asking pointed questions to probe the consistancy of an individual position is not a "slippery slop fallacy".

Your lack of providing an answer is - well there is a technical term for it - a "dodge".

It would be detrimental for a business to alienate a great segment of the population.

I didn't ask if it would be deterimental to a business. I asked if you supported a business being able to discriminate against blacks? Or if it made a difference if they discriminated against blacks and claimed a religious reason (not to be confused with a Biblical reason)?

However, by no means do homosexuals constitute a majority of the population.

Thank you for that statistical information, it doesn't have any relevance to the questions asked. But thank you anyway.

I am no fan of discrimination, I am however an advocate of religious freedom, and the right of a man to cede to his conscience.

Thank you for that information about whether you are a fan of discrimination or not, it's not relevant to the questions asked. But thank you anyway.

So let's try again.

Do you think it's OK to have laws against discrimination against blacks?

If so, do you support the law not being applied simply because a business claims a religious conviction as the basis for their discrimination?



>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gakes, gay cakes.

Judge orders bakeshop to serve same-sex customers after owner REFUSED to make rainbow wedding cake for gay couple | Mail Online

I am amazed to live in a country where a judge can order a business to make a cake for a gay couple, which is optional, but cannot order government to follow the Constitution which is a contractual agreement.

With cases like this, or the AZ immigration bill, it seems people have "no problem" enforcing Constitutional principles for one party's sake at the expense of the equal rights of the other.

But when it comes to the other way, then all this justification comes up as to why the group is 'wrong' that is seeking equal Constitutional protections.

Just insanity. Don't know whether to laugh at how utterly ridiculous this is getting, or go cry with Victoria Jackson and others who weep for America.

I'm glad I have a sense of humor, but this really is horrible; and I am starting to feel bad for laughing at how truly sad the shape of our country is in.

I feel bad for both sides of these conflicts, and don't feel this is helping solve the issues by adding more injuries. People really deserve support to resolve differences directly, and keep all this nonsense we don't agree on OUT of government. The reason we can't resolve them is that they involve religious beliefs, so those will not change. Technically govt is not supposed to impose or establish one view over another, so this is not govt jurisdiction but belongs to the people to settle among ourselves and quit backlogging govt with the mess!

So sad. I have strong sympathies for all people who are NOT helped by these dilemma, where govt should NOT be abused to force one way or another, but to protect interests equally.
If anything, judges should order the people to resolve their conflicts and keep them OUT of courts and avoid public expense for their personal or religious conflicts that don't belong there.

No, it’s not ‘insanity,’ you simply don’t understand.

The issue concerns a Colorado state law that prohibits businesses from discriminating in the context of public accommodations. The judge is appropriately enforcing the laws of his state.

The state law also comports with Federal Constitutional case law, as the judge correctly noted in his opinion, where one’s religious beliefs cannot be used to excuse him when he violates a just law, and where forbidding discrimination concerning public accommodations is consistent with Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

It would have been an act of malfeasance on the part of the judge to rule otherwise.

The resolution to this is for business owners to conduct themselves professionally, and serve paying customers in a fair and consistent manner, as responsible business owners, and as responsible members of their communities.

Because judges never ever ever get to say a law is wrong.

 

[WorldWatcher]

yes.... wedding cakes are works of art. I CHOOSE who will get to have my work....


unless you get one at your local safeway..... as i would not consider a box cake with Crisco icing..... art.

I know..for some reason windbag needed to make up that all cakes are works of art because he needs to connect this to free speech or he has nothing.

actually, if the bakery takes that stance in court.... they may just win. Ive not seen the level of work this place does or the amount of skill of what they can produce is..... If it is more then a safeway cake..... not some boxed cake with neon frosting roses..... they can argue what they produce are individual works of art.

They did try. It didn't win, here is the ruling in the case and it address that point -->> https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf

The New Mexico Photographer also tried the same point (Elane Photography v. Willcock), it went to the NM Supreme Court. It didn't win either. Here is the decision -->> http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I believe homosexuality goes against the divine order of what God himself put in place when he created the mankind. I exercise tolerance, not encouragement.

You are entitled to that belief; you are not entitled, however, to seek to codify that belief. Nor does this belief excuse you from obeying the law.

Secondly, the baker gave them a choice to buy an already made cake off the shelf, so in essence, he was not denying anybody anything. He refused to make a cake, but he offered to sell them one.

You don’t understand.

An aspect of the business is to make cakes to order, public accommodations laws apply to both the selling of goods and services. What you advocate is a ‘separate but equal’ policy, which is just as illegal and un-Constitutional.

We understand perfectly, the law is an abomination, just like the laws that required blacks to sit at the back of the bus. The only rational response to laws like this is universal disobedience and contempt, anything less than that is an accommodation of fascism.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Would you do this to a Muslim? Would you force him to sell something that isn't halal just because the law says so? Hmm? Your logic is flawed.

Public Accommodation laws do no such thing.

If a Muslim business didn't sell halal compliant foods as part of their business model, they would not be required to start providing such foods because a customer ordered it.

On the other hand if a Muslim business DID offer non-halal foods as part of their business model, then they could not refuse to sell something they offered to a customer based on the criteria outlined in Colorado Revised Statutes 24-34-601(2).

The baker in question advertized and routinely supplied as a core function of their business wedding cakes, therefore under Colorado law they cannot discriminated based on various criteria (including sexual orientation) by not selling to a customer because of that critiera.

**************************

Public Accommodations laws have never required a business to sell goods or services they don't already provide to the general public, they only require that goods and services already offered be provided in a non-discriminatory fashion.

What is so hard about that concept that people don't get, resulting in fanciful red-herrings that have nothing to do with what the law actually does?


>>>>

Why do you insist on arguing this on the basis of your incorrect understanding of the law? Are you even aware that public accommodation is not the only type of law that applies to businesses? What about laws that require pharmacists to sell products even if their business model doesn't include those products? What about Obamacare, which requires businesses to provide services that are contrary to their business model? If you allow the government to dictate behavior in one place because you think the fascism is justified, they will expand the fascism until it oppresses everyone.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Article II, Sections 3, 4 30b, and 31 of the Colorado Constitution:

Section 30b. No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian or Bisexual Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.

Hate to break the bad news, but that section of the Colorado State Constitution is not operative, it was struck as unconstitutional in the case of Romer v. Evan shortly after it was passed.

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

Okay then... So the Supreme Court is thereby saying the voice of the people no longer holds weight. That section was implemented via referendum. By telling them that something they voted for is unconstitutional, you are denying them equal protection of the law, saying their opinions or what they voted for is no longer relevant in the eyes of the law. What is a greater injustice? Denying service because of religious belief, or telling the voters that their votes no longer hold weight?

And since you cited that particular case, I find this quote particularly interesting:

"A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws."

So, what of the man of faith? Is he now a stranger to the provision that permits him to freely exercise his faith? How can it be "equal protection" when you are asserting that one groups rights trumps another man's faith? How can you use the law to grant one group an advantage over the other? I admit I failed to do proper research on that provision, but that doesn't stop me from finding fault with the ruling or saying the same ruling goes the other way as well.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Public Accommodation laws do no such thing.

If a Muslim business didn't sell halal compliant foods as part of their business model, they would not be required to start providing such foods because a customer ordered it.

On the other hand if a Muslim business DID offer non-halal foods as part of their business model, then they could not refuse to sell something they offered to a customer based on the criteria outlined in Colorado Revised Statutes 24-34-601(2).

The baker in question advertized and routinely supplied as a core function of their business wedding cakes, therefore under Colorado law they cannot discriminated based on various criteria (including sexual orientation) by not selling to a customer because of that critiera.

**************************

Public Accommodations laws have never required a business to sell goods or services they don't already provide to the general public, they only require that goods and services already offered be provided in a non-discriminatory fashion.

What is so hard about that concept that people don't get, resulting in fanciful red-herrings that have nothing to do with what the law actually does?


>>>>

And you missed the entire point of my post. It would be unwise of me to further explain it. In both cases you are forcing someone to act against their faith, statutes be damned. One other thing, you must learn to differentiate between theory and actualization. I did not make such an assertion.

What is so hard about people making allowances for a person's faith? Is it necessary that they have to tout the law over the religious beliefs of someone else? Worship the laws of man over the laws of God, in essence.

First question, do you think that a business should be allowed to discriminate against blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, handicapped?

Second question, do you think that if the owner of a business claims they have a religious belief that they shouldn't serve blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, handicapped that they should be granted a special exception?


>>>>

Priority question, what makes the government the solution to a social problem?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I know..for some reason windbag needed to make up that all cakes are works of art because he needs to connect this to free speech or he has nothing.

actually, if the bakery takes that stance in court.... they may just win. Ive not seen the level of work this place does or the amount of skill of what they can produce is..... If it is more then a safeway cake..... not some boxed cake with neon frosting roses..... they can argue what they produce are individual works of art.

They did try. It didn't win, here is the ruling in the case and it address that point -->> https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf

The New Mexico Photographer also tried the same point (Elane Photography v. Willcock), it went to the NM Supreme Court. It didn't win either. Here is the decision -->> http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf


>>>>

The fucking judge is an idiot if he thinks baking, and decorating, a cake is not a form of expression. There are numerous court cases that allow printers to refuse to provide services on whatever basis they chose, including political and religious objections to the speech.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Article II, Sections 3, 4 30b, and 31 of the Colorado Constitution:

Hate to break the bad news, but that section of the Colorado State Constitution is not operative, it was struck as unconstitutional in the case of Romer v. Evan shortly after it was passed.

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

Okay then... So the Supreme Court is thereby saying the voice of the people no longer holds weight. That section was implemented via referendum. By telling them that something they voted for is unconstitutional, you are denying them equal protection of the law, saying their opinions or what they voted for is no longer relevant in the eyes of the law. What is a greater injustice? Denying service because of religious belief, or telling the voters that their votes no longer hold weight?

And since you cited that particular case, I find this quote particularly interesting:

"A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws."

So, what of the man of faith? Is he now a stranger to the provision that permits him to freely exercise his faith? How can it be "equal protection" when you are asserting that one groups rights trumps another man's faith? How can you use the law to grant one group an advantage over the other? I admit I failed to do proper research on that provision, but that doesn't stop me from finding fault with the ruling or saying the same ruling goes the other way as well.

You are free of course to disagree with the ruling and find fault with it. That doesn't change the fact that the courts have never found that "freedom of religion" means that anyone can do anything in the name of religion and be exempt from generally applicable laws.

Justice Scalia (not one anyone would consider a Liberal judge) addressed this very issue in Employment Division v. Smith:

"Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.​

(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,

are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."​

>>>>