[Bob Blaylock opposes public accommodation non-discrimination laws.]

Bob Blaylock:
The First Amendment is the law, and as part of the Constitution, is the highest law in this nation. Those who abused the power of government to punish decent people for refusing to participate in openly immoral activities violated the law. Why is it that corrupt public servants get to violate the highest law with impunity, in order to impose unjust and blatantly unconstitutional laws under which to violate the rights of their rightful masters?

Croquet_Player:
Don't want to bake wedding cakes for some people? Fine! Don't sell wedding cakes in states that have anti-discrimination laws. No one's being forced to sell wedding cakes, or wedding flowers against their wishes. And nobody's First Amendment rights are being violated by non-discrimination laws. Don't like the laws? Take it up with the voters.

Bob Blaylock:
The First Amendment cannot be legitimately superseded by a mere vote. It can only be superseded by ratifying a new amendment to the Constitution that overturns it.

The First Amendment explicitly protects freedom of religion and expression (including nonexpression), and strongly implies freedoms of thought, conscience, and association.

Forcing a baker, or any other businessman, to give support to a sick, immoral homosexual mockery of a wedding, in violation of his own religious and moral values, as a condition of being allowed to make a living, blatantly violates the First Amendment.

Croquet_Player:
I seem to have missed the part of the Constitution where citizens are guaranteed the right to run a business any way they like, regardless of the laws regulating businesses.

Bob Blaylock:
And I seem to have missed the part where sick, immoral perverts have a right to impose their evil on sane, decent people.

In any event, it certainly strands to reason that engaging in commerce, in order to make an honest living, is a necessary part of life, and although not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, at least falls among those rights implied in the Ninth Amendment, as an area in which government needs to have a strong case for a need to intervene before it can be allowed to do so.

There isn't really any similar case that can be made for any “right” on the part of immoral perverts to force their evil on sane, decent people, where the sane, decent people can't at least as equally claim a right not to have this filth forced on us against our wills.

Croquet_Player:
I understand that you feel some of your fellow Americans are "sick, immoral perverts", and you are entitled to that opinion. I feel the same way. I believe it is sick, immoral, and perverted, that in the United States, right now, some people can avoid prosecution by claiming "religious privilege" because they believe that modern medicine (or any medicine) is an affront to God, and they will simply "pray" over fatally ill people, instead of taking them to a doctor or calling 911, as a remedy, and if they die, it's simply "the will of God". And I'm working on laws to prevent this. Not because I think people can't believe what they like, but because when it comes to the point of a tumor the size of a grapefruit on a three year old's eye socket, I think it's better to remove the child from the parent's care, and remove the tumor and hopefully save the eye, or if that ship has sailed, remove the tumor so it doesn't spread and kill them in the next few years.

I don't understand where you are being force to "agree" with things you feel are wrong. No one is making you marry a gay person, or preside over a gay wedding. And you have every right to say what you like.

Do you "agree" with gay weddings? No, you clearly don't. Who is stopping you from holding that opinion? Or talking about it,as you are here? I really want to know. Because I will the first one on your side against anyone who says you can't hold that opinion, for religious reasons or otherwise. I'm an American, and you're my fellow American. (I think, I could be wrong, but whatever. I think everyone has a right to their religious opinions.)

Bob Blaylock:
Everyone needs to make a living. This means either running one's own business, or working for someone else who runs a business.

Nothing in the Constitution supports any power of government to compel anyone to waive any of his Constitutional rights as a condition of being allowed to engage in commerce.