by William Teach | June 28, 2015 7:13 am
CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin discussed Justice Scalia’s dissent in a prior case, and stated what Leftist are surely thinking about anyone discussing gays in a negative manner. This comes via the transcript at Newsbusters
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Blistering dissent, Jake (Tapper), but it’s very different. And I think, if you want illustrations of how much the country has changed in the past decade or so, you need only look at Justice Scalia because in 2003, in the case of Lawrence V. Texas, he also dissented, another Anthony Kennedy opinion. And that was the case that said gay people could not be criminally prosecuted for having sex. And listen to this, what Justice Scalia wrote in 2003. He said:
Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as Scout masters for their children, as teachers for their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They viewed this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.
I mean, really, just outward bigotry against gay people. Now, today Justice Scalia begins his dissenting opinion by saying this issue is of no particular importance to me, and the only real issue here is the democratic process, who makes the decisions. Should it be the courts? Or should it be the people?
Even Justice Scalia, who is the biggest social conservative on the court, he cannot talk the way he used to talk about gay people because culturally, politically, even legally, it’s simply not appropriate, and even legal in many, in ways to talk about gay people the way Justice Scalia used to talk about gay people.
This may have been directed specifically at Justice Scalia, but, think about it: you have the senior legal analyst at Leftist CNN stating that a Supreme Court justice cannot legally speak his mind anymore, vis a vis gays, essentially criminalizing Free Speech and dissent. It’s more than censorship of free speech under the guise of “hate” speech. Think it’s not coming? Who would have thought the Supreme Court would override the votes of citizens in states who were against gay marriage being legal just 5 years ago? Who would have thought bakers would be fined out the wazoo for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding due to their religious belief just 5 years ago? Liberals have long been working hard to criminalize “hate”: think they won’t attempt to criminalize speech they don’t like?
If you think that I’m still being a bit over the top, consider what happened in Canada after gay marriage was legalized, via Chicks On The Right, noting this article by Dawn Stefanowicz
Over and over, we are told, “permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.” That is a lie.
Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.
You can be reported the Canadian Human Rights Commissions And Tribunals. They can come into your home to gather material, and it can cost tens of thousands in legal fees. The accusers have their legal fees paid by the government. Even saying that marriage is between a man and a women is considered hate speech and verboten. Make sure to read both those articles.
Meanwhile, Breitbart’s AWR Hawkins discusses a notion I brought up the other day
Crucial in this ruling is the fact that same sex marriage–now recognized by the SCOTUS–is not the only right the 14th Amendment shields from state-by-state prerogative and/or recognition.
Consider this pertinent aspect of the court’s Majority Opinion, written by Justice Kennedy and printed by the LA Times:
Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Now the question–Are 2nd Amendment rights among those “protected by this Clause”?
If we take the SCOTUS at its word, then yes, 2nd Amendment rights are protected under the 14th Amendment. After all, it was by viewing 2nd Amendment rights as incorporated under the 14th Amendment that the SCOTUS struck down Chicago’s gun ban inMcDonald v Chicago (2010).
The Constitution also requires reciprocity in Article 4, Section 1: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” Combine that with the 14th and this court ruling, and States should be required to respect and recognize legal gun permits, the same as they must respect gay marriage licenses.
Of course, equal protection under the law only applies to things Liberals like.
Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.
Source URL: https://rightwingnews.com/liberals/cnn-its-no-longer-legal-to-talk-about-gays-they-way-we-used-to/
Copyright ©2021 John Hawkins' Right Wing News unless otherwise noted.