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.Unfortunately, however, it's more complicated than that. If you're doing business with the public, you cannot refuse to deny goods or services to select individuals based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. As an employer you are even more constrained. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—EEOC—receives nearly eight-thousand discrimination claims every month, and that number continues to grow.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
You cannot refuse to do business with select individuals based on the above mentioned criteria, but what if other criteria such as degenerate sexual proclivities, gender-confusion, wanton promiscuity, et cetera, complicated an otherwise clear understanding of rules and rights? A bakery with cakes already baked in the kitchen cannot refuse to sell a piece of cake to a particular person because of that person's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The question of the hour however, is: can a business owner refuse to bake a particular cake in the first place? That's a thorny and convoluted question, and the answer is probably that unless the bakery owner's own constitutional rights are at issue, the courts would find against the owner and impose punishing fines, to the point where the bakery would either comply or be forced to close its doors. But what if being forced to bake particular cakes presented a compelling argument that the baker's own First Amendment rights were being violated?
The Arizona Legislature has passed a controversial religion bill that is again thrusting Arizona into the national spotlight in a debate over discrimination.The Arizona legislature has decided to weigh in on the question of the hour. In their opinion, the right to religious freedom—the First Amendment—trumps other laws. This bill has been dubbed the Arizona Anti-Gay Bill by the main stream media. Is that what it is? Does the bill harm the rights, opportunities, and freedoms of gay people? Or does it simply protect the rights of those who would otherwise be compelled by judicial fiat—unconstitutional judicial activism—to perform work against their will and against their religious beliefs?
House Bill 2153/Senate Bill 1062, written by the conservative advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy and the Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom, would allow individuals to use religious beliefs as a defense against a lawsuit.
The bill, which was introduced last month and has been described by opponents as discriminatory against gays and lesbians, has drawn national media coverage. Discussion of the bill went viral on social media during the House floor debate Thursday.
Opponents have dubbed it the “right to discriminate” bill and say it could prompt an economic backlash against the state, similar to what they say occurred when the state passed the controversial immigration law Senate Bill 1070 in 2010.
This Arizona bill is one piece of scotch tape applied to one page of a Constitution being fed—one page at a time—into the left-wing's paper shredder. This bill—if it passes—would represent only a momentary bump in their plan to destroy this country, but because applying that tape represents active defiance!, it cannot and will not be tolerated. What if other States, other people, federal legislators, future presidents, etc., get it into their head to step into the path of the Left's Country Destroying Wrecking Ball? They've a schedule to keep, you know. Today marriage, tomorrow socialism, the day after, extinction.