Participants: Lincoln Steed (Host), Greg Hamilton
Series Code: LI
Program Code: LI000363B
|
00:04 Welcome back to the Liberty Insider.
00:06 Before the break, with Greg Hamilton, 00:08 we were getting into the weeds of the Supreme Court 00:12 and who's what and where we might be going 00:15 with Justice Gorsuch... 00:20 You mean Judge Gorsuch... 00:21 He's not quite Justice yet. It's true. 00:23 Where we need to be going with Justice, of course, 00:26 but I'm sure he's going to be confirmed. 00:28 Yeah, I'm sure he will be too 00:30 with the Republican controlled Congress. 00:31 But I'll pick up on one of my themes 00:34 that you agree with that this is not a legislative body 00:38 by determination nor I think in practice. 00:42 Now and then they distinguish themselves 00:44 or whatever, embarrass themselves 00:46 but they don't get to choose out of the wide world 00:51 what they're going to deal with. 00:53 These have to be legal cases that work their way up. 00:56 I see them as reflective of goings on 01:00 and if we have a shift on the new administration 01:03 to favoring Christian activists 01:09 or certain Christian viewpoint, 01:11 it follows then that the Supreme Court 01:13 would probably tend to endorse that new model. 01:17 So they would be an enabling factor. 01:20 You understand Neil Gorsuch ruled 01:23 in favor of Hobby Lobby, okay. 01:25 Which is a horrible thing. 01:27 It came out of the Tenth Circuit, 01:28 all right, so you have to understand... 01:30 Well, I wouldn't say it was entirely horrible, 01:34 but what it does is it prepares the groundwork 01:36 for even small business owners 01:39 to claim an exemption from having 01:42 to serve same sex couples and so on and so forth. 01:45 To follow on, on what was a horrible thing, 01:47 Citizens United, which took the whole model 01:52 back to a corporate model 01:54 rather than an individual right. 01:55 Right. 01:56 Plus, then you're mixing in the ability of people 01:59 of faith to act prejudicially towards others. 02:01 Right, which I think is a real problem 02:03 and how far do you take liberty of conscience 02:05 and then say that I don't have to do this 02:08 and I don't have to do that 02:09 and I don't have to serve this person or that person 02:11 because of liberty of conscience. 02:13 While that becomes very much, I mean, 02:16 you might as well get in the school of the rabbis 02:17 and start to argue which is kosher 02:21 and which is not and all the debates 02:22 and accompanying debates that the town mood 02:26 that just goes crazy. 02:27 In the late '60s when I came to the U.S. 02:29 it was the culmination of the civil rights movement 02:34 but down south, I remember 02:36 we drove across the country coming from Australia 02:38 and you could still see some of the signs, 02:41 "people not allowed, 02:43 certain people are not allowed here." 02:44 And I remember at the time 02:46 there was theology cited for that. 02:48 That was religious freedom and we know that it wasn't. 02:52 Right. 02:54 But once you start allowing someone 02:56 to have the right to withhold service 02:58 or to deny someone else something 03:01 in the name of their religious freedom or mine, 03:04 I don't think that ends well, so I don't like that dynamic. 03:08 Yeah, I don't either personally. 03:09 It presents favorably. 03:11 Religious liberty, why should I be part of this? 03:13 But in reality in a civil society, 03:16 it means that you are restricting 03:17 and even harming other people in the name of your religion. 03:21 Yeah, and that's, I don't know 03:22 how they're going to slice that baby, 03:24 I mean, that's a Solomonic moment 03:26 for the court 03:27 if that should come up to the Supreme Court, 03:30 that would be a very Solomonic moment, 03:32 and we've talked about the Oregon surprise 03:37 or Sunshine Bakery 03:39 and that decision out there 03:41 by the Labor Commissioner, Brad Avakian, 03:44 who is a close personal friend of mine, 03:46 but someone who, I think went too far 03:49 in finding them too much money. 03:51 See what I think is missing from most of these discussions 03:53 even in our own group is the idea 03:57 that there are some things as Jesus said, 03:59 "When you make a faith commitment 04:01 and follow Jesus" 04:02 in this case it could be Muhammad, 04:04 you know, elsewhere for other faiths, 04:07 but when you make that commitment, 04:09 there may be some penalties or some costs 04:12 that you have to pay. 04:14 The law can't, even a well-intentioned law 04:16 can't part the Red Sea in every case. 04:19 There was a judge in Wyoming 04:22 that just was in the news two days ago, 04:24 where she refused to marry a couple, 04:28 same sex couple, 04:30 and the Wyoming Supreme Court chastised her, 04:34 and basically said, they censured her 04:37 but they didn't say that she would lose her job 04:39 which was interesting 04:40 because there was a similar incident in Oregon 04:42 where they insisted that the judge lose his job over it. 04:47 I found that it was wise what Wyoming did 04:52 in the sense that they said, 04:54 "You know, we censured you for this, 04:56 but we're not going to fire you." 04:58 So what happens if another same sex couple comes for them 05:01 for her to marry 05:02 then is that just giving her a pass for future situations? 05:07 I tend to think, I tend to read the message into that 05:10 that they're giving her a pass. 05:12 And I think that there is a point 05:16 where individual conscience must prevail 05:19 in something like that, 05:21 but I also say to myself, 05:23 "Okay, so you're going to marry a couple that is Christian 05:27 and goes to your church and who, you know, 05:29 is getting remarried, they just got divorced." 05:31 I mean, you know, 05:33 and for illegitimate reasons so then what? 05:36 I mean, how pharisaical do we get. 05:38 Where do the courts get into 05:39 in terms of all this religious "legalism" 05:42 I mean we're going to become like the Pharisees of old. 05:44 That's what my point is. 05:45 It's not necessarily always a court thing. 05:47 I'll take a really super easy to understand situation. 05:52 If you're Jewish, 05:55 it's not going to be possible 05:56 for you to run a hog butchering business. 06:00 Yeah. 06:01 There's no way the law is going to make that easy 06:03 for you to do. 06:04 Right, right. 06:05 Your conscience and your beliefs 06:07 get in the way. 06:08 Yeah. 06:10 Or to, you know, to run a racetrack 06:14 that only makes on Saturday, 06:16 there's just no accommodation 06:18 for a Seventh-day Adventist or a Jew, 06:21 and there must be a conflict between your faith 06:25 and the way that civil society works. 06:27 And I know we get into this generally applicable law thing, 06:29 but if something has nothing to do with your faith, 06:32 but your faith in that situation 06:34 creates a penalty that may be the penalty 06:37 that you accept for being a person of faith. 06:39 And that's what I think they're going to have to do. 06:41 I think the courts are going to have to draw a T chart, 06:43 a T chart with a line 06:44 and they're going to have to say the pros and cons 06:47 like under Title VII Law 06:49 when it comes to defining undue hardship 06:53 and religious discrimination law, 06:55 you basically say employers have rights 06:58 and employees have rights. 06:59 So they try to determine whose rights prevail 07:03 in any given situation. 07:05 An employer has to meet the definition 07:07 at least in Oregon. 07:08 The definition undue hardship has to meet the standard. 07:12 They have to have a significant cost 07:17 and significant administrative difficulty 07:20 before they can claim it's an undue hardship 07:22 to accommodate someone for their Sabbath 07:24 or for their holy day 07:25 or for the wearing of particular religious garb. 07:28 So therefore, employers have rights 07:31 but the employee has rights as well, 07:33 which is basically, 07:35 hey, you have to meet the standard of burden, 07:37 the employer does, 07:38 and so I think when it comes to baking cakes, 07:41 when it comes to florists, when it comes to, you know, 07:44 refusing services to same sex couples, 07:46 I think the courts are going to have to go down 07:48 that road of Title VII, 07:50 they're going to have to look at that, 07:51 they're going to have to determine 07:54 what is the right of the business owner, 07:56 what is the right of the person seeking services. 07:59 That's uncharted territory in terms of determining a law 08:02 and this is going to take years to work itself out. 08:05 And so we, and so we have to be patient. 08:07 And when you say rights, 08:09 what goes with that is obligations. 08:10 Yes. It's a two way thing. 08:13 Well, the obligation of the business owner, 08:15 you're providing a business service 08:16 to the general public, 08:18 so when you're open up for the general public, 08:21 you cannot be discriminatory. 08:22 In fact, some city ordinances require business owners to say 08:27 that they will not discriminate with the permission 08:31 that in receiving the certificate 08:32 you will abide by our code and you will not discriminate. 08:35 Yeah, seems reasonable, 08:37 and it gets very close to what I've said in other programs, 08:40 which it's been a helping host of mine 08:43 even before working on Liberty magazine, 08:46 the social contract. 08:48 Yes. It's very important. 08:50 It's basically an agreement 08:54 on the governed and the governed... 08:55 Right. 08:57 Those that are governed and the government 08:58 and the shopkeeper and the other, 09:00 we agreed to have a civil converse. 09:02 Right 09:03 And once that you throw something in between 09:06 which is the right. 09:07 I may not do it because of my faith or whatever, 09:09 I think you've threatened the whole social order. 09:12 Well, in a way yes, 09:13 I wouldn't take it that far, I mean... 09:15 Well, it's a grand statement to make it for it. 09:17 If you think about every course that comes, 09:19 every case that comes before the court, 09:21 they're being like Solomon, I mean, 09:23 it's a Solomonic decision where they got to, you know, 09:25 decide how to slice the baby so to speak, I mean, 09:28 that's a very cruel statement, 09:29 But in reality if you analyze that case, 09:32 it was more psychology than law. 09:34 Right, of course, of course. 09:36 But maybe that's what's needed here 09:38 is a little insight 09:40 into the dynamic of the situation 09:42 rather than the law here. 09:44 Right, right, right. 09:46 But that's basically what the law does, 09:48 I mean, the law is, 09:52 and I want to emphasize this point 09:53 because a lot of people miss this point 09:55 and I keep coming back to it, 09:58 but if you think about it. 09:59 Our entire constitutional system 10:01 is made up in such a way, 10:02 written in such a way 10:04 to actually regulate and harness, 10:06 we the people 10:07 and why that's important is this, 10:09 we assume that, we the people, 10:10 the majority get whatever they want. 10:12 That's not the case, 10:14 that's why you have the Bill of Rights 10:15 to protect against... 10:17 The minority against the majority. 10:18 Against the abuse of the majority 10:20 and the Constitution protects the majority 10:23 against the abusive will of the minority. 10:26 And so, courts have to weigh that stuff, 10:29 and so when they're looking at when Neil Gorsuch, for example, 10:33 when he becomes a Justice, 10:34 he's going to have to weigh these issues 10:37 and so we have to be careful of condemning... 10:40 And we should be sympathetic with... 10:42 The new president's nominee to the Supreme Court. 10:44 Yeah, yeah, you're right. Yeah. 10:46 And they shouldn't be polarizing, 10:48 in fact, as Christians 10:49 we should be praying for rulers, 10:52 but the Supreme Court is not ruler 10:53 but we should pray for these in public 10:55 across these judges 10:56 because a sign of the end of times 10:58 is judges that subvert justice. 10:59 Well, Ellen White says, 11:00 when the courts is the last basically 11:05 is the last defense for justice 11:08 and religious freedom. 11:09 And when the Supreme Court decides 11:11 that religious freedom is a luxury 11:13 we can no longer afford, 11:15 then we know that the Lord's coming is very soon. 11:19 When I was quite a bit younger, there was a television program 11:22 that had a lot of levity to it supposedly, 11:26 where one of their common statements was, 11:28 "Here comes the judge." 11:30 We laughed a lot 11:31 and I didn't really know what it meant, 11:33 but I know today, when we talk about a judge, 11:36 nearly always is in the context of the Supreme Court. 11:40 It's a much debated body nowadays 11:44 when I think the framers of the constitution 11:46 and the fathers of the country 11:48 saw it as a quiet deliberative body 11:50 off to the side. 11:51 It is important who is on that august body. 11:57 It should be important to have it 11:59 somewhat reflective of the population. 12:02 We don't want it stacked. 12:03 We don't want it full of video logs. 12:05 What we want of those that answer in the positive 12:08 to what the Bible says, 12:10 the end will be characterized by judges that pervert justice. 12:15 God help America to devoid that sort of a fate. 12:18 Justice should not be thrown into the streets casually. 12:24 For Liberty Insider, this is Lincoln Steed. |
Revised 2017-05-01