Isn't it wonderful to be able to express your innermost thoughts and feelings with the beautiful English language? I always consider it a blessing to do so.

This past week the supreme court began deliberation upon Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Naturally, its been a hot topic among my peers. Yet, in echoing the times of Obergefell v. Hodges, poor reasoning abounds among the common public. Few make a coherent argument away from the sway of emotional rhetoric. Its unfortunate, but heartstring arguments are more common than not. Fortunately, good legal reasoning can be found.

So what are some of the finer points of this prickly case? States have anti-discrimination laws. Such laws have stood as a bulwark against racism and sexism. Colorado claims that the baker's refusal to bake a cake for the homosexual wedding is a violation of those laws. Is it? It may be, nevertheless, it's important to be specific about what is actually being refused. The gay men are not being refused. The baker has said he will sell them any baked good they choose, but he will not bake a cake supporting a homosexual wedding. So, it's not discrimination against homosexuals in the strict sense, but rather a refusal to support an event and idea that is unpalatable to the baker. Many logically weak arguments try to gain support by obscuring this fact and making an emotional appeal. That won't do.

A couple other important points need to be noted. The baker is arguing his case, I say he but really it's his legal team, on the grounds of protected free speech, not on the free exercise clause. If their best claim is rested in free speech and not in the free exercise clause, maybe religious freedom has already lost. What is riding on this case? Many would say everything and yet be unable to name any specific consequence. That's a sure sign of dogmatism.  The question must be asked, if Colorado wins, can anyone refuse to do something that they find morally reprehensible? Can anyone openly oppose homosexual marriage in word, action, or thought? These are questions a majority opinion in their favor would need to address. What if the Masterpiece Cakeshop wins? Will more discrimination occur? Will people use religious grounds to justify their unlawful actions?

I hope that the supreme court can have weighty deliberations, the type that show there was no predestination but rather a desire to weigh the presented evidence thoroughly. Justice Scalia scathingly described parts of the majority opinion in Obergefell as "the aphorisms of the fortune cookie." Hopefully there won't be a repeat. I hope the baker wins.

With Gratitude

Veteran's day this past week started me thinking about a number of things. I cannot think about veterans without remembering my two grandfathers, one a veteran of World Ward II and the other a member of a K-9 unit in Germany during the Korean War. I've tried to understand the magnitude of their service. I think of my missionary service, years of my prime given to a worthy cause, but its not the same. Their service wasn't giving up years in the blossom of youth to share a glorious message, it was hard fought years of sorrow and pain, years of their lives that would continue on as burdensome memories. While my friends came back from missionary service with joy, their friends were joyous to be alive. Some friends never came home again. What they gave, I cannot conceive, but what I can do to honor them, I must know and do.

Do we honor veterans properly, with dignity in equal magnitude to the sacrifice they gave? I would say that we, as a society, do not. Consider the violence that fills our screens. Did they sacrifice their youth in living hell so we could enjoy the very cause of their suffering as entertainment? Is it honorable and decent to play video games where war is depicted as a game, a "game" in real life some don't survive and others come home amputated, crippled, and mentally scarred? Yes, veterans certainly served to protect our rights, including the those of speech which includes the ability to make violent entertainment. But don't be mistaken, just because it can legally occur doesn't make it good or worthy. I'm opposed to censorship in most forms, including that of violent entertainment. I'd rather see such base forms of amusement driven out by market forces, by a collective group of grateful citizens who will remember with gratitude the incalculable service of veterans and who will say, "If we honor veterans by filling our minds with violence, we do not honor at all!"

Musings on the Week: Here, There, and Everywhere

The Russia collusion investigation continues on. Believe what you will, and certainly let your position be factual, but at the end of the day, it's a witch hunt. Dirty, ugly, maligning, vindictive, vengeful, yes, its a witch hunt for sure. The trial has been supported by the fervor of individuals who stand to gain much from prolonging the trial itself and not in a verdict being decided. Most feel as if nothing will be found, as nothing close to a smoking gun has been found yet, but yet on it goes. It has a life of its own, far away from justice and reality.

In other events, I had the opportunity to listen to a Wheatley Institution speaker. The Wheatley Institution's core focus is promulgating and defending religious freedom, so the speaker, Robert George, spoke along those lines. His remarks were in part about the erosion of sovereignty of private institutions. Initially his speech centered around private institutions', such as a family or a church, intrinsic value and comparing that to public institutions, which are created for the extrinsic value, or the services they provide. This he noted set a limit on their, public institutions, domain of sovereignty. The idea of subsidiarity was also discussed, it being the idea that local problems should be fixed by the most local organization. As any good discussion on spheres of sovereignty will inevitably reference the bible of American dual sovereignty, The Federalist Papers, this did as well. I had read the referenced paper before, number 10, but forgotten its key message. In speaking of controlling a government we empower, James Madison noted that the first restraint upon government power was the people, and the design of the government, what we often call the "checks and balances", was only an auxiliary precaution.

To finish, a beautiful simile from the book of Isaiah (55):

10 For as the ^arain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and ^bbread to the eater:

11 So shall my ^aword be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Zootopia

It's time for another movie review. That sounds as if their is some regularity to the movie reviews I conduct, but since my last review occurred well over 6 years ago, make no mistake, its not a regular thing. You're in for a special treat, a treat rarer than Christmas or a leap year.

Again, its another animation movie surprising a casual watcher. Much like Aesop's Fables, though you wouldn't guess it at first, Zootopia follows the ambitions of a young rabbit and her yearning to become the first rabbit police officer in the metropolitan of Zootopia. This movie is set in a world where predator and prey have learned to live together peacefully, yet they don't fully trust each other. There is a deep seated distrust and an instinctual divide between the two groups which is a key theme in the movie.

I won't recount and divulge the whole plot; its a movie worth watching with your kids. I will share some of the themes I saw as I watched this movie. The movie's core theme is about learning to trust those who are different from you. Countering that, we see those who would entice racial strife for personal gain. In a country where racial strife fills the evening news 50 states wide, the ideas and principles explored in this movie are quite timely.

As you watch this movie, hopefully you can see the deeper meaning. In doing this, there is one thing to avoid comparing to real life. A pop singer in this animal universe named Gazelle, voiced by Shakira, is an advocate for seeking understanding to the issues at hand rather than emotionally charged reactions. If Gazelle is supposed to be representative of hollywood and their wisdom, the movie missed the mark. Overall though, I really enjoyed the movie and its message.