{"id":65572,"date":"2018-01-02T05:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-01-02T11:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=65572"},"modified":"2018-01-01T09:45:34","modified_gmt":"2018-01-01T15:45:34","slug":"primer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=65572","title":{"rendered":"Primer"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Interesting explanation of w<a href=\"http:\/\/www.nationalreview.com\/article\/454968\/masterpiece-cakeshop-slippery-slope-anti-discrimination-law\">hat\u2019s wrong with Commerce Clause case-law precedent<\/a>, written in a way that even I can understand the problem.<\/p>\n<p>TL;dr version: the basic idea was sound but it\u2019s been stretched out of shape to suit passing fads.<\/p>\n<p>And that\u2019s what\u2019s wrong with this <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtontimes.com\/news\/2017\/dec\/28\/court-rules-against-bakers-gay-wedding-cake-case\/\">ruling by the appeals court in an Oregon baker case<\/a>.\u00a0 The court assumed the stretched-to-fit Commerce Clause interpretation was correct, so the anti-discrimination law protecting gays was valid, and therefore the baker was subject to that general law.\u00a0 Having made the fatal assumption, the court was able to conclude the baker was not targeted for his religious beliefs.\u00a0 Yes, but if the underlying assumption is wrong, then the baker\u2019s First Amendment religious freedom should trump the federal government\u2019s interest in regulating people who produce goods that could conceivably travel in interstate commerce.<\/p>\n<p>I know, it\u2019s complicated.\u00a0 We all prefer simple soundbites.\u00a0 But this is worth the effort to understand.\u00a0 And Williamson does a good job helping with that.<\/p>\n<p>Joe Doakes<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The greatest achievement of the Establishment was convincing everyone that government is so complex, only government people could do it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Joe Doakes from Como Park emails: Interesting explanation of what\u2019s wrong with Commerce Clause case-law precedent, written in a way that even I can understand the problem. TL;dr version: the basic idea was sound but it\u2019s been stretched out of shape to suit passing fads. And that\u2019s what\u2019s wrong with this ruling by the appeals [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[377],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-65572","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-the-second-civil-war"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65572","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=65572"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65572\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":65573,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65572\/revisions\/65573"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=65572"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=65572"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=65572"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}