Kim Davis's case isn't in the same ballpark (or universe) as Vullo. Davis didn't threaten to deplatform, demonetize or use subterfuge or coercion. She simply refused to obey the law on personal religious grounds - for which, she spent five days in jail and her (county clerk) office was forced to comply. The worst that could have happened in Davis's case was that a handful of same-sex marriage applicants would have had to file elsewhere. Vullo threatens the ENTIRETY of the Second Amendment throughout the whole United States as any 2A advocate, anywhere could be shut down - as well as gun and ammunition manufacturers. It's not just a matter of "scale" - it's also a matter of "means". Save the Davis case for another column - it doesn't fit here.
It's the same concept, though - an agent of the State is obligated to respect individuals' rights, not elevate his or her own beliefs over that role and duty.
Davis was wrong to do as she did, as I wrote back in 2015. Yes, the scale was different, but the concept is the same. Work as an agent of the government, you're on the other side of the "rights protection." This applies to cops and other government employees as well.
I disagree. Davis did not seek to blackmail and threaten third-party others "in the name of the State" to do her bidding. She took a personal stand and refused to obey the law. The Vullo SCOTUS case itself is evidence of the fact this particular end run around the Constitution hasn't even been tried before. Davis did nothing novel or even noteworthy - her claim of religious exemption wasn't even accepted by SCOTUS, for the obvious reason you cite - she's on the "other side" of rights protection. The two cases are different in scale and means, and are anything but parallel. I would like to know what Vullo's defense is, but I'm certain it's not religious exemption.
I don't agree with ESG but aren't stockholders and their agents free to use their power to to force changes in companies? Businesses are also free to provide services or not to unless they violate the law such as refusing to make a loan to someone who would otherwise get it just because they are a minority. If I understand what you wrote correctly the issue is that the government was trying to force businesses to not provide services to someone who was not breaking a law. Right?
A private sector business is free to operate as its executives or owners wish. But, if it is threatened by the government to act a certain way or else, is it still free? This isn't about stockholders in the private sector, this is about the government. The government has an obligation to respect freedom of speech and other rights, which prohibits it from coercions of this sort.
The government should not be able to use its power to make a business act in a certain way as long as that business is abiding by the laws. If it does so then how is it not tyrranical?
Kim Davis's case isn't in the same ballpark (or universe) as Vullo. Davis didn't threaten to deplatform, demonetize or use subterfuge or coercion. She simply refused to obey the law on personal religious grounds - for which, she spent five days in jail and her (county clerk) office was forced to comply. The worst that could have happened in Davis's case was that a handful of same-sex marriage applicants would have had to file elsewhere. Vullo threatens the ENTIRETY of the Second Amendment throughout the whole United States as any 2A advocate, anywhere could be shut down - as well as gun and ammunition manufacturers. It's not just a matter of "scale" - it's also a matter of "means". Save the Davis case for another column - it doesn't fit here.
It's the same concept, though - an agent of the State is obligated to respect individuals' rights, not elevate his or her own beliefs over that role and duty.
Davis was wrong to do as she did, as I wrote back in 2015. Yes, the scale was different, but the concept is the same. Work as an agent of the government, you're on the other side of the "rights protection." This applies to cops and other government employees as well.
http://www.therootsofliberty.com/gay-marriage-and-the-county-clerk
I disagree. Davis did not seek to blackmail and threaten third-party others "in the name of the State" to do her bidding. She took a personal stand and refused to obey the law. The Vullo SCOTUS case itself is evidence of the fact this particular end run around the Constitution hasn't even been tried before. Davis did nothing novel or even noteworthy - her claim of religious exemption wasn't even accepted by SCOTUS, for the obvious reason you cite - she's on the "other side" of rights protection. The two cases are different in scale and means, and are anything but parallel. I would like to know what Vullo's defense is, but I'm certain it's not religious exemption.
I don't disagree with anything you wrote, other than the penultimate sentence. In both cases, state actors are violating individuals' rights.
I don't agree with ESG but aren't stockholders and their agents free to use their power to to force changes in companies? Businesses are also free to provide services or not to unless they violate the law such as refusing to make a loan to someone who would otherwise get it just because they are a minority. If I understand what you wrote correctly the issue is that the government was trying to force businesses to not provide services to someone who was not breaking a law. Right?
A private sector business is free to operate as its executives or owners wish. But, if it is threatened by the government to act a certain way or else, is it still free? This isn't about stockholders in the private sector, this is about the government. The government has an obligation to respect freedom of speech and other rights, which prohibits it from coercions of this sort.
Yes, the bottom sentence is correct.
The government should not be able to use its power to make a business act in a certain way as long as that business is abiding by the laws. If it does so then how is it not tyrranical?
Rhetorical question.