Our Religious Freedom Falls in the Lap of the Supreme Court

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll down for Audio Version

The supreme Court is set to begin its next session in October. It has a full docket when it gavels in. Among them are a couple Labor Relations/Arbitration cases, a plethora of immigration/refugee cases, and one which has “not been set for argument” as of yet.

Case No. 16-111 is “Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.”

This case has become a familiar refrain to those who follow this nonsense – like me and all of you. It’s another case of religious freedom vs. the “rights” of homosexuals to demand a curtailment of religious freedom. I wonder what side the Colorado Civil Rights Commission falls on. Gee – I wonder.

In 2012, a happy homosexual couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, wished for Masterpiece Cakeshop to craft a wedding cake to commemorate the blessed event. “But Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, declined to make the cake for Mullins and Craig, saying that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. The couple then filed a complaint with Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission, arguing that Phillips’ actions violated the state’s Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation,” wrote MSNBC

David Mullins said in an interview that, “We’re not trying to shut down Masterpiece Cake Shop. We want Masterpiece Cake shop’s policy toward gays and weddings, gay weddings, to change.” read more

Podcast – Religious Freedom vs the Governator

On this exciting episode I discuss homosexual fascism, our promised religious freedom and the weak-kneed and uninformed response of squishy establishment republicans like former governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. I replaced the weekly Rate the Candidate segment with a judgement of other republican reaction. That and the recipe for how to deal with the loony left. read more

Farm Owners Appeal Ruling Over Lesbian Wedding

from HotAir: 

In the bucolic town of Schaghticoke, NY, Liberty Ridge Farm serves as a setting for family outings and events of all sorts on a family owned farm in the country. They are open to the public for a portion of each year, featuring events ranging from day camps to field trips to a corn maze. And until recently they hosted weddings. That all changed after the owners, Cynthia and Robert Gifford, encountered Melisa Erwin and Jennifer McCarthy, a lesbian couple who approached the Giffords about holding their wedding there. Cynthia Gifford declined, citing her religious beliefs.

The couple tape recorded a conversation with the owners and took their complaint to the New York State Division of Human Rights. Things went downhill quickly from there.

In July, an administrative law judge found the Giffords had discriminated against the couple and ordered fines totaling $13,000—$1,500 mental anguish fine to each of the women and a $10,000 civil damages penalty to the state. read more

If The Left Knew Christians Were Coming They’d’ve Baked a Cake

from The American Thinker:

The religious freedom legislation that gelatin-spined Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed wasn’t controversial until the Left started lying about it.

The state-level civil rights bill that Brewer mothballed Feb. 26 was killed by a media-led propaganda campaign that falsely characterized it as “anti-gay.”  To no one’s surprise, both of the GOP’s last two RINO losers, Mitt Romney and John McCain, urged a veto.

As Ed Whelan blogs at National Review,

There has been a blizzard of hysterical misinformation about Arizona’s SB 1062.  As anyone who takes the trouble to consult the text of the legislation will readily discover, SB 1062 does not mention, much less single out, gays or same-sex ceremonies.

As Douglas Laycock (who supports redefining marriage to include same-sex couples) and other leading religious-liberty scholars explain in a letter to Arizona governor Jan Brewer, SB 1062 “has been egregiously misrepresented by many of its critics.” read more

Erick Erickson Missed the Mark

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

Well, here we go again. Another day and another discrepancy with a conservative stalwart. What the heck. It seems to be the week for it. Maybe, hopefully, this will be the last.

 

As painful as it is, I have to be honest about where I stand, even if it is in disagreement with a true conservative, or conservatives.

 

A few days ago I posted an article in disagreement with Dr. Thomas Sowell regarding Ted Cruz.

 

This time it is Erick Erickson of RedState. My disagreement is over a diary post he wrote entitled, “Yes, Jesus Would Bake a Cake for a Gay Person“. 

 

His post begins: “Jesus Christ would absolutely bake a cake for a gay person. He would bake a cake for a straight person. He would bake a cake for a girl, a boy, a person who isn’t sure what they are, a black person, a white person – Jesus would bake that cake if it, in some way large or small, drew that person closer to him.”

 

“And Christians should too.” read more

Homosexual Groups Whine About Church Doctrine

by: the Common Constitutionalist

On occasion, I will seek out and read leftist websites and blogs. I find it educational. It’s a good gauge of the mood and mind of the left. Invariably, as one would expect, what ever they are railing against, we are for and vice versa. Try it. It’s sometimes entertaining to see what upsets the radical left. Be careful though, it can also raise your blood pressure.

 

For example, I read an article recently posted on the MSNBC website. The article entitled, “Silent Supporters become LGBT advocates against church doctrine”. Ah yes, the latest cause du jour – LGBT rights.

 

And this latest lefty cause is exactly what many of us on the right have been warning about and predicting. For years now, homosexual advocates have been trying to normalize their lifestyle. More and more we see homosexuals in movies and on TV, sports figures “coming out”, etc.

 

We began the warnings when homosexual advocates claimed they wanted the right to marry. Many on the right looked for a compromise because that’s what they are good at – compromise. That “compromise” was civil unions, giving homosexual couples similar legal rights – which is what the dimwitted “compromisers” thought the homosexual whiners wanted. read more

Churches Fear Lawsuits

Gee, who saw this coming? Don’t I recall the pro-homosexual marriage lobby insisting this very thing wouldn’t happen? While the rest of us knew this would just be the next step in their goal to eradicate marriage itself.

 

Joe Carr believes a day is fast approaching when pastors will be charged with hate crimes for preaching that homosexuality is a sin and churches will face lawsuits for refusing to host same-sex weddings.

“It’s just a matter of time,” said Carr, the pastor of Waynesville Missionary Baptist Church in Georgia. “What’s happening in Europe – we’re going to see happen here and we’re going to see it happen sooner rather than later I’m afraid.”

And that’s why the congregation will be voting next month to change their church bylaws – to officially ban the usage of their facilities for gay marriages.

“We needed to have a clear statement,” Carr told Fox News. “It’s to protect us from being forced to allow someone to use our facilities who does not what we believe the Bible teaches.”

“These facilities may only be used for weddings that adhere to the Biblical definition of marriage and are solely reserved for use by members and their immediate family members,” the amended bylaws read. “These facilities may not be used by any individual, group, or organization that advocate, endorse, or promote homosexuality as an alternative or acceptable lifestyle. This policy also applies to birthday parties, reunions, anniversaries, wedding or baby showers, etc.”

The church also included a passage to protect their pastor noting that he is not obligated to perform any wedding ceremony that would cause him to violate his conscience or conviction.

Continue Reading

Just Look to the Government

Changing Definitions Doesn’t Change Reality

 by: the Common Constitutionalist

I’ve decided to change the name of some words and thus their meaning. Anyone having a problem with it or tells me I can’t is a bigot, racist, homophobe, etc.

From now on, the word dog will be asteroid, because I’ve always wanted to walk an asteroid. Wow, that was easy. Let’s do another. I will change the word walk to can opener. Why? Because I want to. Ok, this is working so well, let’s do one more. Let’s change crap to Obama. Now let us use them in a sentence. “Son; make sure when you take the asteroid out for his can opener, you pick up his Obama. I like it.

But, you may say, the old words perfectly describe the act and objects quite well. They’ve been called dog, walk and crap for a long time. Everyone already knows and accepts them as their original names. It’s tradition. Why change them now? Because I want to and if you don’t let me I’ll sue to get the names changed.

Well, obviously that scenario is ridiculous, but is it anymore absurd than changing a tradition that is thousands of years old?

Of course I’m speaking of the term homosexual marriage. I believe the reason homosexuals wish to marry, is not for love, but due to the tax code. Now, don’t you your panties in a bunch. I’m not saying that two women or two men or six men and three women or five men and a penguin can’t love one another. I suppose they can and frankly it’s none of my or your damn business.

What I am saying is that marriage is a tradition reserved for the union of one man and one woman. That’s what God intended and far be it from me to countermand his desire. Men and women have been marrying for thousands of years and not until relatively recently has that marriage had to be sanctioned and interfered with by the almighty government.

I contend that without government meddling in every facet of people’s lives, this would not be an issue.

We all realize that government, through the tax code, have been picking winners and losers. Through tweaking the code they are able to grant favor to one group while disenfranchising another.

What do homosexuals really want? Is it really about the love or is it the benefits? Is it the hospital visitation rights, the transfer of wealth free of taxation or the many other government giveaways that benefit those who have married, have children, day care, own a home or the dozens of other tax breaks.

As if no one would have children, buy a home, or select the correct beneficiary for their estate without financial coercion of the state. Ridiculous!

It is my contention that homosexuals would have never made such a fuss over marriage if the government hadn’t stepped in long ago to promote what they felt was beneficial to society.

It’s like virtually everything else that is wrong with this country. Progressives in government meddle in private citizens’ affairs, attempt to legislate the perfect society and voila, we get the housing collapse, banking problems, gas prices, CAFE standards and on and on. And now we have homosexual marriage. To find the genesis of any problem this country has faced  just look back to when our federal government initially involved itself.

Civil Unions, ok, but marriage, no. That’s one tradition that should be upheld for as long as we inhabit this earth.

Marriage in the Supreme Court

by: the Common Constitutionalist

However you feel regarding homosexual marriage, it is my contention that the United States Supreme Court has no business involving itself in such matters or in the state of Californias business.

Why does the Supreme Court feel the need to concern itself, or that the average american citizen believes it has that right? Answer: 4 liberal activist justices, which is coincidently the number needed to accept a case. States have their own rules, own constitution, their own courts and supreme courts as well as their own state judicial review.

The federal government, in my opinion, has absolutely no roll in or right to hear this case. This is a state issue. The U.S. supreme court should vacate the 9th circus court of appeals decision (as it does on a regular basis) as well as the federal district courts decision and declare that this is a matter for the state of California to decide, which it already has.

The state of California allows for popular referendum votes in order to amend the California constitution. The people of California overwhleming voted to amend their constitution via proposition 8, to state that marriage is between a man and a woman.  Because the politicians in California refused to uphold the legally binding California constitutional amendment, the left saw an opportunity to usurp the state constitution.  I’m not certain, but I would guess that the politicians in California took an oath to defend and protect the constitution of California. Frankly they should all be brought up on charges for failure to properly discharge their duties and removed from office. They have no right to pick and choose what they will and will not enforce.

Oh, by the way, a majority of blacks and hispanics voted in favor of proposition 8. Why are those in favor of overturning the amendment not called racists? Just asking.

What is the point in having states at all if they can’t run themselves? For that matter, why even have a state legislature, a governor, a congress, senate or president? If the United States Supreme Court is the end all and be all decision maker, why not just let them run the country? What is the point in Federalism; checks and balances.

These black robed gods are evidently infallible, except when they are. Throughout our history our supreme court has been comprised of human beings, not gods. Their have been drunks, womanizers, bigots, Klan members, etc., that sat on the bench. They are frankly as fallible as the rest of us and as Chief justice John Roberts recently demonstrated, they are just as prone to public (or some kind of) pressure as are we .

Here are just a few of the really poor decisions handed down by 9 black robed infallible gods:

Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857: All Americans of African descent were not citizens and would have no rights.

Plessy v. Ferguson 1896:   It protected racial discrimination in state laws under the “separate but equal” doctrine. It expressly upheld the right of states to force segregation upon others.

Home Building & Loan v. Blaisdell 1934: The Court created the Emergency Exceptions Doctrine, arguing that the Great Depression was so bad that government could interfere with private contracts.

 Wickard v. Filburn 1942: Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who grew wheat to feed to his livestock. The Court determined that Filburn’s self-sufficiency caused him to buy less wheat from outside suppliers. They decided this marginal impact was enough to subject him to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause

Korematsu v. U.S. 1944: Chief Justice Hugo Black wrote for the Court that the government’s need to protect itself from spies outweighed the civil rights of Fred Korematsu and other innocent Americans of Japanese ancestry allowing the internment of over 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.

 Bennis v. Michigan 1996: Tina Bennis and her husband owned a car, in which Tina’s husband engaged the services of a prostitute. The State of Michigan seized the car as a public nuisance. The Supreme Court determined that the government could take Tina Bennis’ property, without due process or appeal, even though she didn’t know that her property was being used this way.

Kelo v. New London 2005: the  High Court extended the governments ability to seize private property under eminent domain, even when the only public purpose was to enrich the city’s treasury.This decision afforded a government the right to take anyone’s private property if it feels that someone else can make better use of it.

As I said; this is not a case for the U.S. Supreme Court and is not a 14th Amendment issue if you know anything about the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1868 specifically to demand that freed blacks, post Civil War, are citizens, period, and as such are afforded the same constitutional rights as whites. It has nothing at all to do with homosexual marriage or any other kind of marriage.

The Court should just say that this is a 10th Amendment issue and be done with it.

Does the 10th amendment, states rights, mean nothing anymore? I thought the left was all about diversity. Does not the 10th amendment tippify diversity?

As many in California have done for a number of reasons, those who do not accept California law are welcome to vote with their feet and move to a more amenable state. But, of course that is not the lefts way, is it.