Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

All for 3%

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

    So you are saying the stupid lazy people would have voted for Hillary if they'd have bothered to vote. I agree.
    I didn't say that at all. If the political system acgtually enegaged those who don't bother to vote currently there isn't a chance Clinton and Trump would have been on the ticket for either party.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post

      I didn't say that at all. If the political system acgtually enegaged those who don't bother to vote currently there isn't a chance Clinton and Trump would have been on the ticket for either party.
      Clinton would have been there no matter what. She bought and paid for that position on the ballot. She was the designated queen of the left.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

        Clinton would have been there no matter what. She bought and paid for that position on the ballot. She was the designated queen of the left.
        ACtualy in normal times Hillary would be called a moderate republican and Trump would be called inmate 478.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • There's really is no "Constitutional right" to a "wedding cake" for "gays."

          ------------------------------------------

          Gay Cakes Are Not a Constitutional Right

          One wonders what would have happened if the Sweet Cakes by Melissa case involved not the owners refusing to be coerced to violate their religious conscience by providing a cake not to two same-sex people celebrating their union and calling it a marriage, but rather a Muslim bakery being forced to bake a cake decorated with a cartoon picture of the prophet Muhammad covered with bacon sprinkles.

          Would the bakery in that scenario be forced to pay a heavy business-killing fine for actually believing that the Founding Fathers meant freedom of religion when they enshrined it in the First Amendment? Probably not, even if the ruling was made by a liberal Oregon judge who forget that this country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution and governmental war on their religious conscience:

          The Oregon Court of Appeals has ruled against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of the Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery who in 2013 refused to design and bake a cake celebrating a lesbian couple's same-sex wedding [sic].

          The Kleins felt that designing and making the cake to celebrate the 2013 same-sex wedding [sic] would violate their Christian faith.

          On Thursday, however, the appeals court upheld the decision by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries to fine the Kleins $135,000. The hefty financial penalty ultimately forced the couple to close their bakery[.] ...

          "Freedom of expression for ourselves should require freedom of expression for others. Today, the Oregon Court of Appeals decided that Aaron and Melissa Klein are not entitled to the Constitution's promises of religious liberty and free speech," First Liberty CEO Kelly Shackelford stated.

          Creative expression in any form is free speech, which, along with freedom of religion, is supposedly protected in the First Amendment. People should not be compelled to write or say things they do not believe or agree with, whether it be in the form of ink on paper or frosting on wedding cakes.

          The Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in a similar case, Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the shop refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple to celebrate their ceremony, saying it would be an endorsement that would violate their religious beliefs. The Colorado courts thought otherwise:

          It started over five years ago with a simple request for a wedding cake. And now, after wending its way through the system, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is finally having its day before the U.S. Supreme Court.

          Many legal experts believe [that] it will be the most significant case of the term. It involves a clash of our rights as citizens, as well as our ideals.


          Two of the most precious rights Americans possess are freedom of expression and freedom to practice their religion as they see fit. Both are enshrined in the First Amendment[.] ...

          It began in July 2012, when Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, who owned the Masterpiece Cakeshop, to create a custom wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex marriage [sic]. Phillips refused, saying he didn't wish to promote a same-sex wedding [sic] due to his religious beliefs.

          Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The commission decided against Phillips, declaring he had discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.

          The commission ordered Masterpiece Cakeshop to change its policies, give its staff training on discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for two years on steps taken to comply with the order.

          The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the decision and the Colorado Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Last year, Phillips petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming [that] the Colorado ruling violates the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

          In this case, as Jordan Lawrence writes in National Review, the line between providing a service and expressing a view is being deliberately blurred by liberals to destroy both free speech and religious liberty:

          The government must not force creative businesses to create messages that they oppose. During the Masterpiece Cakeshop oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, the two attorneys opposing cake artist Jack Phillips argued that the justices should not protect Phillips's freedom to abstain from creating expression he disagrees with. Their primary argument was that, in their opinion, it is too difficult to draw lines protecting people's First Amendment right against compelled speech, so the high court should not protect Jack's rights[.] ...

          David Cole of the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the Supreme Court should conclude that anything Phillips would create under some circumstances, he must create in all contexts[.] ...

          [But] a cake artist who agrees to design a rainbow cake for a Noah's Ark-themed Sunday-school party should not be forced against his will to make the same cake for a same-sex wedding [sic] (like the one that the same-sex couple who visited Masterpiece Cakeshop eventually got for their wedding [sic] reception). Neither should a cake artist who would craft an elephant-shaped cake for a party at the zoo be forced to create the same cake for a Republican[ P]arty celebration. Nor should a cake artist who is willing to design a cake saying "I'm dreaming of a white Christmas" for a Christmas party be required to make that cake for a party hosted by Aryan Nations.

          The Masterpiece Cakeshop case is different from saying a hotel or restaurant cannot refuse service to people based on their sexual orientation. Baking is a wedding cake is a creative process, and you cannot force a baker to create something that violates his religious beliefs anymore than you can force a writer to put on paper opinions he or she vehemently disagrees with.

          That the judiciary's attempt to redefine marriage is a looming threat to religious liberty, as observed here, and may lead to an era of religious persecution not seen in since the days of the Roman Empire is seen in the chilling redefinition of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty by Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin and the Senate's only lesbian.

          Baldwin made her remarks on the June 27, 2015 broadcast of Up With Steve Kornacki on MSNBC. In a transcript of her remarks posted on Newsbusters, Baldwin ignored the fact that it was religious persecution in Europe that led to people fleeing here seeking religious freedom on an individual as well as an institutional level:

          Certainly the [F]irst [A]mendment says that in institutions of faith that [sic] there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don't think it extends far beyond that. We've seen the set of arguments play out in issues such as access to contraception. Should it be the individual pharmacist whose religious beliefs guides [sic] whether a prescription is filled[?] [O]r in this context, they're talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country. I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.

          Baldwin, in arguing that there is no individual right to religious liberty and expression, misreads the Constitution with its mandate saying Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It is a key phrase in the First Amendment, leading off the Bill of Rights. These are individual rights fought for in the American Revolution. These rights are not limited to institutions; rather, they apply to all individuals, just as the Supreme Court has decided that the Second Amendment applies to individuals and not just to state-ordained militias.

          Baldwin had been asked the question, "Should the bakery have to bake the cake for the gay couple getting married [sic]? Where do you come down on that?" She came down on the side of government coercion and the proposition that church is something you do on Sunday for an hour and otherwise shouldn't act on your religious beliefs in your daily life.


          [ Lesbian Sen. Tammy Baldwin, is wrong again surprise surprise ]

          The owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa tried to act on their faith but were ordered to pay $135,000 to a lesbian couple based on an order from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. As the Washington Times reported:

          The order affirms an initial ruling in January that found Aaron and Melissa Klein had violated Oregon civil-rights law by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony in 2013 and ordered them to pay damages to Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman.

          In Iran, gay "wedding" cake and pizza requests are handled a bit more harshly and with more finality than a simple statement from a business owner that his or her faith won't allow him to cater the affair. If two men or two women contemplating attempting a marriage had walked into a Tehran pizza shop like Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana, the pizza shop that refused to cater a hypothetical event attempting to celebrate a wedding between two people of the same sex, hanging in the public square and not a simple refusal would have been a likely outcome.

          Crystal O'Connor, member of the family that owns Memories Pizza, told a local ABC news affiliate that she agreed with Indiana's version of the federal RFRA, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. "If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding [sic], we would have to say no, "she told ABC 57. Her beliefs and rights and the beliefs and rights of the owners of Sweet Cakes and Masterpiece Cakeshop should be respected.


          [ Silly of her isn't it ? Expecting respect from people who don't even have any self respect ?? ]

          The Hobby Lobby case revolved around the belief of the owners that people should be free to act on their faith in their daily lives, which includes their business life. It is a belief shared by many, including the Founding Fathers. As Investor's Business Daily observed:

          So do scores of Catholic and non-Catholic institutions and businesses who argue either that the way they run their private businesses is an extension of their faith or that a church, something the federal government seeks to redefine, is not something that happens one hour a week on a Sunday[,] but 24/7 through the hospitals, schools, soup kitchens[,] and charities they may operate. They argue that acting out their faith through their works should not be illegal.


          [ it isn't and it never will be ]

          To gay advocates, acting on your sincerely held religious beliefs is bigotry. They ask that their lifestyles be respected as well as their newly discovered right to the benefits of marriage, found in the "penumbras and emanations" of the Constitution that also gave us the right to abortion. Neither abortion nor marriage is mentioned specifically in the Constitution, but religious liberty and those who say acting on your faith is bigotry are physicians sorely in need of healing themselves.

          [ and so they act like bigots LOL Apparently being gay makes people stupid too !?!? ]

          Liberals' definition of religious liberty is not very different from Lenin's and Stalin's. Investor's Business Daily once quoted Cardinal George regarding Obamacare and its imposition of the contraceptive mandate on religious institutions:

          "Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union," Chicago's Francis Cardinal George recently wrote.

          "You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship – no schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice[,] and works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. We fought a long Cold War to defeat that vision of society."


          One wonders what would happen, or should happen in Sen. Baldwin's view, if a gay couple walked into a bakery owned by black Americans and asked for a Confederate flag on their wedding cake. The irony here is that those who profess to be the most tolerant exhibit the most intolerance. If you demand tolerance of your lifestyle, you should exhibit tolerance of other people's religious beliefs. Otherwise, it is you who are the hypocrite and the bigot.

          Justice Anthony Kennedy may have tipped his hand in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, noting in comments during oral arguments:

          According to the Wall Street Journal's live blog, Kennedy wanted to know how the state tried to accommodate the baker's rights to speech and religious expression, and he expressed his dissatisfaction with the response:

          Justice Anthony Kennedy told a lawyer for the state that tolerance is essential in a free society, but it's important for tolerance to work in both directions. "It seems to me the state has been neither tolerant or respectful" of the baker's views, he said.

          Well said. Indeed, the road to oppression and the end of liberty is paved with political correctness.


          http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...nal_right.html

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
            There's really is no "Constitutional right" to a "wedding cake" for "gays."

            ------------------------------------------

            Gay Cakes Are Not a Constitutional Right

            One wonders what would have happened if the Sweet Cakes by Melissa case involved not the owners refusing to be coerced to violate their religious conscience by providing a cake not to two same-sex people celebrating their union and calling it a marriage, but rather a Muslim bakery being forced to bake a cake decorated with a cartoon picture of the prophet Muhammad covered with bacon sprinkles.

            Would the bakery in that scenario be forced to pay a heavy business-killing fine for actually believing that the Founding Fathers meant freedom of religion when they enshrined it in the First Amendment? Probably not, even if the ruling was made by a liberal Oregon judge who forget that this country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution and governmental war on their religious conscience:

            The Oregon Court of Appeals has ruled against Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of the Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery who in 2013 refused to design and bake a cake celebrating a lesbian couple's same-sex wedding [sic].

            The Kleins felt that designing and making the cake to celebrate the 2013 same-sex wedding [sic] would violate their Christian faith.

            On Thursday, however, the appeals court upheld the decision by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries to fine the Kleins $135,000. The hefty financial penalty ultimately forced the couple to close their bakery[.] ...

            "Freedom of expression for ourselves should require freedom of expression for others. Today, the Oregon Court of Appeals decided that Aaron and Melissa Klein are not entitled to the Constitution's promises of religious liberty and free speech," First Liberty CEO Kelly Shackelford stated.

            Creative expression in any form is free speech, which, along with freedom of religion, is supposedly protected in the First Amendment. People should not be compelled to write or say things they do not believe or agree with, whether it be in the form of ink on paper or frosting on wedding cakes.

            The Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in a similar case, Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the shop refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple to celebrate their ceremony, saying it would be an endorsement that would violate their religious beliefs. The Colorado courts thought otherwise:

            It started over five years ago with a simple request for a wedding cake. And now, after wending its way through the system, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is finally having its day before the U.S. Supreme Court.

            Many legal experts believe [that] it will be the most significant case of the term. It involves a clash of our rights as citizens, as well as our ideals.


            Two of the most precious rights Americans possess are freedom of expression and freedom to practice their religion as they see fit. Both are enshrined in the First Amendment[.] ...

            It began in July 2012, when Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, who owned the Masterpiece Cakeshop, to create a custom wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex marriage [sic]. Phillips refused, saying he didn't wish to promote a same-sex wedding [sic] due to his religious beliefs.

            Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The commission decided against Phillips, declaring he had discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.

            The commission ordered Masterpiece Cakeshop to change its policies, give its staff training on discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for two years on steps taken to comply with the order.

            The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the decision and the Colorado Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Last year, Phillips petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming [that] the Colorado ruling violates the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

            In this case, as Jordan Lawrence writes in National Review, the line between providing a service and expressing a view is being deliberately blurred by liberals to destroy both free speech and religious liberty:

            The government must not force creative businesses to create messages that they oppose. During the Masterpiece Cakeshop oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, the two attorneys opposing cake artist Jack Phillips argued that the justices should not protect Phillips's freedom to abstain from creating expression he disagrees with. Their primary argument was that, in their opinion, it is too difficult to draw lines protecting people's First Amendment right against compelled speech, so the high court should not protect Jack's rights[.] ...

            David Cole of the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the Supreme Court should conclude that anything Phillips would create under some circumstances, he must create in all contexts[.] ...

            [But] a cake artist who agrees to design a rainbow cake for a Noah's Ark-themed Sunday-school party should not be forced against his will to make the same cake for a same-sex wedding [sic] (like the one that the same-sex couple who visited Masterpiece Cakeshop eventually got for their wedding [sic] reception). Neither should a cake artist who would craft an elephant-shaped cake for a party at the zoo be forced to create the same cake for a Republican[ P]arty celebration. Nor should a cake artist who is willing to design a cake saying "I'm dreaming of a white Christmas" for a Christmas party be required to make that cake for a party hosted by Aryan Nations.

            The Masterpiece Cakeshop case is different from saying a hotel or restaurant cannot refuse service to people based on their sexual orientation. Baking is a wedding cake is a creative process, and you cannot force a baker to create something that violates his religious beliefs anymore than you can force a writer to put on paper opinions he or she vehemently disagrees with.

            That the judiciary's attempt to redefine marriage is a looming threat to religious liberty, as observed here, and may lead to an era of religious persecution not seen in since the days of the Roman Empire is seen in the chilling redefinition of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty by Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin and the Senate's only lesbian.

            Baldwin made her remarks on the June 27, 2015 broadcast of Up With Steve Kornacki on MSNBC. In a transcript of her remarks posted on Newsbusters, Baldwin ignored the fact that it was religious persecution in Europe that led to people fleeing here seeking religious freedom on an individual as well as an institutional level:

            Certainly the [F]irst [A]mendment says that in institutions of faith that [sic] there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don't think it extends far beyond that. We've seen the set of arguments play out in issues such as access to contraception. Should it be the individual pharmacist whose religious beliefs guides [sic] whether a prescription is filled[?] [O]r in this context, they're talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country. I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.

            Baldwin, in arguing that there is no individual right to religious liberty and expression, misreads the Constitution with its mandate saying Congress shall pass no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It is a key phrase in the First Amendment, leading off the Bill of Rights. These are individual rights fought for in the American Revolution. These rights are not limited to institutions; rather, they apply to all individuals, just as the Supreme Court has decided that the Second Amendment applies to individuals and not just to state-ordained militias.

            Baldwin had been asked the question, "Should the bakery have to bake the cake for the gay couple getting married [sic]? Where do you come down on that?" She came down on the side of government coercion and the proposition that church is something you do on Sunday for an hour and otherwise shouldn't act on your religious beliefs in your daily life.


            [ Lesbian Sen. Tammy Baldwin, is wrong again surprise surprise ]

            The owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa tried to act on their faith but were ordered to pay $135,000 to a lesbian couple based on an order from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. As the Washington Times reported:

            The order affirms an initial ruling in January that found Aaron and Melissa Klein had violated Oregon civil-rights law by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony in 2013 and ordered them to pay damages to Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman.

            In Iran, gay "wedding" cake and pizza requests are handled a bit more harshly and with more finality than a simple statement from a business owner that his or her faith won't allow him to cater the affair. If two men or two women contemplating attempting a marriage had walked into a Tehran pizza shop like Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana, the pizza shop that refused to cater a hypothetical event attempting to celebrate a wedding between two people of the same sex, hanging in the public square and not a simple refusal would have been a likely outcome.

            Crystal O'Connor, member of the family that owns Memories Pizza, told a local ABC news affiliate that she agreed with Indiana's version of the federal RFRA, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. "If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding [sic], we would have to say no, "she told ABC 57. Her beliefs and rights and the beliefs and rights of the owners of Sweet Cakes and Masterpiece Cakeshop should be respected.


            [ Silly of her isn't it ? Expecting respect from people who don't even have any self respect ?? ]

            The Hobby Lobby case revolved around the belief of the owners that people should be free to act on their faith in their daily lives, which includes their business life. It is a belief shared by many, including the Founding Fathers. As Investor's Business Daily observed:

            So do scores of Catholic and non-Catholic institutions and businesses who argue either that the way they run their private businesses is an extension of their faith or that a church, something the federal government seeks to redefine, is not something that happens one hour a week on a Sunday[,] but 24/7 through the hospitals, schools, soup kitchens[,] and charities they may operate. They argue that acting out their faith through their works should not be illegal.


            [ it isn't and it never will be ]

            To gay advocates, acting on your sincerely held religious beliefs is bigotry. They ask that their lifestyles be respected as well as their newly discovered right to the benefits of marriage, found in the "penumbras and emanations" of the Constitution that also gave us the right to abortion. Neither abortion nor marriage is mentioned specifically in the Constitution, but religious liberty and those who say acting on your faith is bigotry are physicians sorely in need of healing themselves.

            [ and so they act like bigots LOL Apparently being gay makes people stupid too !?!? ]

            Liberals' definition of religious liberty is not very different from Lenin's and Stalin's. Investor's Business Daily once quoted Cardinal George regarding Obamacare and its imposition of the contraceptive mandate on religious institutions:

            "Freedom of worship was guaranteed in the Constitution of the former Soviet Union," Chicago's Francis Cardinal George recently wrote.

            "You could go to church, if you could find one. The church, however, could do nothing except conduct religious rites in places of worship – no schools, religious publications, health care institutions, organized charity, ministry for justice[,] and works of mercy that flow naturally from a living faith. We fought a long Cold War to defeat that vision of society."


            One wonders what would happen, or should happen in Sen. Baldwin's view, if a gay couple walked into a bakery owned by black Americans and asked for a Confederate flag on their wedding cake. The irony here is that those who profess to be the most tolerant exhibit the most intolerance. If you demand tolerance of your lifestyle, you should exhibit tolerance of other people's religious beliefs. Otherwise, it is you who are the hypocrite and the bigot.

            Justice Anthony Kennedy may have tipped his hand in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, noting in comments during oral arguments:

            According to the Wall Street Journal's live blog, Kennedy wanted to know how the state tried to accommodate the baker's rights to speech and religious expression, and he expressed his dissatisfaction with the response:

            Justice Anthony Kennedy told a lawyer for the state that tolerance is essential in a free society, but it's important for tolerance to work in both directions. "It seems to me the state has been neither tolerant or respectful" of the baker's views, he said.

            Well said. Indeed, the road to oppression and the end of liberty is paved with political correctness.


            http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...nal_right.html
            Tilerance of religion until the fantasies of the religious begins to impinge on my pursuit of liberty and happiness. Anne Hutchinson is my new favorite victim of religious intolerance. Anne got herself kicked out of Massachusetts for revealing that she was in direct contact with God and knew which members of the ministry were going to heaven and which ones were not. They exiled the poor woman to Rhode Island.To my knowledge Captain Trips has that kind of insight.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Hutchinson

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Originally posted by redrover View Post
              Tilerance of religion until the fantasies of the religious begins to impinge on my pursuit of liberty and happiness.
              ....and when your "pursuit of happiness" involves messing around with other peoples lives and faiths, you've lost all credibility.

              Do try to answer this - https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...337#post549337

              with a reply that involves the actual subject matter

              Originally posted by redrover View Post
              Anne Hutchinson is my new favorite victim of religious intolerance. Anne got herself kicked out of Massachusetts for revealing that she was in direct contact with God and knew which members of the ministry were going to heaven and which ones were not. They exiled the poor woman to Rhode Island.To my knowledge Captain Trips has that kind of insight.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Hutchinson
              This isn't a new or unusual story really. People have argued religion & philosophy and doctrines for as long as there have been such things.

              Everyone wants to be the one who "has it right" forgetting that we're all screwy humans who error daily LOL

              Humility is harder to come by than it should be perhaps ?

              Perhaps we shouldn't force black people to support the KKK ... perhaps we shouldn't force Christian bakers to make wedding cakes for gays getting "married," ... etc etc

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                ....and when your "pursuit of happiness" involves messing around with other peoples lives and faiths, you've lost all credibility.

                Do try to answer this - https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...337#post549337

                with a reply that involves the actual subject matter



                This isn't a new or unusual story really. People have argued religion & philosophy and doctrines for as long as there have been such things.

                Everyone wants to be the one who "has it right" forgetting that we're all screwy humans who error daily LOL

                Humility is harder to come by than it should be perhaps ?

                Perhaps we shouldn't force black people to support the KKK ... perhaps we shouldn't force Christian bakers to make wedding cakes for gays getting "married," ... etc etc
                If I were in the gay guys shoes. The last thing I would do is sue. That is so Trump. When I was a kid I lived next door to a florist. We didn't get along so I took to shooting up there sign with my air rifle. It probably wouldn't have taken a ballistics expert to figure out what was putting these perfectly round dents in the sign. I never heard a thing about it. They did once accuse me of vandalism on a day I was out of town. MY B-B gun exploits are probably enough to send me straight to hell. I'll be down there with all the gays and B-B gun punks.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Originally posted by redrover View Post
                  If I were in the gay guys shoes. The last thing I would do is sue. That is so Trump.
                  It is.

                  And there are gays who have spoken about their distaste for the ones who are taking things too far like that.

                  Originally posted by redrover View Post
                  When I was a kid I lived next door to a florist. We didn't get along so I took to shooting up there sign with my air rifle. It probably wouldn't have taken a ballistics expert to figure out what was putting these perfectly round dents in the sign. I never heard a thing about it. They did once accuse me of vandalism on a day I was out of town. MY B-B gun exploits are probably enough to send me straight to hell. I'll be down there with all the gays and B-B gun punks.
                  I'll see you in hell my friend .. We'll party with the gays LOL I was shooting birds with my BB gun. I was a good shot, killed a few before I felt guilty and stopped.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                    It is.

                    And there are gays who have spoken about their distaste for the ones who are taking things too far like that.



                    I'll see you in hell my friend .. We'll party with the gays LOL I was shooting birds with my BB gun. I was a good shot, killed a few before I felt guilty and stopped.
                    That's about the way it went for me . I got up to around a dozen birds and then I just couldn't do it anymore.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Originally posted by redrover View Post
                      That's about the way it went for me . I got up to around a dozen birds and then I just couldn't do it anymore.
                      Yes, something in us makes us realize that pointless killing, even of animals, is wrong and so we eventually stop.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                        Yes, something in us makes us realize that pointless killing, even of animals, is wrong and so we eventually stop.
                        My mother used to like fishing in her youth. She would catch and release, then one day she tore a fish's mouth all to pieces trying to get the hook out. She felt so badly she never fished again.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                          My mother used to like fishing in her youth. She would catch and release, then one day she tore a fish's mouth all to pieces trying to get the hook out. She felt so badly she never fished again.
                          I don't like the idea of catch and release. When I catch a fish I eat it. I wouldn't hook a fish in the mouth and drag it out of the water just for sport alone. Seems like unnecessary cruelty to me.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

                            I don't like the idea of catch and release. When I catch a fish I eat it. I wouldn't hook a fish in the mouth and drag it out of the water just for sport alone. Seems like unnecessary cruelty to me.
                            No argument from me. Here on the banks of lake Ontario we have been warned to only eat the fish once a month because of the industrial poisons they've absorbed because of pollution caused by log cabin republicans. If I can only eat it once a month maybe I don't want to eat it at all. Did you notice how I sneaked the cursed 3% back into the discussion

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Originally posted by redrover View Post
                              No argument from me. Here on the banks of lake Ontario we have been warned to only eat the fish once a month because of the industrial poisons they've absorbed because of pollution caused by log cabin republicans. If I can only eat it once a month maybe I don't want to eat it at all. Did you notice how I sneaked the cursed 3% back into the discussion
                              Good work.

                              This just in . .

                              So we're going to hear holy hell from liberals that "discrimination" has been legalized..

                              -----------------------------------------------------------

                              SCOTUS: 5th Circuit got it right on 'religious freedom law'


                              Reaction is coming in response to the Supreme Court's decision not to get involved in a Mississippi law protecting the religious beliefs and expression thereof by government workers and people in private business.

                              Governor Phil Bryant (R-Mississippi) made the following comments on American Family Radio on Monday:



                              "The media deliberately continues to misrepresent the facts regarding what the bill actually does. It is actually a bill that would protect individual businesses and some of those who are in government in the very narrow area of marriage, so that we might protect their deeply held religious views regarding marriage."

                              "You'll see articles that will say It will discriminate against the LGBT community – nothing is further from the truth. But if my right as a Christian can be weighed against what you think are your perceived rights or [actually are] according to the Constitution, there must be a balance. We think this bill struck a balance. We think this bill stopped cities, for example, which may have liberal mayors of saying if you don't abide by their rules, if you don't go and provide these services for a gay wedding, we're going to take your license away from you, we are going to perhaps fine you."

                              "We are very satisfied [with the decision]. The Supreme Court did exactly what the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals did: they said the plaintiffs have no standing, no one has been harmed, no one has been discriminated against. And the Supreme Court said that the 5th Circuit was absolutely right, that the plaintiffs had no standing. The law has been in effect since October, three months now. To the best of our knowledge, not one complaint."

                              "I'm certain that plaintiffs will go back into courthouses and into bakeries and photography shops and try to find someone who they may say has discriminated against them. But the law is in effect and the plaintiffs have no standing because no one in the state of Mississippi has been harmed at this time."


                              The high court on Monday refused to intervene in a legal fight over Mississippi's "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act" (HB 1523), which took effect on October 10, 2017. That decision leaves in place the decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that allowed the law to take effect.

                              The law protects freedom of conscience concerning three primary issues: (1) that sex is defined at birth and is immutable, (2) that marriage is the exclusive lifelong union of one man and one woman, and (3) that people who believe the biblical view of human sexuality - those who maintain those three primary beliefs – will be protected against government discrimination in the state of Mississippi.

                              Kevin Theriot of Alliance Defending Freedom about the Supreme Court's decision.

                              "We think the Supreme Court did the right thing in allowing the 5th Circuit's ruling to stand because there really is no constitutional crisis when a state like Mississippi decides to protect the religious convictions and moral convictions of people who believe in marriage between one man and one woman."

                              The issue, he says, could come back to the high court.

                              "The Supreme Court just decided not to hear it. [But they could hear] the next case that comes up that's similar, which addresses whether in an Establishment Clause-type of case someone can claim they've been harmed just because a law is passed recognizing an exception for others. The Court did not address the issue directly. It just decided that ... this law doesn't harm anyone as far as we know. If somebody can prove that they're harmed, then they can come back to Court later."

                              The ADF attorney explains that the issue at stake is the ability of the government to protect the right of conscience.

                              "That applies not just to people's beliefs about same-sex marriage, but also [to] people who are conscientious objectors to war, who don't want to participate in the death penalty, who don't want to participate in abortion. This case is one more in a long line of laws respecting the freedom of conscience – just like we respect the ability of Amish people not to [be forced] to go to compulsory education. It's a long tradition in this country and this should be no big deal to most people."

                              Abraham Hamilton III, radio host and legal counsel for the American Family Association, summarized the legal battle up to this point Monday while on American Family Radio.

                              "In passing that law, it was challenged at the federal district court level. Federal District Court Judge Carlton Reeves struck down House Bill 1523. That decision was appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 5th Circuit said, Wait a minute, there has been no injury here, so we're going to uphold House Bill 1523. This morning (Monday) it was announced that those parties appealed the 5th Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court decided not to intervene – which means that the 5th Circuit's decision stays in place."

                              According to Hamilton, Mississippi didn't want to have a situation like the one with Kim Davis in Kentucky.

                              "Using the Kim Davis example, what the law simply said was that if you happen to be a court clerk and you have a biblically based belief that marriage is between one man, one woman – [based on that] you can recuse yourself. It doesn't mean that people who are applying can't get a license. It just means that you can't force Kim Davis to be the one to issue it. What the court said is that there have been no instances that have resulted in people either recusing themselves or resulting in people not being able to get a marriage license if they are reporting to be a homosexual couple."


                              https://www.onenewsnow.com/legal-cou...us-freedom-law

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                                Good work.

                                This just in . .

                                So we're going to hear holy hell from liberals that "discrimination" has been legalized..

                                -----------------------------------------------------------

                                SCOTUS: 5th Circuit got it right on 'religious freedom law'


                                Reaction is coming in response to the Supreme Court's decision not to get involved in a Mississippi law protecting the religious beliefs and expression thereof by government workers and people in private business.

                                Governor Phil Bryant (R-Mississippi) made the following comments on American Family Radio on Monday:



                                "The media deliberately continues to misrepresent the facts regarding what the bill actually does. It is actually a bill that would protect individual businesses and some of those who are in government in the very narrow area of marriage, so that we might protect their deeply held religious views regarding marriage."

                                "You'll see articles that will say It will discriminate against the LGBT community – nothing is further from the truth. But if my right as a Christian can be weighed against what you think are your perceived rights or [actually are] according to the Constitution, there must be a balance. We think this bill struck a balance. We think this bill stopped cities, for example, which may have liberal mayors of saying if you don't abide by their rules, if you don't go and provide these services for a gay wedding, we're going to take your license away from you, we are going to perhaps fine you."

                                "We are very satisfied [with the decision]. The Supreme Court did exactly what the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals did: they said the plaintiffs have no standing, no one has been harmed, no one has been discriminated against. And the Supreme Court said that the 5th Circuit was absolutely right, that the plaintiffs had no standing. The law has been in effect since October, three months now. To the best of our knowledge, not one complaint."

                                "I'm certain that plaintiffs will go back into courthouses and into bakeries and photography shops and try to find someone who they may say has discriminated against them. But the law is in effect and the plaintiffs have no standing because no one in the state of Mississippi has been harmed at this time."


                                The high court on Monday refused to intervene in a legal fight over Mississippi's "Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act" (HB 1523), which took effect on October 10, 2017. That decision leaves in place the decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that allowed the law to take effect.

                                The law protects freedom of conscience concerning three primary issues: (1) that sex is defined at birth and is immutable, (2) that marriage is the exclusive lifelong union of one man and one woman, and (3) that people who believe the biblical view of human sexuality - those who maintain those three primary beliefs – will be protected against government discrimination in the state of Mississippi.

                                Kevin Theriot of Alliance Defending Freedom about the Supreme Court's decision.

                                "We think the Supreme Court did the right thing in allowing the 5th Circuit's ruling to stand because there really is no constitutional crisis when a state like Mississippi decides to protect the religious convictions and moral convictions of people who believe in marriage between one man and one woman."

                                The issue, he says, could come back to the high court.

                                "The Supreme Court just decided not to hear it. [But they could hear] the next case that comes up that's similar, which addresses whether in an Establishment Clause-type of case someone can claim they've been harmed just because a law is passed recognizing an exception for others. The Court did not address the issue directly. It just decided that ... this law doesn't harm anyone as far as we know. If somebody can prove that they're harmed, then they can come back to Court later."

                                The ADF attorney explains that the issue at stake is the ability of the government to protect the right of conscience.

                                "That applies not just to people's beliefs about same-sex marriage, but also [to] people who are conscientious objectors to war, who don't want to participate in the death penalty, who don't want to participate in abortion. This case is one more in a long line of laws respecting the freedom of conscience – just like we respect the ability of Amish people not to [be forced] to go to compulsory education. It's a long tradition in this country and this should be no big deal to most people."

                                Abraham Hamilton III, radio host and legal counsel for the American Family Association, summarized the legal battle up to this point Monday while on American Family Radio.

                                "In passing that law, it was challenged at the federal district court level. Federal District Court Judge Carlton Reeves struck down House Bill 1523. That decision was appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 5th Circuit said, Wait a minute, there has been no injury here, so we're going to uphold House Bill 1523. This morning (Monday) it was announced that those parties appealed the 5th Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court decided not to intervene – which means that the 5th Circuit's decision stays in place."

                                According to Hamilton, Mississippi didn't want to have a situation like the one with Kim Davis in Kentucky.

                                "Using the Kim Davis example, what the law simply said was that if you happen to be a court clerk and you have a biblically based belief that marriage is between one man, one woman – [based on that] you can recuse yourself. It doesn't mean that people who are applying can't get a license. It just means that you can't force Kim Davis to be the one to issue it. What the court said is that there have been no instances that have resulted in people either recusing themselves or resulting in people not being able to get a marriage license if they are reporting to be a homosexual couple."


                                https://www.onenewsnow.com/legal-cou...us-freedom-law
                                I have no trouble with Kiim taking a pass as long as the boys can shuffle down to the next window and get the license says they are entitled to.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X