Christianity Illegal

Unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions and Anti-Discrimination Laws need to be repealed, nullified or ratified as an Amendment by the States (fat chance)

Courts say living by Christian faith illegal, 2 cases leave faithful facing wide range of government punishments, by Bob Unruh, 6/28/16, WND 

It started out with hints of official, United States governmental oppression of Christianity as soon as same-sex “marriage” became a bullet point for activists – little things like “discrimination” complaints that those choosing alternative sexual lifestyles somehow weren’t applauded as they thought they deserved.

Then it became confrontational for Christians who were simply choosing to live by their beliefs – beliefs similar to those held by the nation’s founders. Bakers were penalized for not promoting homosexuality, ditto for photographers and venue owners. Government officials publicly vilified their Christian faith and ordered them, in some case, re-educated.

Now two rulings have been released that cement the American court system’s determination that Christians must not be allowed, under threat of penalty and punishment, to live as they believe in business or in public life.

Specifically, the U.S. Supreme Court left standing a lower court decision that Washington state pharmacists who are Christian must violate their faith in order to practice their profession. And the second decision came from a federal judge in Mississippi who had established a reputation for ruling against Christians who said county clerks in the state must violate their faith in order to hold their office.

The move has alarmed people even inside the Supreme Court, where Justice Samuel Alito warned that, in the case against the pharmacists, there even was evidence that the “impetus for the adoption of the regulations was hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the state.”

Even that, however, was not enough to draw concerns about religious liberties from a majority on the nation’s highest court.

And in the Mississippi ruling from Judge Carlton Reeves, who once reached out into an optional awards ceremony even to punish a school district for allowing a voluntary prayer, said clerks in the state cannot use their own religious beliefs to excuse themselves from issuing marriage licenses to homosexual duos.  Ever.

Sign the petition demanding and end to the madness! No men in girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms or showers!

That fight already had been litigated in Kentucky, where Judge David Bunning reached the same conclusion, ordered Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis to violate her faith. When she declined, Bunning abruptly jailed her without so much as due process.

But there, the state legislature simply adopted a provision protecting clerks’ religious rights and Davis asked that the federal case be closed.

In Mississippi, however, not even action by state lawmakers was sufficient for Reeves, who ordered not only that clerks be required to provide services that violate their faith, they must be given “formal notice” of the requirement that they violate their faith.

Documentation of hate against Christians

WND previously has documented the Big List of cases where there have been government rulings that removed religious rights from Christians.

Such as the case where Missouri State dismissed a student, Andrew Cash, from a counseling program over his expression of concern over counseling same-sex duos.

Or the closure of the Gortz Haus Gallery and bistro owners in Iowa after owners Betty and Richard Odgaard were sued by a homosexual duo.

Or when in Texas, David and Edie Delmore, who own a bakery, were approached by Ben Valencia and Luis Marmolejo about a cake for a “gay wedding.” They declined, referring the potential customers to other bakers. Subsequently, “their home has been vandalized and their son has been threatened with rape by a broken beer bottle.”

One business even was in the “hate Christians” bull’s-eye of homosexual activists for answering a hypothetical question on the issue.

Family owned Memories Pizza in Indiana came into the crosshairs of homosexuals when an owner was interviewed by a local TV station in the aftermath of the adoption of the state’s religious freedom law. Responding to a reporter’s question, the owner said that while her restaurant serves “gays,” her Christian faith wouldn’t allow her to cater a “gay wedding.” The restaurant immediately became a focal point of outrage toward the law, with threats of death and and destruction, causing the owners to shut down their business.

The pharmacists

It was the case involving the pharmacists that drew outrage from a minority on the Supreme Court. In that case, Washington State adopted rules forcing pharmacists to sell abortion pills to customers regardless of religious beliefs that consider abortion tantamount to murder.

The state provided no exception for faith issues, and refused to allow an accommodation that would simply allow pharmacists with abortion objections to refer customers to another location.

After the Supreme Court refused to even review the battle, Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom said that was a problem.

“All Americans should be free to peacefully live and work consistent with their faith without fear of unjust punishment, and no one should be forced to participate in the taking of human life. We had hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court would take this opportunity to reaffirm these long-held principles,” she said.

“The state of Washington allows pharmacists to refer customers for just about any reason – except reasons of conscience. Singling out people of faith and denying them the same freedom to refer is a violation of federal law. All 49 other states allow conscience-based referrals, which are fully supported by the American Pharmacists Association, the Washington Pharmacy Association, and 36 other pharmacy associations. Not one customer in Washington has been denied timely access to any drug due to a religious objection. As the trial court found, the government designed its law for the ‘primary – if not sole – purpose’ of targeting religious health care providers. We are disappointed that the high court didn’t take this case and uphold the trial court’s finding.”

From Alito, whose concerns were endorsed by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, came the alarmed warning.

“This case is an ominous sign. At issue are Washington State regulations that are likely to make a pharmacist unemployable if he or she objects on religious grounds to dispensing certain prescription medications,” the three agreed.

“There are strong reasons to doubt whether the regulations were adopted for – or that they actually serve – any legitimate purpose. And there is much evidence that the impetus for the adoption of the regulations was hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the state.

“Yet the Ninth Circuit held that the regulations do not violate the First Amendment, and this court does not deem the case worthy of our time,” Alito wrote.

“If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern…. Ralph’s [pharmacy] has raised more than ‘slight suspicion’ that the rules challenged here reflect antipathy toward religious beliefs that do not accord with the views of those holding the levers of government power. I would grant certiorari to ensure that Washington’s novel and concededly unnecessary burden on religious objectors does not trample on fundamental rights.”

Judie Brown, president of American Life League, shared the concern: “The Supreme Court is not interested in protecting the conscience rights of Christians. If this does not send shock waves down the spines of every believer in America who knows the difference between good and evil, not to mention what God expects of them, then they do not realize what is at stake. Five members of the Supreme Court of the United States apparently believe that their power is omnipotent. That perception of their power is not only wrong, but dangerous. God’s power is Supreme; theirs is not!”

The issue there is that previous Supreme Court precedent not only bans favoritism to a religion, it also bans antipathy toward a religion or its beliefs.

Mississippi’s fight

In Mississippi, it was Judge Carlton Reeves in action again. He’s established a reputation for going for the jugular when an issue of faith is at play in a dispute.

He first ruled that a Mississippi school student’s rights were violated because she was offended at a Christian element of a public school event.

Then he reached off campus to an optional awards ceremony where a local pastor volunteered a prayer to fine the school $7,500 for another offense perceived by that student.

The judge determined that Rankin County schools must work harder to excise any Christian element from its students’ education, and he threatened them with a $10,000 fine if it happens again.

His latest broadside to Christian beliefs, the AP reported, was in a lawsuit over same-sex “marriage,” as created by five lawyers in Washington.

Those five members of the Supreme Court, the same ones who rejected the Washington appeal, created the status for America in a decision that dissenting justices said was unconnected to the Constitution.

That majority also included two justices, Elena Kagan and Ruth Ginsburg, who publicly advocated for same-sex “marriage” while the decision was pending by performing such ceremonies. A legal team asked them to remove themselves from the same-sex “marriage” case because of their public advocacy, but they refused to even acknowledge the request.

Reeves’ latest is that “clerks cannot cite their own religious beliefs to recuse themselves from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples,” AP reported.

He also demanded that all 82 clerks be given formal notice.

“Mississippi’s elected officials may disagree with [the same-sex “marriage” mandate], of course, and may express that disagreement as they see fit – by advocating for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision, for example,” the judge ordered. “But the marriage license issue will not be adjudicated anew after every legislative session.”

The report said Mississippi Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves, no relation to the activist judge, pointed to the crux of the problem immediately.

“If this opinion by the federal court denies even one Mississippian of their fundamental right to practice their religion, then all Mississippians are denied their 1st Amendment rights,” Tate Reeves said. “I hope the state’s attorneys will quickly appeal this decision to the 5th Circuit to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of all Mississippians.”

Message to Reeves

It was the ruling by Reeves regarding the school that later created a stir in Mississippi. His decision resulted in the school’s band being benched from their football game halftime show, because as part of their musical presentation, they included the melody from “How Great Thou Art.”

Columnist Todd Starnes at Fox News then reported how the judge may issue an order, but the people may not necessarily bend to his whim.

He reported the people decided “a message had to be sent to the likes of Judge Reeves.” “And what they did – would become known as the musical shot heard around the world. During halftime of Friday night’s game – a lone voice began to sing the forbidden song. ‘Then sings my soul, my Savior God to Thee,’ the singer sang. Brittany Mann was there and she witnessed the entire moment of defiance,” Starnes wrote.

“We were just sitting there and then one by one people started to stand,” she told Starnes. “At first, it started out as a hum but the sound got louder and louder.” Soon “hundreds” were singing. “At that moment I was so proud of my town – coming together and taking a stand for something we believe in,” she told Starnes. “It breaks my heart to see where our country is going – getting farther and farther away from the Christian beliefs that our country was founded on.”

http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/courts-say-living-by-christian-faith-illegal/#!