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Laws need to be repealed, nullified or ratified as an Amendment by the States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.
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
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 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.
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.”
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/#!
