Lake Erie Conservative

thoughtful discussion(s) about issue(s)

Posts Tagged ‘Freedom of religion’

… It is Called Religious Freedom , Oregon [#Sweet Cakes by Melissa]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,November 17th,2016

.. have those knuckleheads in Oregon gone mad ? …

.. I am afraid that they have . An Administrative Law judge has found against Aaron and Melissa Klein , owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa . As a result , the Kleins could be fined up to $75,000 . Worse yet , the proceeds of the fine could end up being turned over to the so – called lesbians who the Kleins refused to serve …

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog news …

.. what that twit for a judge is forgetting is that there is the U.S. Constitution. Also , do not forget to include the Bill of Rights . The First Amendment includes THE Freedom to practice one ‘ s religion without encumbrance by Congress [or the States]. That freedom trumps sexual orientation law , every time , folks …

.. Every Time ! …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Earth to Nutcase [#activist lawfare lawyer]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,September 26th,2016

.. the university is named Catholic University of America . It is an institution of higher education , dedicated to presentation of in the way of the Catholic faith and based theoreon ….

.. other students are free to worship on the campus . They just need to understand and remember the mission of the Univeristy . …

.. [h/t —]…
.. [link] to the blog news post …

.. the District of Columbia should remember that whatever they may pass in their city ‘ s so – called Human Rights code , the entirety of the people in the District [including the students , faculty , and administration of Catholic University] still have their constitutional rights . Those rights include the Bill of Rights , among which is paramount , the First Amendment ‘ s protection of the Freedom of Religion ….

.. so , guys , back off , or else …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Oregon must realize [#freedom of religion]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,September 7th,2016

.. that people have the constitutional freedom to exercise their religion ..

.. that also includes when they conduct their personal affairs when they run a business . When there is an issue that they do not support and cannot stand , they are free not to support that person , persons , or group . That means they do not have to do business with them . , especially if their action violates their religious beliefs …

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog report …

.. we have a Constitution . We also have a Bill of Rights , which is a document which covers protections of our individual rights . Those protections outweigh those of a common law , , or even those of statutory law . So , A statute that covers protection of a person ‘ s sexual orientation des not protect them against someone else does chooses not to serve them , just because it violates their religious beliefs …

Posted in 1st Amendment, freedom (religion), freedom (speech), moral opinion, moral question, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Now a Court is Showing some Sense [#Hands on Originals]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,May 16th,2016

.. Hands on Originals is a simple business . They generally sell t – shirts ..

.. however , that is also where it got them into trouble …

.. the local Gay & Lesbian Services Organization [GLSO] wanted to have some t – shirts made up to support one of their events . One of the owners of HOO objected . As a result , the GLSO filed a complaint in the county Human Rights Commission …

.. when that body ruled against them . HOO sued in court . Given the current legal climate , they did not expect the best of news . However , the judge in the case ruled in their favour …

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog post // legal opinion ..

.. I am going to include a lengthy clip from the blog post by Professor Eugene Volokh , of UCLA . He is the one who the blog is named for and who founded it . Professor Volokh explains things far better than I can , but it is a dandy explanation of the judge ‘ s reasoning . However , it is a bit lengthy , though …

The Commission decided in favor of Baker, but on Monday, in Hands on Originals, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission, a Kentucky trial court judge disagreed.

1. First, the judge concluded that Hands on Originals was discriminating based on the pro-gay-pride message that GLSO wanted printed, not based on the sexual orientation of GLSO’s representatives or members. This suggests that the judge thought the ordinance just didn’t apply on its own terms, quite apart from any restrictions imposed by the First Amendment or by Kentucky’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But as I read the opinion, the judge didn’t make any such specific finding about the inapplicability of the ordinance.

2. The judge did conclude, though, that applying the ordinance to Hands on Originals’ actions violated the First Amendment:

[“T]he right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.[”] … The [Commission] attempted to distinguish [the compelled speech precedents] from the case at bar with the explanation that “In this case there was no government mandate that the Respondent (HOO) speak.”… [But i]n fact, HOO and its owners, because they refused to print the GLSO t-shirts that offended their sincerely held religious beliefs, have been punished for the exercise of their Constitutional rights to refrain from being forced to speak….

The Commission in its oral argument says it is not trying to infringe on the Constitutional Rights of HOO and its owners but is seeking only to have HOO “…treat everyone the same.” Yet, HOO has demonstrated in this record that it has done just that. It has treated homosexual and heterosexual groups the same. In 2010, 2011 and 2012, HOO declined to print at least thirteen (13) orders for message based reasons. Those print orders that were refused by HOO included shirts promoting a strip club, pens promoting a sexually explicit video, and shirts containing a violence related message.

There is further evidence in the Commission record that it is standard practice within the promotional printing industry to decline to print materials containing messages that the owners do not want to support. Nonetheless, the Commission punished HOO for declining to print messages advocating sexual activity to which HOO and its owners strongly oppose on sincerely held religious grounds.

HOO did not decline to print the t-shirts in question or work with GLSO representatives because of the sexual orientation of the representatives that communicated with HOO. It is undisputed that neither [of the] HOO representatives … knew or inquired about the sexual orientation of either GLSO representatives …. Rather, … the conversation between GLSO representative … and HOO [co-]owner [Blaine] Adamson was about GLSO’s mission and what the organization generally promoted…. HOO’s declination to print the shirts was based upon the message of GLSO and the Pride Festival and not on the sexual orientation of its representatives or members….

If Massachusetts could not compel [St. Patrick’s Day] parade organizers to include a group advocating a [gay rights] message that the parade organizers did not support, [Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston (1995),] how can the LFUCG Human Rights Commission interpret the “Fairness Ordinance” to compel HOO and its owners to print a t-shirt conveying a message that HOO and its owners do not support and in fact find blasphemous? The Court holds that the Commission cannot take this action consistent with the U.S. Constitution….

This Court has undertaken review of this case based upon … the doctrine of “strict scrutiny.” … This Court does not fault the Commission in its interest in insuring citizens have equal access to services but that is not what this case is all about. There is no evidence in this record that HOO or its owners refused to print the t-shirts in question based upon the sexual orientation of GLSO or its members or representatives that contacted HOO. Rather, it is clear beyond dispute that HOO and its owners declined to print the t-shirts in question because of the MESSAGE advocating sexual activity outside of a marriage between one man and one woman. The well established Constitutional rights of HOO and its owners on this issue is well settled and requires action by this Court….

3. The court also held that the commission’s actions violated the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which provides,

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A “burden” shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion of programs or access to facilities.

The court first concluded, following the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby (where the Court was interpreting a very similar federal statutory scheme) that the Kentucky RFRA applied to corporations such as Hands On Originals, and, “[b]ecause the Commission’s Order requires HOO and its owners to print shirts that convey messages contrary to their faith, that Order inflicts a substantial burden on their free exercise of religion.” And the court then concluded that the commission’s actions can’t be justified under the “strict scrutiny” (“compelling governmental interest” / “least restrictive means”) exception that the Kentucky RFRA provides:

[T]he Commission has not even attempted, much less shown by “clear and convincing evidence” or otherwise, that it has any compelling government interest in the consequences imposed upon HOO and its owners in this case. As previously mentioned, it is the understanding of this Court based on the record that GLSO was able to obtain printing of the t-shirts in question at a substantially reduced price or perhaps even had them printed for free. This was the offer extended by HOO owner Adamson in the initial phone conversation with a GLSO representative to refer GLSO to another printing company to do the work for the same price quoted by HOO. The Court holds that the Commission has not proven by clear and convincing evidence or otherwise that it has a compelling governmental interest to enforce in this case….

The analysis seems quite right to me. I expect there will be an appeal, so we’ll see what the Kentucky appellate courts have to say about this.

Posted in body of law, legal opinion, legal question, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Dummies , the Point is Religious Freedom [#accomodation][#religious freedom]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Saturday,November 14th,2015

.. the 7th Circuit is highly libertarian , and the D.C. Circuit has [for now] gone totally loonie – leftie with Dingy Harry Reid ‘ s court – stuffing stunt ..

.. neither one seems to get the point , though . The point is that the filling out of the HHS form is a substantial burden on the religious order ‘ s freedom of religion , dummies ….

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog post …

.. D.C. Appeals Court Judge Janice Rogers – Brown [a future GOP Supreme Court justice nominee] puts it very well in her stinging dissent , exceprted here …

This seems to miss an obvious causal step: the “mandate on insurers” at issue here is not merely a general ACA requirement to provide contraception coverage, but a series of cost-sharing mandates that are not triggered unless the religious groups fill out the form. In a powerful dissent, Judge Janice Rogers Brown explains why this is nonsense:

[T]his case is not “paradoxical” because Plaintiffs object to regulatory requirements the government intended as a religious accommodation. That the government’s expressed intent in enacting the regulations at issue was to allay religious adherents’ concerns about the contraception mandate is not determinative of the ultimate question of whether Plaintiffs were in fact accommodated. Where the government imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise and labels it an “accommodation,” that burden is surely as distressing to adherents as it would be if imposed without such a designation. Therefore, heightened skepticism is not appropriate. We should look at Plaintiffs’ claims as we would any RFRA claim. After all, in the substantial burden analysis, the government’s motivations— no matter how benevolent—are irrelevant; we ask only whether the government’s action operates to place “substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.”


Plaintiffs identify at least two acts that the regulations compel them to perform that they believe would violate their religious obligations: (1) “hiring or maintaining a contractual relationship with any company required, authorized, or incentivized to provide contraceptive coverage to beneficiaries enrolled in Plaintiffs’ health plans,” Pet. for Reh’g En Banc at 3; and (2) “filing the self-certification or notification,” id. at 4. Plaintiffs have therefore shown both that they are being compelled to modify their behavior and that, if undertaken, the modification would be a violation of their religious beliefs.


The panel did not dispute that federal law operates to compel Plaintiffs to maintain a relationship with an issuer or TPA that will provide the contraceptive coverage and to execute the self-certification or alternative notice. Their disagreement with Plaintiffs is about the significance of those compelled acts; in other words, the panel rejected the “adherents’ claim about the religious meaning of the undisputed operation of [] federal regulation[s].”

.. you can count on this one going before the Supremes . SCOTUS will not be able to avoid it . The Court could even be down one justice , though . Why ? ..

.. I think that Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is slowly dying . Especially since she has already escaped pancreatic cancer once [already] , she is living on borrowed time . She wants to do as much damage as she still can while she still lives . However , I am betting [especially with Chuck Grasseley in charge of the Senate Judiciary Cmte] that …. His Lordship will try to push thru a radical leftist as her replacement , and the GOP – controlled Senate will have nothing of it …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… I stand with Masterpiece Cakeshop …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,June 15th,2014

.. and its owner , Jack Phillips ..

.. Jack Phillips is an evangelical Christian . He founded his business in Lakewood , Colorado (a suburb of Denver) in the summer of 1993 . One would think that a small businessman , one who does cakes and other bakery products would not cause a big ruckus . One would be wrong ..

.. As an evangelical Christian , Jack Phillips will not do any events for same – sex ceremonies . He has done business with many same – sex couples for other events . He just will not do so for so – called ” same – sex weddings ” and other ceremonies of the like , because of his religious beliefs . As a result , a ” couple ” sued Phillips in the courts in 2012 …

.. [h/t — theRightScoop]..
.. [link] to the blog piece ..

.. The Colorado ” Civil Rights ” Commision upheld the act of an administrative law judge , finding Phillips and his business [Masterpiece Cakeshop] , guilty of discrimination in failing to serve the ” couple . ” It also ordered other ” remedial ” acts for Phillips to undertake . Why ?

.. The Commission has forgotten that Phillips has constitutional rights under the First Amendment , and that those apply to the states , courtesy of the 14th Amendment . Ergo , his constitutional rights to freedom of religion outweigh those created by statute by the State of Colorado . Colorado and other similarly activist states should remember that when they try to pull a stunt such as this …

Posted in legal opinion, legal strategy, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… It is Not Just about Same – Sex Marriage [#Boycott Mozilla]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Friday,April 11th,2014

.. it is about freedom of speech , of belief , and of thought , and the pursuit of happiness …

.. Ben Shapiro is an Internet friend of mine . He is an editor – at – large of Breitbart . com , and is the editor – in – chief of . I wanted to reprint his blog post from TruthRevolt , and encourage you to take off Mozilla ‘ s browser Firefox from your computer …

n Thursday, Mozilla, creator of Mozilla Firefox, forced the resignation of CEO Brendan Eich thanks to a $1,000 personal donation he made to a ballot initiative supporting traditional marriage in 2008.

The firing followed a vicious smear campaign against Eich by dating website OKCupid, in which OKCupid blocked Mozilla users from visiting their website, instead directing them to a message declaring that Eich was one of their “enemies.” He was an “enemy” because he held precisely the same position as Barack Obama in 2008, signed a private non-company check to that effect, had never discriminated against a gay person, and was now CEO of a company that had never discriminated against gay people. He was an enemy, in other words, because the thought police didn’t like what was going on in his head, and didn’t like the political activity in which he had engaged anonymously and on his own time.

Was OKCupid’s action legal? Sure.

Was Mozilla’s action in forcing his resignation legal? Of course.

Were both of them not only wrong, but morally disgusting?


This is not about the issue of same-sex marriage. I have personally taken the position that the government should get completely out of the business of marriage. If two men or women want to live together and get married through any private institution of their choosing, I’m fine with that; I hold the same position with regard to one man and one woman. And TruthRevolt is obviously not attempting to crack down on pro-same-sex marriage companies – Google is pro-same-sex marriage, and yet we recommend them as an alternative browser to Firefox.

This issue is far larger than the small and parochial same-sex marriage issue. It is about the chilling of political freedom by small sects of motivated political players. It is the same issue as A&E’s suspension of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson over his comments paraphrasing the Book of Corinthians. It is the issue of McCarthyistic blacklisting and voter intimidation and ultimately, the issue of utilizing power to silence dissent. In America, we typically prize freedom of speech. And while OKCupid and company may be exercising their market power in fully legal fashion, they’re certainly advocates for quashing freedom of speech.

Imagine a world in which all gay people in America were at risk of firing thanks to religious bigots mobilizing against their perceived sins. Imagine a world in which market power wasn’t just utilized to get gay people fired, but government became a tool of the anti-gay mob. Would that be wrong? Now switch the parties. That’s reality.

Andrew Sullivan, openly gay columnist, has written precisely the same thing:

The whole episode disgusts me – as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today – hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else – then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.

Lesbian commentator Tammy Bruce was more succinct: Mozilla, she said, “caved to the Gay Gestapo.” She added, “Gay civil rights movement began to make sure people weren’t punished for who they were. Now look what you’ve become #gaygestapo @mozilla.”

This is precisely what TruthRevolt was designed to fight. While others may sit still as the left manipulates the market to achieve its ends of shutting up Americans, we will fight back using their own tactics. We, too, can use our market power. We encourage others to do so. We do this not because we want more boycotts, but because we want mutually assured destruction. Since the inception of TruthRevolt, we have stated openly that the moment the left stops engaging in these bully tactics, we will stop responding in kind. Otherwise, we will punch back twice as hard.

It is no coincidence that those backing Mozilla’s decision are the same folks who support the government’s attempts to force businessowners to violate their religious precepts. If anyone believes that the totalitarian left has qualms about using government to achieve their desired ends – that the left will stop at boycotts — he or she should think about what it will be like when it’s not OKCupid, but the government, wielding the club.

This is a fight for freedom, whether or not you agree with Eich’s political perspective. Privately-held political beliefs are no excuse for wheeling out the stocks and demanding public canings. To stop such activity, we will have to fight fire with fire.

We are not powerless in this fight. TruthRevolt will not stand idly by. Neither should you.

Sign our petition, and uninstall Firefox today.

.. LEC again — Thanks , Ben , and well said ! …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Earth to States [Religious Liberty] …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Friday,December 6th,2013

.. people ‘ s First Amendment rights to religious liberty outweight those of the creation of a ” Human Rights Commission . “

.. people do not forfeit their 1st Amendment rights when , for example , they go into business . They have a right to choose to uphold their religious principles when they choose not to serve so – called ” gay ” couples . The case that I am following is that of Masterpiece Cakeshop , a business in (I think) Boulder , Colorado . The Colorado state commision governing this case is threatening to impose crippling fines on Jack Phillips (the owner) if he continues to refuse to serve so – called ” same – sex ” couples .

.. These ” gay ” couples can get their products and services elsewhere , in particular , florists and cakeshops who do not wish to associate themselves with so – called ” gay ” weddings . These ” weddings ” are nothing of the kind , and judicial doctrine does not allow a ” human rights ” code to impose a duty to serve on these folks .

.. These folks do not believe in so – called ” gay ” marriages , or anything of the sort . They believe that marriage is the holy covenant , the act of coupling in between one man and one woman . In their case , no state ” human rights commission  ” can redefine those rights , or deny one ‘ s Constitutional rights .

.. The ” human rights ordinance ” (cover for non – discrimination against gays and lesbians , as well as ” same – sex ” couples) does not , repeat , not outweigh the constitutional rights of others .

.. Please try to remember that …

Posted in constitutional opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Comments Off on … Earth to States [Religious Liberty] …

… I wanted to Revisit This [Religious Freedom in Business] …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,September 5th,2013

.. this is in regards to the small businesses , one in Colorado , and one in Oregon , who are currently under fire for exercising their religious beliefs .

.. I wanted to bring in this quote from the one article …
“Religious freedom is a fundamental right in America and it’s something that we champion at the ACLU,” said Mark Silverstein, the

English: The Bill of Rights, the first ten ame...

English: The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution Česky: Originál Listiny práv, prvních deseti dodatků k Ústavě Spojených států amerických Deutsch: Die Bill of Rights genannten ersten zehn Zusatzartikel zur US-amerikanischen Verfassung, die den Bürgern bestimmte Grundrechte garantieren Español: La Carta de Derechos de los Estados Unidos, el término por el que se conocen las diez primeras enmiendas de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos de América (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

legal director of the group in Colorado, which filed the complaint last year on behalf of Mullins and Craig. “We are all entitled to our religious beliefs and we fight for that. But someone’s personal religious beliefs don’t justify breaking the law by discriminating against others in the public sphere.”

.. Someone should remind the AntiChrist Lunatics Union that our religious beliefs are religious liberties , enshrined in the U.S. Constitution . Also , in the Bill of Rights , in the 1st Amendment , as regards the freedom of religion and religious practice . Exercising those religious beliefs in public is not discrimination , and does not discriminate against others . People are freely exercising their religious beliefs , and that does not stop in  the business sphere .

.. Those idiots keep on enacting those so – called “human rights” laws , and imposing their socialist acts on us all . They should remember , those laws are only laws , and they are not constitutional amendments . The law is subservient to the constitution , and those “so – called sexual orientation” laws are unconstitutional .

Posted in legal opinion, personal opinion, religious opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… These Small Proprietors should Counterattack [Religious Rights being overrun by “Human Rights” laws]

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,September 5th,2013

.. these companies are being set upon by so – called “Human Rights” laws . Basically , these laws are imposing a secular code of humanist justice upon those of us who are believers , and our religious beliefs are being thoroughly trampled upon . This is the height of outrageous .

.. Those local and state bodies should remember that the great mass of the people are those who are religious believers . We are all of different faiths , but of one common set of beliefs . Those beliefs are spelled out in the individual rights set out in the Bill of Rights . They include , but are not limited to , our religious faith . Just because one goes into business in the common public sphere , does not limit one ‘ s ability to practice one ‘ s faith .

.. These so  – called “human rights” laws  have marched waaaaay over the line .  Many folks who are involved in this are pro – family and pro – traditional marriage . They believe that it should be limited to between one man and one woman . They should not and must not have their rights to religious freedom and freedom of property limited because they do not believe in so – called “same – sex marriage . ” These idiots are trying to impose their humanist beliefs on others , and it goes way beyond the pale of constitutionality .

.. The pro – family and pro – marriage forces should counterattack . There are laws limiting the infringement of civil rights , and usually they are put to use to the loonie left . Guess what ? They apply to everyone , and the Loonies are going to have to be made to find that out the hard way . Either there is religious freedom for all , or there is no religious freedom at all . Our constitution and the Bill  of Rights should still mean something .

.. these are links (ironically , to the Huffington Post) about a small local cake bakery who was forced to close because of their religious beliefs . They believe in the traditional  definition of marriage , and do not believe that they should be penalized for doing business in public , and remaining faithful to their religion . They believe that they can do both . They should and hopefully will fight back … [link1] … [link2]

Posted in legal info, legal opinion, moral opinion, personal opinion, religious opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Our Uniformed Military (enlisted & officers) have as much right to Religious Liberty as Anyone Else …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,July 25th,2013

.. Since when do outside groups have the right to impose religious censorship on our nation ‘ s military ? This is crazy !

.. Good Lord , they have enough to worry about , as it is . Their first job , Job One , is our nation ‘ s defense . Their efforts are second to none . Their abilities to perform their jobs and their missions are second to none . Our nation ‘ s military , its technology , its strategy , and its ability are second to none .

.. So when it is said that having religious faith , and showing the same , and speaking about it , is against the good order and discipline

English: The Bill of Rights, the first ten ame...

English: The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

in the military service . When does the civilian leadership have the right to impose anti – religious censorship , impinging on the religious freedom and rights of our fellow citizens in uniform ? Why ?

.. These radicals , such as the “Military Religious Freedom Foundation ” and the ” Freedom from Religion Foundation ” have perverted our Constitution , and its freedoms and rights . Most of all , our religious freedoms , for civilian and military alike , in the First Amendment to the Constitution , in the Bill of Rights . What it stands for is not the prohibition of religion in the public sphere . Not at all . It stand for the free exercise thereof , and the prohibition of a “state church.” Not for the suppresion of religion and faith .

.. Our history , military and otherwise , is clear on those points . First and foremost , is the 1st Amendment ‘ s targeting of religious freedom . Our founders wanted to be absolutely sure and clear that all of us have the free and clear right to practice our faith , or to not practice it , if that is our choice . Also , the provision of chaplains of various faiths . These people (men and women) are priests , pastors , rabbis , and imans , there to minister to the religious needs of our troops & Marines . Most of all , without impignging on the good order and discipline in the ranks , is their rights to make statements of religious and moral issues , that are a part of their job as a religious leader from the pulpit .

.. I post this article from Breitbart Media ‘ s “Big Government” of the insanity that is going on in the current atmosphere . It is time that a thorough cleansing of the anti – religious bigots from the public sphere take place …

A Christian chaplain in the military is being officially censored for engaging in free speech, and anti-Christian activists are demanding he be punished.

Lt. Col. Kenneth Reyes is a Christian chaplain currently serving in the U.S. Air Force. He is stationed at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska. As an ordained clergyman whose duties are to provide religious instruction and spiritual counseling, he has a page on the base’s website called “Chaplain’s Corner.”

Reyes recently wrote an essay entitled, “No Atheists in Foxholes: Chaplains Gave All in World War II.” This common saying is attributed to a Catholic priest in World War II, made famous when President Dwight D. Eisenhower said during a 1954 speech: “I am delighted that our veterans are sponsoring a movement to increase our awareness of God in our daily lives. In battle, they learned a great truth that there are no atheists in the foxholes.”

As reported by Fox News’s Todd Starnes, when Reyes referenced this famous line in his essay, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) contacted the base commander, Col. Brian Duffy, demanding he take action on Reyes’s “anti-secular diatribe.”

MRFF’s letter says that by Reyes’s “use of the bigoted, religious supremacist phrase, ‘no atheists in foxholes,’ he defiles the dignity of service members.” They accuse him of violating military regulations.

My legal research on this issue uncovered no regulation prohibiting Reyes’ speech, which looks like expression protected by the free speech and religious freedom provisions of the First Amendment. Military leaders did not respond to Fox’s inquiries asking the Air Force to identify any such rules.

Nonetheless, only five hours after MRFF’s complaint, the essay was removed from the website. Duffy has profusely apologized to MRFF for not stopping this religious leader from sharing religious thoughts.

But this response—which again appears to be a violation of Reyes’s First Amendment rights—is insufficient for MRFF. They said, “Faith based hate, is hate all the same,” and, “Lt. Col. Reyes must be appropriately punished.” (Emphasis added).

So MRFF is saying that the coercive power of government must be used to punish a military officer, who is also an ordained Christian minister, for making ordinary religious references consistent with his faith.

Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin of the Family Research Council—one of the leaders of a new religious liberty coalition for the military—responded, “A chaplain has been censored for expressing his beliefs about the role of faith in the lives of service members… Why do we have chaplains if they aren’t allowed to fulfill that purpose?”

MRFF is activist Mikey Weinstein’s organization. He called observant Christians “fundamentalist monsters” seeking to impose a “reign of theocratic terror,” and he described sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military as an act of “spiritual rape” that makes believers “enemies of the Constitution” who are committing an act of “sedition and treason” against this nation.

The Obama-Hagel Defense Department and Air Force have met with Weinstein and MRFF over a period of four years and recently told Congress that there are no problems with suppressing religious speech in the military. However, because this growing wave of anti-Christian extremism has been exposed to the public, the U.S. House has inserted new religious liberty protections for military members in pending legislation.

President Obama threatens to veto the legislation. Reyes’s story makes it more likely that Congress will stand its ground and fight to protect the religious liberty of him and countless others in the military, as those service members continue risking their lives to fight for all Americans.

Breitbart News legal columnist Ken Klukowski is senior fellow for religious liberty at the Family Research Council and on faculty at Liberty University School of Law. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.


Posted in military affairs, personal opinion, religious opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Obamaphobia is …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,June 18th,2013

.. standing for the rule of law  , not the rule of one man ..

.. standing for the rights of the individual , not the rights of a group ..

.. traditional judeo – islamic – christian values , which , when practiced the way they are supposed to be , are not mutually exclusive of each other , or to each other ..

.. the proper separation of powers , where the branches support each other , and their roles , not obstruct each other , and intefere with their work ..

.. religious liberty , not atheistic tyranny ..

.. I have more , add your own , please , keep it clean ! ..

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… You Idiots ever hear of Religious Liberty ?!?! …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Wednesday,April 10th,2013

… You Idiots Ever Hear of Religious Liberty ?!?!

(and the 1st Amendment to the Constitution)

.. The attorney general of the State of Washington has filed a lawsuit in Benton County Superior Court [ ] against a Richland florist who refused to provide flowers for the wedding of longtime gay customers, citing her religious opposition to same-sex marriage . ..   .. The state’s suit against Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts , came just days after the Attorney General’s Office wrote to ask that Stutzman reconsider her position and agree to comply with the state’s anti – discrimination laws . ..

.. Bristol believes the state is attempting to make an example of his client and said she intends to stand by her convictions . ..   .. Making floral arrangements for a wedding is a creative process, not as simple as handing a couple some flowers, he said. “It takes artistic talent to do that . All artists consider what they do to be an expression.   .. “ I one hundred percent believe this is a freedom-of-expression and free – exercise – of – religion issue , ” he said. “What the government is saying here is that you don’t have the right to free religious exercise . ” ..

[link to story here]

.. p . s . — you cannot use the public accomodation doctrine to overcome her religious freedom , and rights to free expression . Also , sexual orientation is not a “protected class,” and never should be . There should not be any “protected classes at all …”

… credit goes to Dan Riehl , at RiehlWorldView , for the story , and the MahaRushie for the pub …

… p.s. — Benton County is in southern Washington state . The Columbia River wraps around the county on its North , East ,  and South Sides …

Posted in legal opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »