Category: Public Policy
Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling that Jack cannot be targeted for his faith, the government in Colorado is targeting Jack for his faith. The Colorado government has decided that Jack simply should not be allowed to do business. It appears that the government has made up its mind that people of faith, people that want to live and do business according to their sincerely held beliefs, don’t belong in the pubic space.
Are we really about to see white millennials and African-Americans begin supporting Republican candidates? What are the implications for the 2018 mid-term elections?
Will Miss America set an example of what freedom of speech and diversity of thought looks like in a civilized and tolerant society? How will judges score the contestants if scoring is based on “what comes out of their mouth”? From a distance it appears that judging will be based on whether each individual judge actually agrees with what comes out of the contestants mouth. That poses a serious problem.
What has been revealed is that many people are simply unaware of exactly what Roe v. Wade is. Many people think reversing this legislation would make abortion illegal in all 50 states. In fact, reversing Roe would simply return the issue to the states to decide. I would think that people that claim to be “pro-choice” would welcome the ability of Americans to “choose” whether to legalize abortion or not. More choice is better, right?
All the drama will reveal that the feminist movement does not, in fact, represent a majority of American women. Just as the #metoo movement revealed that Hollywood is completely out of touch with the values most Americans hold dear; nominating Judge Barrett will reveal the feminist movement as a fringe group out of touch with the values of American women.
This precedent, established by The Supreme Court of the United States, will have a rippling effect far and wide. The necessary reminder that the government has no business compelling anyone to speak will be heard loud and clear. Lifenews.com has been following this case closely. The pro-life news website noted that similar laws have been struck down in Austin, TX, Baltimore and Montgomery County, MD, and New York City.
It’s understandable that parents are upset. Their daughters are, essentially, being forced to compete against male athletes. This 100 meter race in Connecticut was largely decided before it even began. It was little more than a race between the two males for first and second place; with the females vying for third.
If a white person dresses as a white person because she finds that person beautiful, is that a problem? Is beauty no longer in the eyes of the beholder? Are white people no longer allowed to be proud? Does this apply to all whites (German, Irish, British, South African) or just American whites? It seems the people telling us not to be racist encourage a lot of racist habits.
This is where the worldview of many people is often inconsistent. People want to use IVF and have no concern for the loss of life due to this method of making babies. But when the loss is something they did not intend, suddenly it becomes litigious. Would a judge in this case be so clear in his worldview as to declare the couple has no standing to bring the suit because they took part in the intentional killing of human embryos and are, therefore, as guilty as the clinic?
I’m certainly not trying to be a killjoy in the wake of a decision that brings good news for religious freedom and free speech. But I do want to be realistic and understand the ruling in its context and scope. To do that we need to understand what the ruling did not do.