Tag Archives: court
Adamson made it very clear that he would be willing to print shirts for the group if it did not promote the homosexual lifestyle, which he told the newspaper. This shows that he has no animosity towards any person and he certainly does not hate anyone. Adamson simply wants to live and do business according to his religious convictions. And he does not want the government to tell him he must support a message that violates those convictions.
Adamson also told The Blaze that it was about the message of the pride festival and the fact that it would violate his convictions to support that message:
In a stunning case of injustice, the Washington state Supreme Court ruled against Barronelle Stutzman, a florist that has been a pillar in her community for decades. Her crime: living out her Christian faith in public.
As the owner of Arlene’s Flowers, Stutzman served everyone in her community. She served people without prejudice and built relationships with the people she served, including homosexuals. When one of her long-time customers asked her to create floral art for his same-sex wedding, Stutzman politely declined, saying it would violate her religious convictions. Stutzman did exactly the same thing as designer Theallat, she refused to associate with something she found to be wrong.
But this is what happens when you remove the clear definition of what a family is and is not. While the secular culture would quickly say that the definition of family is a “man-made” construct that can be altered. Christians would confess that God established the family and the definition of what construes a family is not alterable, similar to the definition of marriage. Yet man, is his defiance and rebellion against God is seeking to reverse and undo all that God has established. But by doing so, man will create greater trouble, confusion, and harm to people.
If you support homosexual “marriage,” you owe it to yourself to read what Matt Walsh says about a mother and son fighting for their right to “love” one another. All of the arguments used to defend and legitimize homosexual relationships and “marriage” are being used by the mother and son to defend and legitimize their incestuous relationship. And the things is: if you support the logic and reasoning used to defend homosexual “marriage” then you have no moral or legal ground to refuse to support incestuous relationships.
To prove that point, Walsh runs through the main arguments used to defend homosexual “marriage” and then applies them to incestuous relationships. Namely, he cites:
In 2014 a Virginia high school student began using the boys bathroom. Not a big deal until you realize that Gavin Grimm was born female and now identifies as male. The fact that Grimm started using the boys bathroom caused a stir in Gloucester County Virginia and a legal battle soon began.
The ACLU says that Grimm is being “stigmatized and isolated from the rest of his peers just because he is transgender.” Of course the ACLU was also disappointed with the recent court decision that will keep Grimm out of the boys bathroom.
What I find interesting is that the case came to light when parents of several kids at the school complained about Grimm using the boys bathroom. I can’t help but wonder how and why those parents learned of what was going on and decided to complain. Did their kids tell them what going on? Were they having conversations about a transgender person using the “wrong bathroom” with their kids? Were the kids uncomfortable with the situation?
If you don’t think elections have consequences you haven’t been paying attention for the past 8 years. If you think the upcoming election won’t have consequences, you simply have no grasp on our current cultural position.
The most pro-abortion president in American history has had 8 years in the White House. His tenure has produced two staunch abortion advocates on the Supreme Court. With these allies firmly in place for the rest of their lives the high court of our country currently stands firmly with the abortion industry. That realty has had a devastating effect on the efforts of individual states to pass common sense laws to protect women and unborn children from the barbarism of abortion.
The most recent setback to efforts of pro-life advocates came from the Supreme Court ruling in the Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt case. The court decided that requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges to local hospitals and requiring abortion clinics to adhere to the same building standards as ambulatory surgical centers were unconstitutional and “not medically necessary.”
To break this down, which will help understand the absurdity of the pro-abortion position and the court’s ruling, let’s make sure we understand exactly what these two laws were seeking to accomplish.
A federal appeals court has decided that the New York DMV can refuse to issue a license plate stating simply “choose life” because the DMV (and court) finds the plate “patently offensive.”
The rejection based on the “patently offensive” criteria is the same measure used to ban pornography from public view. The court ruled that since the message of life is “patently offensive” to so many New Yorkers, it could cause road rage, and therefore it is acceptable to ban.
Where do I start in criticizing this absurd ruling by the court?
Let’s start with the idea that it is better to ban a license plate someone might find offensive than to allow on the grounds that it may cause an incident of road rage. First of all, if adults are not capable of driving on the road with another car carrying a license plate with a message they disagree with without engaging in road rage – I’m not sure they are fit to have a driver’s license. This line of reasoning is in itself “patently offensive” as it implies that people are not able to control themselves when faced with a message they disagree with.
Pastors can breathe a sigh of relief today as the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court decision to strike down the minister’s housing allowance as unconstitutional.
Previously, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) had argue that the housing allowance given to pastors was unconstitutional because it provided an unfair tax benefit to pastors, creating preferential treatment for religious messages. It was argued that the housing allowance violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the equal protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment. The lower court, with Judge Barbara Crabb ruling, agreed with the FFRF and ruled the housing allowance unconstitutional.
Though the ruling only affected pastors in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana, pastors across the country watched the case with serious interest knowing if the ruling was upheld it would soon spread.
The 7th Circuit determined that since the FFRF was never denied tax-exemption under the housing allowance tax code they had no standing concerning the issue:
A surprise decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the traditional definition of marriage in the states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. State bans against same-sex marriage were previously ruled unconstitutional by lower courts, setting up the decision by the Sixth Circuit.
This decision is not only a surprise to advocates of same-sex “marriage,” but is also surprising to traditional marriage advocates that have watched marriage bans struck down by numerous Appeal Court decision around the country. What is not a surprise though is that this decision by the Sixth Circuit all but guarantees that marriage will once again come before the Supreme Court. There is a very real possibility that by next summer a Supreme Court decision on the definition of marriage could be reached.
The Supreme Court has rejected appeals form five states, Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin, regarding the issue of marriage. This, effectively, legalizes same-sex “marriage” in those states. Some believe the issue of marriage is destined for a ruling from the Supreme Court and this appeals rejection could signal how the court will rule. Up to this point the court has stopped short of legalizing same-sex “marriage” for all 50 states, but this appeals rejection opens up speculation on what the court will do in the future.
Besides legalizing same-sex “marriage” in the five states seeking appeal to the Supreme Court, this decision will effectively legalize same-sex “marriage” in at least 6 other states in those appeals court jurisdictions, including West Virginia.
Concerning this decision by the Supreme Court ChristianNews.com recently wrote: