Tag Archives: ruling
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 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.
Evangelist Ray Comfort is known for walking around talking to people about the Ten Commandments on camera. He records the exchanges and puts them online in order to train people on one way to effectively share the Gospel. But his latest project has the potential to stir far more controversy.
Comfort has launched a new movie called “Audacity” – a movie about the biblical teaching on homosexuality.
While he was initially unsure about producing the movie, Comfort finally agreed and said the movie is nothing like anyone is expecting a Christian movie on this touchy subject to be. He recently said in an interview that the movie is “nothing like you would expect from a Christian movie about the subject of homosexuality.”
Comfort believes this movie will provide a new perspective to people, especially people supporting same-sex “marriage” or those believing people are born gay. Comfort said:
“There is a delightful portion in the movie where you watch pro-gay people change their minds on camera about the issue of whether or not homosexuals are born that way,” Comfort said. “This is simply because they were given another perspective. So, I think that there’s going to be a lot of mind-changing going on after people have watched.”
After the Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex “marriage” in all 50 states, the concern for many is how the ruling will affect churches and pastors. One can almost cut the tension with a knife as we await the first headline that a church and/or pastor has refused to perform a same-sex wedding.
Some say the Supreme Court made it clear that pastors, churches, and all people bound by religious convictions cannot be forced into violating their religious convictions. Justice Kennedy said in his remarks:
“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”
We’ve all heard and read about the recent marriage ruling by the Supreme Court. The number of articles, blog posts, and interviews commenting on this landmark ruling is astounding. That being true, there is no reason for me to comment on the ruling at this time.
Instead, I’ve constructed a detailed list of the articles posted by top voices on the issue. From research analysts, political analysts, pastors, theologians, and cultural commenters, these articles look at the decision from every viewpoint and angle.
I urge you to read some of these articles and have a well-constructed response to the inevitable conversation that you will be involved in soon. Don’t be unprepared. Be informed and able to clearly articulate your position.
What The Supreme Court Said:
Christianity Today: Here’s What Supreme Court Says about Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom
“So the question becomes: How will gay rights and religious rights be balanced? Below is what the justices said in today’s majority opinion and four dissents, as well as a summary of related survey data. Essentially, the majority believe the First Amendment gives religious groups and people “proper protection” to “continue to advocate” their beliefs on traditional marriage. But the dissenters are more skeptical, and concerned that “people of faith can take no comfort” in the ruling.”
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. Once they make a decision it is binding on all 50 states and there is little (if any) recourse for anyone opposed to the ruling. For this reason the pending decision regarding marriage is more than important, it is potentially historic.
The question everyone is wondering is whether or not the court will impose a sweeping decision on all 50 states that is – at best – controversial.
Let’s rewind a few years to the Roe v. Wade decision. This decision, which legalized abortion in all 50 states has been hailed as one of the most infamous decisions in U.S. history. This is primarily because it removed states’ rights to determine the issue within their borders. Rather than letting each state determine how to handle the issue, the court issued a sweeping ruling that was binding on all states.
To say that decision has been contested ever since would be a monumental understatement. The fact that pro-life laws are being passed on the state level at record rates is but one sign among many that the court made the wrong decision regarding abortion.
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:
After the Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to the Obama Administration’s HHS mandate, the administration promised a “fix” to make it all legal. True to their promise a new HHS mandate “fix” was released last week. Unfortunately, the new “fix” does nothing to protect the religious conscience and convictions of business owners and religious organizations.
The following articles provide a detailed analysis of the new “fix” and why it’s really nothing new and doesn’t really fix anything. Stay informed about this very critical issue. At stake is the ability for business owners to live and do business according to their religious convictions without fear of government reprisal. This is important because religious freedom is a cornerstone of our country. If the government can force a business owner to violate his/her religious convictions it won’t be long before every person can and will be made to do the same.
ADF COMMENT ON HHS MANDATE ‘ACCOMMODATION’