Tag Archives: SCOTUS
One element to this story (and others like it) that continues to intrigue me is that the customers could have gone to any other cake shop to get their cake. Do they really want to force someone to make a cake for their event under threat of government penalty? Will we next begin forcing artists to paint? Or forcing musicians to sing? What would be the difference between forcing a musician to write and sing a song for your same-sex wedding and forcing a baker to bake a cake? If one can be done, can’t the other?
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.
I’ve been saying this for years. And not just me, many voices concerned about the fallout of the legalization of same-sex “marriage” have said it.
If the government legalizes same-sex “marriage,” what legal or moral basis would there be to refuse to legalize polygamy or polyamory?
Let’s think logically for a moment. The U.S Supreme Court has found a “right” to same-sex “marriage” in the constitution. Often citing autonomy of adults and their ability to consent, SCOTUS decided that a civil right exists to allow homosexual adults to marry. If that is the case, then what possible moral of legal reasoning could there be to refuse to legalize polygamy and polyamory?
Go ahead, I’ll wait while you think about it.
Oh, you say it’s bad for the kids. I see. So not having a mother or a father – as in the case of same-sex “marriage” is acceptable, but having two or three moms or dads is not? Is that what you’re arguing? Come on, you need to do better than that.
The Supreme Court just ignored every argument for what is best for children and found a civil right for relationships in which kids will be denied one or the other – do you really think they will deny legalization of polygamy on the basis of kids having three moms of two dads? If the court doesn’t think it’s a big deal for a child to have no mom or no dad, they will surely not care if a child has multiple of one parent or another. Try again.
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.
This is a collection of articles for numerous sources commenting on the landmark decision by the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case against the Obama administration HHS mandate.
In what will be known as one of the biggest, most influential decisions the Supreme Court has made in the last decade, the court ruled that the government CANNOT force business owners to pay for drugs or devices that can cause an abortion. The HHS mandate, put in place by the Obama administration, demanded that all business owners provide contraception, birth control, and abortion drugs to their employers. Many business owners, seeking to live by their religious convictions against abortion, opposed the mandate. The Obama administration refused to give exemptions to these owners. Many have sued and won in lower courts, all such cases led to the Supreme Court case.
In the high court case both Hobby Lobby, owner by the Green family, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, owned by the Hahn family, argued that the mandate was unconstitutional and violated their first amendment rights to religious freedom. The case was closely watched as the implications would have devastating consequences on religious freedom in America.
But today, as we prepare to celebrate the 4th of July, a day of freedom, the court has ruled that religious freedom is still alive and the government cannot force people to violate their religious convictions.
Truly this is a victory for freedom and the unborn, and yet another crushing defeat for the Obama administration by the Supreme Court.
A press release from Alliance Defending Freedom carries comments by ADF senior counsel David Cortman and Conestoga president and CEO Anthony Hahn regarding the landmark victory:
You MUST WATCH this amazing video featuring women born in every year since Roe v. Wade was passed. The video chronicles milestones in the fight to defend life since 1973. I cannot urge you enough to watch this video and share it with others.
Then, let’s join with the women in this video to proclaim that “My generation WILL end abortion.”
If the video doesn’t appear automatically, please refresh your browser.
In your eagerness to celebrate New Year’s last week you might have missed some incredible news that made headlines across the nation. The news is so astonishing that it has liberal pundits and talking heads baffled and conservatives rejoicing for the decision handed down by Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor.
An AP article explains:
A case with incredible implications for the religious freedoms of Americans came to the Supreme Court recently. In Town of Greece v. Galloway the high court heard oral arguments as to whether or not a town council has the constitutional right to open with public prayer. This case has been ongoing for many years and finally made it to the Supreme Court on November 6th.
The last time the Supreme Court heard a public prayer case was in 1983 when it ruled in favor of public prayer in the Nebraska legislature in Marsh v. Chambers. The question now is whether or not the court will stay consistent in recognizing the constitutional right for any public assembly or body to open with prayer.