Tag Archives: Supreme Court
There it is again: it’s not about the person, it’s about the message. Once again, this might sound like a free speech case (and there’s an element of that here) but this is about private property rights. So far Jack has proven over many years that he is willing to serve any person. However, he is not willing to promote every message. That is a value every free person holds dear. The Jewish person does not want to be forced to promote Naziism. The African-American does not want to be forced to promote white supremacy. Are you seeing the point? Every person has the right to discriminate based on his or her sincerely held convictions. Yep, you read that right, we all have the right to discriminate.
It’s a chilling reality to realize that if the government can force Jack Phillips, under threat of legal penalty, to violate his core convictions, that same government can (and will) force us all to violate our conviction at some point. No one that loves liberty and freedom should desire to see such authority placed in the hands of any government.
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?
Last year a Republican controlled House and Senate passed a bill to defund Planned Parenthood of all taxpayer money. This was a bi-partisan bill that had overwhelming support in Congress. And yet, President Obama vetoed the bill and sent more than $500 million dollars to the abortion merchant.
The American people are tired of funding Planned Parenthood. Republicans and Democrats alike say that tax money should not be used to fund a “non-profit” organization that profits from killing babies. But Planned Parenthood doesn’t just profit from killing babies, they actively seek to kill the unborn so they can sell their body parts. It’s as gruesome and evil as it sounds.
Now that the election is over and we have a new president-elect in Donald Trump, I have composed my top 10 list of the thoughts I am most curious about. A Trump presidency is a mystery at this point as we are still uncertain about what, exactly, he will do. While I did not support or vote for Trump, I, like many other Americans am curious as to what this epic political upset will look like. To that end, this list is a compilation of the thoughts I am most curious about regarding Trump as well as the thoughts that occupied my mind directly after the election.
10 – The Electoral College is…terrible. I’ve watched the results of the last 3 presidential elections with curiosity as the electoral map begins to form. Go ahead, Google 2012 or 2016 electoral map and see what appears. I suppose I understand the idea behind the Electoral College but, practically speaking, it stinks. It’s time to get back to making sure every single vote counts with a popular vote. If it’s good enough for Senators, and Congressman, and Mayors, and Governors, it’s good enough for the president as well.
The more I read the less I’m sure of. Is Kim Davis an example that Christians should take note of for her refusal to compromise her religious convictions? Is she a criminal interfering with “the law of the land” that needs to either “get with the program” or get out of the way?
One thing I am sure of is that most people, by now, have at least heard of Kim Davis. And I am fairly certain that most people have made up their mind about whether they view Davis as a hero or a villain. But all the noise and static in the media and on blogs takes time to wade through.
At the risk of personifying irony by becoming part of the noise and static, I wanted to share some thoughts on what could, potentially, be one of the most crucial incidents in our nation’s history.
There seems to be a grave misunderstanding taking place that could alter the course of events if not adequately cleared up. Some are inclined to think that the Supreme Court of the United States makes laws in our country when, in fact, they do not. The Supreme Court has no authority to make laws but, in reality, is to uphold existing laws. It is Congress that has the task of making laws. For this reason Kim Davis is well within the bounds of law to refuse to sign a marriage certificate for a same-sex couple. Why?
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.
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.”