US law trumps a mythical god's law. On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 11:05:45 AM UTC-5, Travis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > *Courts say living by Christian faith illegal * > > Posted By *Bob Unruh* On 06/28/2016 > > It started out with hints of official, United States governmental > oppression of Christianity in the wake of the Supreme Court’s marriage > decision, such as “discrimination” complaints against people who refuse to > celebrate homosexual behavior. > > Bakers, photographers and marriage-venue owners were penalized, and > government officials publicly vilified their Christian faith and ordered > them, in some case, to be re-educated. > > Now two rulings have cemented the American court system’s determination > that Christians must not be allowed to express their faith in public life. > > The U.S. Supreme Court left standing a lower court decision that > Washington state pharmacists who are Christian must violate their faith in > order to practice their profession. The second decision came from a federal > judge in Mississippi with a reputation for ruling against Christians who > said county clerks in the state must violate their faith to hold their > office. > > The Supreme Court’s move alarmed Justice Samuel Alito, who warned there > was evidence that the “impetus for the adoption of the regulations was > hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and > contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the state.” > > In the Mississippi ruling from Judge Carlton Reeves, who once punished a > school district for allowing a voluntary prayer at an optional awards > ceremony, said clerks in the state cannot cite their religious beliefs to > excuse themselves from issuing marriage licenses to homosexual duos. > > That case already had been litigated in Kentucky, where Judge David > Bunning reached the same conclusion, ordering Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis > to violate her faith. When she declined, Bunning abruptly jailed her with > no due process. > > But Kentucky’s legislature simply adopted a provision protecting clerks’ > religious rights, and Davis asked that the federal case be closed. > > In Mississippi, however, not even action by state lawmakers was sufficient > for Reeves, who ordered not only that clerks be required to provide > services that violate their faith, they must be given “formal notice” of > the requirement that they violate their faith. > > *Documentation of hate against Christians* > > WND previously has documented > <http://wnd.com/2015/04/courts-conclude-faith-loses-to-gay-demands/> the > Big List of cases where there have been government rulings that removed > religious rights from Christians. > > Missouri State University, for example, dismissed a student > <http://wnd.com/?p=3254224> from a counseling program for expressing > opposition to counseling same-sex duos. > > In Iowa, Gortz Haus Gallery and bistro owners Betty and Richard Odgaard > were sued by a homosexual duo. > <http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/19/fearing-another-lawsuit-christian-business-owners-stopped-hosting-all-weddings-now-their-business-is-dead/> > > In Texas, David and Edie Delmore, who own a bakery, were approached by > Ben Valencia and Luis Marmolejo about a cake for a “gay wedding.” > <http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/christian-baker-home-damaged-son-threatened-rape-refusing-bake-gay-wedding-cake/> > > They declined, referring the potential customers to other bakers. > Subsequently, they claim their home has been vandalized and their son has > been threatened with rape by a broken beer bottle. > > One business even was attacked for answering a hypothetical question on > the issue. > > Family owned Memories Pizza in Indiana <http://wnd.com/?p=1862875> came > into the crosshairs of homosexuals when an owner was interviewed by a local > TV station in the aftermath of the adoption of the state’s religious > freedom law. Responding to a reporter’s question, the owner said that while > her restaurant serves “gays,” her Christian faith wouldn’t allow her to > cater a “gay wedding.” The restaurant immediately became a focal point of > outrage toward the law, with threats of death and destruction, causing the > owners to shut down their business. > > *The pharmacists* > > It was the case involving the pharmacists that drew outrage from a > minority on the Supreme Court. Washington state adopted rules forcing > pharmacists to sell abortion pills to customers regardless of religious > beliefs that consider abortion tantamount to murder. > > The state provided no exception for religious beliefs and refused to allow > an accommodation that would simply allow pharmacists with abortion > objections to refer customers to another location. > > After the Supreme Court refused to even review the case, Senior Counsel > Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom > <http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org> said all Americans “should be > free to peacefully live and work consistent with their faith without fear > of unjust punishment, and no one should be forced to participate in the > taking of human life.” > > “We had hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court would take this opportunity to > reaffirm these long-held principles,” she said. > > Waggoner noted the state of Washington “allows pharmacists to refer > customers for just about any reason – except reasons of conscience.” > > “Singling out people of faith and denying them the same freedom to refer > is a violation of federal law. All 49 other states allow conscience-based > referrals, which are fully supported by the American Pharmacists > Association, the Washington Pharmacy Association, and 36 other pharmacy > associations. Not one customer in Washington has been denied timely access > to any drug due to a religious objection. As the trial court found, the > government designed its law for the ‘primary – if not *sole* – purpose’ > of targeting religious health care providers. We are disappointed that the > high court didn’t take this case and uphold the trial court’s finding.” > > Alito, whose concerns were endorsed by Chief Justice John Roberts and > Justice Clarence Thomas, said the case is “an ominous sign.” > > “At issue are Washington State regulations that are likely to make a > pharmacist unemployable if he or she objects on religious grounds to > dispensing certain prescription medications,” the three agreed. > > “There are strong reasons to doubt whether the regulations were adopted > for – or that they actually serve – any legitimate purpose. And there is > much evidence that the impetus for the adoption of the regulations was > hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and > contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the state. > > “Yet the Ninth Circuit held that the regulations do not violate the First > Amendment, and this court does not deem the case worthy of our time,” Alito > wrote. > > “If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the > years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great > concern…. Ralph’s [pharmacy] has raised more than ‘slight suspicion’ that > the rules challenged here reflect antipathy toward religious beliefs that > do not accord with the views of those holding the levers of government > power. I would grant certiorari to ensure that Washington’s novel and > concededly unnecessary burden on religious objectors does not trample on > fundamental rights.” > > Judie Brown, president of American Life League, shared the concern: > > “The Supreme Court is not interested in protecting the conscience rights > of Christians. If this does not send shock waves down the spines of every > believer in America who knows the difference between good and evil, not to > mention what God expects of them, then they do not realize what is at > stake. Five members of the Supreme Court of the United States apparently > believe that their power is omnipotent. That perception of their power is > not only wrong, but dangerous. God’s power is Supreme; theirs is not!” > > The issue there is that previous Supreme Court precedent not only bans > favoritism to a religion, it also bans antipathy toward a religion or its > beliefs. > > *Mississippi’s fight* > > In Mississippi, Judge Carlton Reeves has established a reputation for > going for the jugular when an issue of faith is at play. > > He first ruled that a Mississippi school student’s rights were violated > <http://wnd.com/2015/07/girl-complains-about-school-prayer-wins-7500/> > because she was offended by a prayer at a public school event. > > Then he reached off campus, fining the school $7,500, for allowing a > pastor to prayer at an optional awards ceremony. > > The judge determined that Rankin County schools must work harder to excise > Christian faith from its students’ education, and he threatened the > district with a $10,000 fine if it happens again. > > His latest broadside to Christian beliefs, the AP reported, was in a > lawsuit over same-sex marriage. > > Reeves said “clerks cannot cite their own religious beliefs to recuse > themselves from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples,” AP reported. > > He also demanded that all 82 clerks be given formal notice. > > “Mississippi’s elected officials may disagree with [the same-sex marriage > mandate], of course, and may express that disagreement as they see fit – by > advocating for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision, for > example,” the judge ordered. “But the marriage license issue will not be > adjudicated anew after every legislative session.” > > The report said Mississippi Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves, no relation to the > activist judge, pointed to the crux of the problem immediately. > > “If this opinion by the federal court denies even one Mississippian of > their fundamental right to practice their religion, then all Mississippians > are denied their 1st Amendment rights,” Tate Reeves said. “I hope the > state’s attorneys will quickly appeal this decision to the 5th Circuit to > protect the deeply held religious beliefs of all Mississippians.” > > *Message to Reeves* > > It was the ruling by Reeves regarding the school that later created a stir > in Mississippi. > > His decision resulted in the school’s band being benched from a halftime > show at a football game, because as part of their musical presentation, > they included the melody from “How Great Thou Art.” Columnist Todd > Starnes at Fox News said the judge may issue an order, but the people may > not necessarily bend to his whim. > <http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/08/21/school-band-told-to-stop-performing-how-great-thou-art.html> > > He reported the people decided “a message had to be sent to the likes of > Judge Reeves.” > > “And what they did – would become known as the musical shot heard around > the world. During halftime of Friday night’s game – a lone voice began to > sing the forbidden song. ‘Then sings my soul, my Savior God to Thee,’ the > singer sang. Brittany Mann was there and she witnessed the entire moment of > defiance,” Starnes wrote. > > “We were just sitting there and then one by one people started to stand,” > she told Starnes. “At first, it started out as a hum but the sound got > louder and louder.” > > Soon “hundreds” were singing. > > “At that moment I was so proud of my town – coming together and taking a > stand for something we believe in,” she told Starnes. “It breaks my heart o > see where our country is going – getting farther and farther away from the > Christian beliefs that our country was founded on.” > > URL to article: > *http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/courts-say-living-by-christian-faith-illegal/ > <http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/courts-say-living-by-christian-faith-illegal/> * > > > ------------------------------ > [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> > > > > __._,_.___ > ------------------------------ > Posted by: "Beowulf" <[email protected] <javascript:>> > ------------------------------ > > > Visit Your Group > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmb2s0NmYzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0NjcyOTk5NTg-> > > > > [image: Yahoo! Groups] > <https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZWxtMG0yBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ2NzI5OTk1OA--> > > • Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> • > Unsubscribe <javascript:> • Terms of Use > <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> > > __,_._,___ > > >
-- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
