A cell-phone video has surfaced, uploaded to YouTube on November 10, 2018, taken with a cell phone, of a pair of male homosexuals screaming and castigating their son, Max, for having a Make America Great Again (MAGA) hat.
The video begins with Max asking his dads, “Can you give me my hat.”
One of the men, in a blue robe, says: “60 million people were killed in the last century because of shit like this, okay?”
Another man’s raised voice says: “Listen to me, you do not wear this in my house…you do not, in my house! … Get out!”
Man #1: “You know why I’m upset?”
Son, in an orange t-shirt: “Can I have that?”
Man #1: “You’ve lost your mind. This is not a political view, this is hate. You do not wear this … you do not wear it, Max.”
Man #2: “Get out!”
The dads scuffle with their son.
Man #2: “Get out of this house! Get out!”
Son: “You guys are crazy.”
Man #1: “You’re 22 years old, what do you know.”
Son: “You guys are crazy … You don’t know she goes to Sadie’s place … abusive….”
Man #2: “Get out! Go! and don’t be surprised when they win this ….”
The video ends with the son leaving and the front door closing.
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!
On October 30, 2018, after speaking at a forum on destroying market fundamenalism organized by the Center for Study of Responsive Law founded by Ralph Nader in 1968, Clifford told PJ Media that the right to vote should be taken away from heterosexual white males as a way to “save” democracy because a majority of them had voted for Donald Trump in 2016.
About the upcoming midterm elections, Clifford was asked what message or advice he would give the Demonrat Party. Clifford said:
“I’m not a campaign consultant and I think they [Democrats] have to get off the fact that Donald Trump is Donald Trump. Every voter knows that Donald Trump is Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton spent $450 million every day saying that Donald Trump is Donald Trump. I think they’ve got to tell the voters why they’re going to be better off with a Democratic House or a Democratic Senate rather than just say Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump every day… ‘Anti’ doesn’t get people out to vote enough. It’s got to help me….
I think it’s the only hope for democracy in America and I will be leading a great movement to prohibit straight white males, who I believe supported Donald Trump by about 85 percent, from exercising the franchiseand I think that will save our democracy.”
In a Sept. 23, 2016 essay for the Huffington Post, Clifford took issue with Donald Trump’s presidential campaign slogan of “One America, One God, One Flag”. Clifford archly and with malice associated the slogan with Nazism. He wrote:
I think this is a loose translation of “Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer” but my German is not very good.
So Clifford advocates banning straight white males from voting, which is racist, sexist and heterophobic, but he calls Trump a Nazi. Oh, the irony.
Then Clifford wrote:
But this One God thing has me worried. How do I know that Trump has chosen the right God for us to worship? I fear he could select the God of my Catholic childhood, a cantankerous old white manwho, according to the local clergy, was obsessed with 13 year-olds masturbating. “There goes Clifford again. Hey Mary give him another two centuries in purgatory. Maybe I should grow some hair on his hands.”
We know what Trump thinks of Mexicans. What if the pearly gates are not guarded not St. Peter but by Quetzalcoatl, and Huitzilopochtli is the big Kahuna. We could be in big trouble….
Even with demanding human sacrifice, Huitzilopochtli doesn’t look so bad. Baal, Marduk or Thor would be a big improvement.
Since Steven Clifford, by his own description is an “old white man,” and since I very much doubt he is advocating banning himself from voting, I can only conclude that Steven Clifford is a homosexual.
There is no Wikipedia entry on Steven Clifford, but here are his Facebook and Twitter. Bloomberg lists his business address, phone and fax as:
307 Westlake Avenue North
Seattle, Washington 98109
So if you are a heterosexual white male and you are thinking of not voting next Tuesday, you may lose your right to vote in the future.
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!
We sometimes drive past this location in beautiful Westport, Massachusetts. When I see it I chuckle, sometimes make a remark, and generally bore the other people in the car with my attempted humor.
But think about it. If there was a beautiful house and property for sale here, with an amazingly affordable price, would you overlook some misgivings about the implications, and snatch it up? Before you say, “Of course! I’m no idiot,” consider someone else who did exactly that. (Genesis 19)
Abraham’s relative, Lot, did something similar. He and Abraham had greatly prospered, so much so that they needed to go separate ways in order to not crowd each other. Lot requested the land near Sodom because it was better than the land Abraham was on. Abraham said said okay, and they split up.
Sweet deal! Great land! Lots of room! And for a low price!
But certain things were not right with this place. It was filled with people who were so violent, murderous and perverted that no stranger could pass through in safety. So bad in fact that God sent 3 angels to get Lot out so they could deal with the monsters who lived there. They extracted Lot and his family, and rained fire and sulfur on Sodom, leaving nothing alive.
So my question is, “When you are living on Sodom Road, do you feel okay about the presence of an Angel Shop and good deals on Firewood?”
“deplorable” as very bad; its synonyms include abominable, abysmal, ghastly, putrid, and repulsive.
“virulent” as dangerous, poisonous, hateful and violent.
“dregs of society” as the part of something that is considered unimportant and unwanted.
During the 2016 presidential campaign on September 9, 2016, although she means to rule over us as POTUS, Hillary Clinton contemptuously called millions of Americans “basket of deplorables”.
That’s arrogance that’s so off-the-scale, it’s Luciferian.
Last Saturday, Sept. 15, 2018, the former Vice President of the United States of America publicly called millions of Americans “virulent people” and “dregs of society”.
Biden made those remarks in his speech at the annual Human Rights Campaign dinner in Washington, D.C., September 15, 2018.
Human Rights Campaignis the largest LGBT civil rights advocacy group and political lobbying organization in the United States.
To an enthusiastic crowd of advocates of LGBTQ rights, Biden attacked the millions of Americans who support President Trump, accusing them of “intolerance” and committing a “crime” of prejudice by using religion or culture as a “license to discriminate”.
Biden said (beginning at the 38:23 mark in the CSPAN video):
“We face an administration and some of its most ardent right-wing supporters from the Ku Klux Klan…and the Alt Right are trying to undo all the progress you have made, that Barack [Obama] and I have made for you….
Using religion or culture as a license to discriminate demonize the community, individuals, to score political points is no more justifiable around the world than it is at home and our policies should reflect that. [Cheers and applause]
But despite losing in the courts and in the court of public opinion, these forces of intolerance remain determined to undermine and roll back the progress you all have made. This time they — not you — have an ally in the White House. They’re a small percentage of the American people, virulent people, some of them the dregs of society. And instead of using the full might of the executive branch to secure justice, dignity, safety for all, the president uses the White House as a literal, literal bully pulpit, callously exerting his power over those who have little or none.”
Yesterday, by a razor-thin margin of one, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 in favor of the absurd notion of same-sex marriage. Henceforth, homosexual couples must be allowed to marry in every state of the disunion.
The five (names in pink above) are Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor — 3 Jews (Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan) and 2 liberal Catholics (Kennedy, Sotomayor). The four dissenters (names in blue) are John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas — all Catholics.
But the 5-4 vote actually should be 3-4 because two justices who voted in favor of same-sex marriage, Ginsberg and Kagan, should have recused themselves (or removed by Chief Justice John Roberts) due to conflict of interest, both having performed homosexual marriages. Title 28, Part I, Chapter 21, Section 455 of the U.S. Code reads (source):
“Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority’s opinion (source):
“The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation…. No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were,” Kennedy wrote. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. … They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
“”It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it”?
Homosexual British actors Derek Jacobi and Ian McKellen, who star as swishy bitchy gay lovers in the British sitcom Vicious and are the grand marshals of this Sunday’s Gay Pride March in Manhattan, immediately put a mockery to that.
McKellen (l) and Jacobi (r)
In a Vine posted to BuzzFeed’s accounts, the two celebrated the court ruling with a mock marriage proposal from Jacobi to McKellen, although Jacobi already has a “husband,” Richard Clifford, with whom Jacobi registered their civil partnership in March 2006, four months after civil partnerships were introduced in the United Kingdom.
The four dissenting justices’ minority opinions deserve to be known. Here are excerpts (source).
From the dissenting opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas:
[T[his Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be….
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are? …
Understand well what this dissent is about:It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer….
The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage, and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife.” … There is no dispute that every State at the founding—and every State throughout our history until a dozen years ago—defined marriage in the traditional, biologically rooted way. The four States in these cases are typical. Their laws, before and after statehood, have treated marriage as the union of a man and a woman….
This Court’s precedents have repeatedly described marriage in ways that are consistent only with its traditional meaning…. Allowing unelected federal judges to select which unenumerated rights rank as “fundamental”—and to strike down state laws on the basis of that determination—raises obvious concerns about the judicial role….
The majority’s driving themes are that marriage is desirable and petitioners desire it.The opinion describes the “transcendent importance” of marriage and repeatedly insists that petitioners do not seek to “demean,” “devalue,” “denigrate,” or “disrespect” the institution. Ante, at 3, 4, 6, 28. Nobody disputes those points…. As a matter of constitutional law, however, the sincerity of petitioners’ wishes is not relevant.
When the majority turns to the law, it relies primarily on precedents discussing the fundamental “right to marry.” … None of the laws at issue in those cases purported to change the core definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman…. These precedents say nothing at all about a right to make a State change its definition of marriage, which is the right petitioners actually seek here…. Neither petitioners nor the majority cites a single case or other legal source providing any basis for such a constitutional right. None exists, and that is enough to foreclose their claim….
Same-sex couples remain free to live together, to engage in intimate conduct, and to raise their families as they see fit. No one is “condemned to live in loneliness” by the laws challenged in these cases—no one. Ante, at 28. At the same time, the laws in no way interfere with the “right to be let alone.” …
In sum, the privacy cases provide no support for the majority’s position, because petitioners do not seek privacy. Quite the opposite, they seek public recognition of their relationships, along with corresponding government benefits. Our cases have consistently refused to allow litigants to convert the shield provided by constitutional liberties into a sword to demand positive entitlements from the State…. Thus, although the right to privacy recognized by our precedents certainly plays a role in protecting the intimate conduct of same-sex couples, it provides no affirmative right to redefine marriage and no basis for striking down the laws at issue here….
It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” ante, at 15, why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” ante, at 22, serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?…
The majority’s understanding of due process lays out a tantalizing vision of the future for Members of this Court: If an unvarying social institution enduring over all of recorded history cannot inhibit judicial policymaking, what can? But this approach is dangerous for the rule of law. The purpose of insisting that implied fundamental rights have roots in the history and tradition of our people is to ensure that when unelected judges strike down democratically enacted laws, they do so based on something more than their own beliefs. The Court today not only overlooks our country’s entire history and tradition but actively repudiates it, preferring to live only in the heady days of the here and now….
The legitimacy of this Court ultimately rests “upon the respect accorded to its judgments.” … That respect flows from the perception—and reality—that we exercise humility and restraint in deciding cases according to the Constitution and law. The role of the Court envisioned by the majority today, however, is anything but humble or restrained. Over and over, the majority exalts the role of the judiciary in delivering social change….
Nowhere is the majority’s extravagant conception of judicial supremacy more evident than in its description— and dismissal—of the public debate regarding same-sex marriage…. What would be the point of allowing the democratic process to go on?…
Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role. They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves. They would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges….
The Court’s accumulation of power does not occur in a vacuum. It comes at the expense of the people.And they know it…. When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will inevitably be disappointed with the results. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are—in the tradition of our political culture—reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate. In addition, they can gear up to raise the issue later, hoping to persuade enough on the winning side to think again. “That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.” …
But today the Court puts a stop to all that. By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court removes it from the realm of democratic decision.There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to be the sort of thing courts usually decide…. Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriagemight be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause….
Today’s decision…creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1….
Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage…. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage…. There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.
Perhaps the most discouraging aspect of today’s decision is the extent to which the majority feels compelled to sully those on the other side of the debate…. By the majority’s account, Americans who did nothing more than follow the understanding of marriage that has existed for our entire history—in particular, the tens of millions of people who voted to reaffirm their States’ enduring definition of marriage—have acted to “lock . . . out,” “disparage,” “disrespect and subordinate,” and inflict “[d]ignitary wounds” upon their gay and lesbian neighbors…. These apparent assaults on the character of fairminded people will have an effect, in society and in court.… Moreover, they are entirely gratuitous. It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s “better informed understanding” as bigoted….
If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it. I respectfully dissent.
From the dissenting opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas:
I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy….
Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.
Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to. Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work….
When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so….
But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect….
Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman. This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy….
[T]his Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans19), or even a Protestant of any denomination…. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.
But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitutionfor all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since…. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.
The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic…. Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”23 (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”24 (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) … I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.
From the dissenting opinion by Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia:
The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty. Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a “liberty” that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect. Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government. This distortion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.
The majority’s decision today will require States to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages entered in other States largely based on a constitutional provision guaranteeing “due process” before a person is deprived of his “life, liberty, or property.” I have elsewhere explained the dangerous fiction of treating the Due Process Clause as a font of substantive rights. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 811–812 (2010) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). It distorts the constitutional text, which guarantees only whatever “process” is “due” before a person is deprived of life, liberty, and property.U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, §1. Worse, it invites judges to do exactly what the majority has done here—“‘roa[m] at large in the constitutional field’ guided only by their personal views” as to the “‘fundamental rights’” protected by that document….
By straying from the text of the Constitution, substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority. Petitioners…ask nine judges on this Court to enshrine their definition of marriage in the Federal Constitution and thus put it beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire Nation.That a “bare majority” of this Court…is able to grant this wish, wiping out with a stroke of the keyboard the results of the political process in over 30 States, based on a provision that guarantees only “due process” is but further evidence of the danger of substantive due process….
The majority claims these state laws deprive petitioners of “liberty,” but the concept of “liberty” it conjures up bears no resemblance to any plausible meaning of that word as it is used in the Due Process Clauses….
Even assuming that the “liberty” in those Clauses encompasses something more than freedom from physical restraint, it would not include the types of rights claimed by the majority. In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement….
Whether we define “liberty” as locomotion or freedom from governmental action more broadly, petitioners have in no way been deprived of it. Petitioners cannot claim, under the most plausible definition of “liberty,” that they have been imprisoned or physically restrained by the States for participating in same-sex relationships. To the contrary, they have been able to cohabitate and raise their children in peace. They have been able to hold civil marriage ceremonies in States that recognize same-sex marriages and private religious ceremonies in all States. They have been able to travel freely around the country, making their homes where they please. Far from being incarcerated or physically restrained, petitioners have been left alone to order their lives as they see fit….
Instead, the States have refused to grant them governmental entitlements. Petitioners claim that as a matter of “liberty,” they are entitled to access privileges and benefits that exist solely because of the government. They want, for example, to receive the State’s imprimatur on their marriages—on state issued marriage licenses, death certificates, or other official forms. And they want to receive various monetary benefits, including reduced inheritance taxes upon the death of a spouse, compensation if a spouse dies as a result of a work-related injury, or loss of consortium damages in tort suits. But receiving governmental recognition and benefits has nothing to do with any understanding of “liberty” that the Framers would have recognized….
In a concession to petitioners’ misconception of liberty, the majority characterizes petitioners’ suit as a quest to “find . . . liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.” … But “liberty” is not lost, nor can it be found in the way petitioners seek. As a philosophical matter, liberty is only freedom from governmental action, not an entitlement to governmental benefits.And as a constitutional matter, it is likely even narrower than that, encompassing only freedom from physical restraint and imprisonment….
The majority’s inversion of the original meaning of liberty will likely cause collateral damage to other aspects of our constitutional order that protect liberty.
The majority apparently disregards the political process as a protection for liberty…. In our country, that process is primarily representative government at the state level, with the Federal Constitution serving as a backstop for that process. As a general matter, when the States act through their representative governments or by popular vote, the liberty of their residents is fully vindicated…. What matters is that the process established by those who created the society has been honored…. The definition of marriage has been the subject of heated debate in the States. Legislatures have repeatedly taken up the matter on behalf of the People, and 35 States have put the question to the People themselves. In 32 of those 35 States, the People have opted to retain the traditional definition of marriage…. That petitioners disagree with the result of that process does not make it any less legitimate. Their civil liberty has been vindicated.
Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect…. In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples. The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability….
Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process. Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process,with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.
Perhaps recognizing that these cases do not actually involve liberty as it has been understood, the majority goes to great lengths to assert that its decision will advance the “dignity” of same-sex couples…. The flaw in that reasoning, of course, is that the Constitution contains no “dignity” Clause, and even if it did, the government would be incapable of bestowing dignity. Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built. The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away….
Our Constitution—like the Declaration of Independence before it—was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded from—not provided by—the State. Today’s decision casts that truth aside. In its haste to reach a desired result, the majoritymisapplies a clause focused on “due process” to afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible understanding of the “liberty” protected by that clause, and distorts the principles on which this Nation was founded. Its decision will have inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society. I respectfully dissent.
4½ years ago, in December 2013, Colorado administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer ordered Jack Phillips of a bakery in suburban Denver to bake a wedding cake for two homosexuals or face fines, even though doing so violates Phillips’ Christian religious beliefs.
The homosexual couple had sued Phillips.
Phillips said he’d rather shut down his business and go to jail than compromise his beliefs.
Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Colorado
This morning, the Supreme Court ruled 7:2 in Phillips’ favor.
Reuters reports that the Supreme Court ruled that, in its handling of the claims brought against Jack Phillips, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had demonstrated a hostility to religion and violated the baker’s religious rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
According to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in refusing to bake a wedding cake for “gay” couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig, Phillips violated the Colorado anti-discrimination law barring businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.
Homosexual couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig
Phillips was threatened and harassed by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and was ordered to:
“Cease and desist” from discriminating against same-sex couples by refusing to sell them wedding cakes or any product Phillips would sell to heterosexual couples.
Undertake “comprehensive staff training on the Public Accommodations section of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act”.
“Change any and all company policies to comply with. this Order”.
Prepare quarterly compliance reports for a period of two years documenting the number of patrons denied service and why, along with a statement describing the remedial actions taken.
Had Phillips not appealed his case to the Supreme Court, he would be minimally fined and probably prosecuted and jailed for refusing to comply with the misnamed Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s order.
Of the Court’s four liberals, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, while Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined the five conservative justices in the ruling.
[The Colorado Civil Rights] Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.
In the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion:
“The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.”
The Supreme Court, however, stopped short of issuing a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views. Justice Kennedy wrote:
“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”
President Donald Trump’s administration had intervened in the case in support of Jack Phillips.
People streamed into Phillips’ cake shop after the ruling came down, embracing him as his phone rang repeatedly with congratulations from people who view him as their champion.
Supporter Ann Sewell, who brought a clutch of congratulatory balloons to the bakery, compared Phillips’ bravery to people opposed to the Vietnam War.
“If you could be a conscientious objector and not fight in a war then you should be able to hold to your convictions in something as simple as this when it is not hurting anyone,” Sewell said. “It might offend someone, but that’s life.”
In November, Phillips headlined a rally at Colorado Christian University, not far from his bakery. Somewhat nervous, he voice rattling as he thanked those attending. At the conclusion of his five-minute address, the crowd swarmed around Phillips, touched him and prayed.
In October 2017, two lesbians, Eileen and Mireya Rodriquez-Del Rio, sought to buy a wedding cake from Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, CA, for their upcoming same-sex marriage.
The owner of the bakery, Cathy Miller, said she must decline “because she does not condone same-sex marriage,” but that she would send their order to another bakery, Gimme Some Sugar.
The lesbians filed a complaint before California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing(DFEH), which sided with the lesbian couple and ordered Millerto provide the cake on the grounds that:
Miller had violated California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination in public accommodations, in this case the baking and selling of a cake.
Miller is not protected by the First Amendment, which protects only “those occasions where government requires a speaker to disseminate another’s message”.
Source: Washington Post
On February 5, 2018, California Superior Court Judge David R. Lampe ruled in favor of Cathy Miller.Judge Lampe wrote in his decision:
“The State of California brings this action under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 51, against defendants Cathy’s Creations, Inc. and Cathy Miller. Miller refuses to design and create wedding cakes to be used in the celebration of same sex marriages. She
believes that such marriages violate her deeply held religious convictions. The State seeks to enjoin this conduct as unlawfully discriminatory. The State brings the action upon the administrative complaint of a same-sex married couple, complainants Rodriquez-Del Rios.
The State cannot succeed on the facts presented as a matter of law. The right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment outweighs the State’s interest in ensuring a freely accessible marketplace.
The right of freedom of thought guaranteed by the First Amendment includes the right to speak, and the right to refrain from speaking. Sometimes the most profound protest is silence. […]
The State’s purpose to ensure an accessible public marketplace free from discrimination is a laudable and necessary public goal. […] No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification.
The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked. The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.[…] Such an order would be the stuff of tyranny. Both sides advocate with strong and heartfelt beliefs, and this court has a duty to ensure that all are given the freedom to speak them. The government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.1
No matter how the court should rule, one side or the other may be visited with some degree of hurt, insult, and indignity. The court finds that any harm here is equal to either complainants or defendant Miller, one way or the other. If anything, the harm to Miller is the greater harm, because it carries significant economic consequences. Whenone feels injured, insulted, or angered by the words or expressive conduct of others, the harm is many times self—inflicted. The most effective Free Speech in the family of our nation is when we speak and listen with respect. In any case, the court cannot guarantee that no one will be harmed when the law is enforced. Quite the contrary, when the law is enforced, someone necessarily loses. Nevertheless, the court’s duty is to the law. Whenever anyone exercises the right of Free Speech, someone else may be angered or hurt. This is the nature of a free society under our Constitution.“
Judge David Lampe’s ruling will be a precedent for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, wherein Colorado baker Jack C. Phillips argues that the First Amendment’s free speech and free exercise of religion clauses give him the right to refuse wedding services to a same-sex couple, despite public accommodations laws that require businesses that are open to the public to treat all potential customers equally.
Phillips has the support of the Trump administration, marking the first time the U.S. government has argued for an exemption to an anti-discrimination law. David R. Lampe, who has a J.D. from Santa Clara University School of Law, was appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) in June 2007 to the Superior Court of Kern County, California.
God bless Judge Lampe! ~Eowyn
From Daily Mirror: Drag queens are being sent into nurseries to help children ’embrace their individuality’ and learn about ‘ LGBT tolerance’.
Call centre worker Tom Canham is the brainchild behind Drag Queen Story Time (DQST), which education bosses claim will help children ‘see people who defy rigid gender restrictions’.
The 25-year-old launched the project in May and set up a Crowdfunder campaign in the summer to buy books and pay for DBS checks.
During the winter DQST is holding sessions at seven nurseries run by the London Early Years Foundation. If successful (I am QUITE CONFIDENT that it will be successful, wink, wink), the project will be rolled out across all the nursery’s 37 sites. The programme is for two and three year olds who have not yet developed any discriminations.
He told The Bristol Post : “For me the project is about drag queens providing fun and inclusive reading for children about issues around misogyny, homophobia, racism, LGBTQ and gender fluidity in a way which they can understand.
“Racism, homophobia, misogyny and the like are all learnt behaviours – we aren’t born with any form of hatred, you get taught it over time. And if projects like these can go some small way to helping prevent or curtail that, then it can only be a good thing.”
The 25-year-old was inspired to launch the project after reading about a similar American scheme called ‘Drag Queen Story Hour’.
He said: “I saw a tweet from the producers of the drag TV show, ‘RuPaul’s Drag Race’ about ‘Drag Queen Story Hour’ and replied saying ‘why can’t we have something like this in the UK? To my amazement they replied and suggested I set up my own group, and it went from there really.”
In the summer Mr. Canham recruited 30 drag queens to take part in the project, and said he was getting more requests to take part on a daily basis.
Mr. Canham has a selection of books for the sessions entitled: ‘And Tango Makes Three’, ‘My Princess Boy’ and ‘Red: A Crayon’s Story’.
While most people have responded positively to the scheme, the 25-year-old has encountered harsh criticism and even abuse. Child psychotherapist Dilys Daws claimed the scheme could ‘blind impressionable children of two and three to one of the most basic facts of human existence’.
This week she told the Daily Mail : “There’s this idea that’s sweeping the country that being transgender is an “ordinary situation”. It’s getting so much publicity that it’s getting children thinking that they might be transgender, when it otherwise wouldn’t have occurred to them.”
But Mr. Canham has said the critisism does not bother him. “I have been called a paedophile for wanting to set up ‘Drag Queen Story Time’ and accused of trying to incite young children in to being gay,” he said.
“But thankfully that is only one in 1,000 people. I try to think of it as the negativity is what we are trying to change, so in that way it spurs me on – and being a gay man I have had to deal with lots of horrible comments throughout my life, so it really is water off a ducks back.”
When Obama was elected POTUS, he promised to “fundamentally transform” America.
And transform he sure did — to the worse.
A new report confirms what many of us suspect — that the 8 years of Obama in the White House were hostile to Christianity, which spurred and encouraged anti-Christian forces in America, as seen in a whopping 76% increase in religious freedom violations since 2014. (Read the report in PDF format here.)
Although the 66-page Family Research Council report is entitled Hostility to Religion: The Growing Threat to Religious Liberty in America, the title really is a misnomer because it is not hostility to any and all religions. The surge in government hostility is directed not at Islam or Judaism or Buddhism or Satanism, but at one particular religion — Christianity. By logical inference and implication, that makes Barack Hussein Obama an anti-Christ.
That the 76% increase since 2014 in hostility to religion is specifically against Christians and Christianity is made clear in Todd Starnes’ Fox News report of June 29, 2017, in which he provides the following examples of government hostility to “religion”:
An 11-year-old student in Hattiesburg, Mississippi was penalized for mentioning Jesus in a Christmas poetry assignment.
A Christian acapella group at James Madison University was told they could not perform “Mary Did You Know” because it was religious. They were directed to only sing secular songs.
An Ohio library banned a Christian group from meeting to discuss natural marriage unless the group also included supports of same-sex marriage.
An Oklahoma bank was forced to remove religious Christmas decorations under orders from the Federal Reserve.
Allstate Insurance Company fired a Christian staffer for allegedly using a company laptop to write a column against homosexuality. The company said the column violated its diversity standards.
In 2011, the class president at Hampton High School in Tennessee wanted to deliver a prayer at graduation. The principal issued an edict that any child who attempted to pray would be stopped, escorted from the building by police and arrested.
Principal Frank Lay and Athletic Director Robert Freedom were charged with criminal contempt because they prayed over a meal. The pair was later found not guilty of violating an injunction banning the promotion of religious events at school.
San Diego firefighters were threatened with disciplinary action if they refused to participate in a gay pride parade. The firefighters were subjected to verbal abuse and sexual gestures during the parade.
A woman who rented out rooms in her home was sued after she refused to rent to a same-sex couple.
Family Research Council (FRC) president Tony Perkins said:
“The recent spike in government driven religious hostility is sad, but not surprising, especially considering the Obama administration’s antagonism toward biblical Christianity. This report is designed to quantify the threat to our First freedom and to challenge Americans to use their God-given freedoms to protect these freedoms we enjoy as Americans.”
Travis Weber, FRC’s director of the Center for Religious Liberty, said he hopes the report will be a wakeup call for all people of faith:
“In a society like ours, we must be the guardians of our own freedom. Anyone who desires freedom in the future must take note of what these trends tell us about our freedom right now – relative to where we have come from – in order to protect freedom from going forward.”
Perkins said the hostility to religion Christianity report underscores the legitimacy of the actions taken by President Trump to end polices in federal agencies that “fan the flames of this religious intolerance.” Perkins points out that despite the increase in hostility, there is some good news in “the growing courage of Christians, especially young Christians, to defend both their faith and their freedoms.”