Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts

Sunday, April 19, 2020

Finally Some Sanity

Kansas Judge Stands by Constitution, Rules Churches Can Stay Open Under 1st Amend.

Kansas Judge Drops Hammer on Governor Violating 1st Amendment
Volume 90%
 
Print
A federal judge on Saturday handed a legal victory to two churches that challenged an executive order by Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly’s order limiting church attendance to 10 or fewer worshippers.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge John Broomes in Wichita stays enforcement of Kelly’s order until May 2.
Five days before Easter, Kelly had added churches to a list of banned activities in an executive order issued to address the threat of the coronavirus, according to Kansas.com. That brought a strong pushback from lawmakers and churches, culminating in a lawsuit filed Thursday by First Baptist Church in Dodge City and Calvary Baptist Church in Junction City.
Citing the executive orders issued by Kelly, Broomes noted in his ruling that “Plaintiffs claim, among other things, that the restrictions on religious activity imposed by EO 20-18 (and now 20-25) violate Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion, including their right to attend worship services in their respective church facilities. For reasons that follow, the court concludes, based on the matters presented so far, that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on this claim,” thus enabling him to grant a temporary restraining order that blocks Kelly’s edict.
It was just one of a series of cases that have arisen across the country since the coronavirus pandemic began, as states and local governments in Florida, Mississippi, Texas and other regions faced challenges from the faithful after trying to impede religious gatherings.
TRENDING: Bill Maher Sends Warning to Media: Keep up Dishonest Virus Reporting, and Trump Will Win 2020
The ruling said that that the churches filing suit “made a substantial showing that development of the current restriction on religious activities shows religious activities were specifically targeted for more onerous restrictions than comparable secular activities. The Governor previously designated the attendance of religious services as an ‘essential function’ that was exempt from the general prohibition on mass gatherings.”
The ruling said that “religious activities appear to have been singled out among essential functions for stricter treatment. It appears to be the only essential function whose core purpose – association for the purpose of worship – had been basically eliminated.”
The governor, Brromes ruled, “has not argued that mass gatherings at churches pose unique health risks that do not arise in mass gatherings at airports, offices, and production facilities. Yet the exemption for religious activities has been eliminated while it remains for a multitude of activities that appear comparable in terms of health risks.”
“Based on the record now before the court, the most reasonable inference from this disparate treatment is that the essential function of religious activity was targeted for stricter treatment due to the nature of the activity involved, rather than because such gatherings pose unique health risks that mass gatherings at commercial and other facilities do not, or because the risks at religious gatherings uniquely cannot be adequately mitigated with safety protocols,” he ruled.
Are governments misusing their power in the coronavirus crisis?
  
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Broomes required that churches that open observe social distancing and keep everyone in attendance at least six feet apart, as well as observe other practices such as not using a collection plate that would be passed through the congregation.
In a court filing supporting the lawsuit, attorneys for the Alliance Defending Freedom argued that Kelly had banned church worship but allowed “26 types of secular activities,” including bars, libraries and shopping malls
“So under the current (order) … a large group of people are permitted to get together at an office complex and have unrestricted meetings discussing real estate and real estate issues. But if a group of people wanted to get together in that same office building to have a Bible study or conduct a religious service, they would be prevented from doing so,” the ADF argued.
Kelly defended her order, according to KWCH.
RELATED: Teen Files Lawsuit After Sheriff Threatens Family with Arrest Over COVID-19 Instagram Post
“My executive order is about saving Kansans’ lives and slowing the spread of the virus to keep our neighbors, our families and our loved ones safe,” Kelly said in a statement. “During public health emergencies, we must take proactive measures to save lives.”
“This is not about religion. This is about a public health crisis,” Kelly the statement added later. “This ruling was just a preliminary step. There is still a long way to go in this case, and we will continue to be proactive and err on the side of caution where Kansans’ health and safety is at stake.”
Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, who opposed the executive order, said that “Today’s judicial ruling is a much-needed reminder that the Constitution is not under a stay-home order and the Bill of Rights cannot be quarantined.”
“The Constitution protects our liberties especially during times of crisis, when history reveals governments too quick to sacrifice rights of the few to calm fears of the many. As I have consistently counseled, the governor of Kansas must not discriminate against religious gatherings by threatening worshipers with arrest or imprisonment while allowing similar secular gatherings to proceed,” he said.
Schmidt noted that he believes that in light of the threat posed by the coronavirus, churches should not hold in-person services, but that the government cannot prevent them.

Monday, August 20, 2018

Freedom Of Speech (Including Non Violent Hate Speech) Is The Bedrock Of Our Society And Must Be Preserved.

VIDEO: TUCKER CARLSON COMES OUT IN SUPPORT OF ALEX JONES’ FREE SPEECH

Tucker points out ban is part of larger purge of conservatives from electronic town squares

Fox News host Tucker Carlson came out in defense of Alex Jones’ free speech Friday amid Big Tech’s censorship of Infowars, citing the First Amendment as a “central principle of our society.”
Tucker has an excellent guest on who breaks down the massive cowardice inside the conservative and nationalist movement and the fact that we’re now under a liberal thought dictatorship that is as authoritarian as Stalin and Hitler.

Tuesday, August 7, 2018

Americans Are "Constitutionally Ignorant"

Shock poll: A stunning number of Americans cannot name even one First Amendment right

Shock poll: A stunning number of Americans cannot name even one First Amendment right
A recent survey reveals that a shocking number of Americans value the First Amendment but cannot correctly name a single right it guarantees. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Americans cherish exercising their constitutional rights: The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and freedom of religion, the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, among the dozens of others.
But how well do Americans truly know their constitutional rights? According to a recent survey on the First Amendment, not well.

What did the survey show?

The annual survey from the Freedom Forum Institute found that 23 percent of Americans believe the First Amendment “goes too far” but 74 percent of Americans disagreed  — yet 40 percent could not name even one right First Amendment protects.
In fact, the First Amendment guarantees Americans five explicit rights:
  • free exercise of religion,
  • freedom of speech,
  • freedom to assemble,
  • freedom of the press, and
  • freedom to petition the government.
Of the 1,009 American adults surveyed, only 36 percent could correctly name one First Amendment right, only 12 percent could name two, and all five? Just one respondent correctly recalled each of the five rights protected by the First Amendment.
Meanwhile, the incorrect answer respondents recalled most was the right to bear arms, which is protected by the Second Amendment. Others cited the “right to vote,” which numerous constitutional amendments guarantee for different classes of people, but isn’t included in the First Amendment.

What else did the poll say?

Other interesting facts from the poll include:
  • 70 percent said colleges should remove invited speakers whose remarks might incite violent protests or threaten public safety.
  • Democrats are more likely than Republicans to support the removal of campus speakers.
  • 72 percent said social media companies should censor “hate speech,” but an overwhelming minority said the government should oversee such a process.
  • The majority of respondents believe the First Amendment protects a baker from forcibly baking a cake with a message he or she disagrees with.
The survey comes at a time when America’s younger generations are rethinking free speech and what the First Amendment should protect. An increasing number of people believe “hate speech” should be censored, violence is OK to use when protesting “offensive” college speakers, and religious protections don’t cover people who “discriminate” against the LGBT community.

Monday, June 4, 2018

Lame Stream Media Misleads Again

MSM CALLS LOPSIDED 7-2 RULING OVER GAY CAKE ‘NARROW WIN’

Fake news misrepresenting clear ruling in favor of First Amendment

0
0
After the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the Colorado baker who refused to serve a gay couple, the mainstream corporate media opted instead to call it a “narrow” win.
Several news outlets, including USA Today, Reuters, and NBC have all decided to call a definitive 7-2 Supreme Court ruling “narrow,” when only liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg ruled against the baker who exercised his First Amendment right and defended his religious liberty.
“But the opinion was a narrow one, applying to the specific facts of this case only,” NBC reported. “It gave no hint as to how the court might decide future cases involving florists, bakers, photographers and other business owners who have cited religious and free-speech objections when refusing to serve gay and lesbian customers in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2015 same-sex marriage decision.”
The mainstream media is misleading the public by using “narrow” in their headlines because the case itself was clearly decided. Just because the scope of the ruling doesn’t extend beyond the facts of the case doesn’t make the decision itself narrow, which their headlines imply.
Justice Kennedy explained the ruling, saying baker Jack Philips’ religious liberty was violated in 2012 by the state commission in ruling against his decision to adhere to his religious views by refusing service to a gay couple.
“The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here,” Justice Kennedy wrote on behalf of the majority.
“The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.”