Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label hobby lobby. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hobby lobby. Show all posts

Friday, February 3, 2017

Gorsuch Must Be Confirmed As Supreme Court Justice

Featured Image
People For The American Way protest the nomination of Neil Gorsuch in front of the Supreme Court on Tuesday night,Elvert Barnes / Flickr
Peter LaBarbera

NEWS

Homosexual legal group assails Gorsuch as ‘dangerous’ for defending Hobby Lobby

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 2, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — The nation’s leading homosexual-bisexual-transgender legal organization assailed Neil Gorsuch in a brief that will make social conservatives delighted over President Trump’s choice to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.
Lambda Legal published an article titled “Neil Gorsuch has an unacceptable, hostile record toward LGBT people,” accompanied by a graphic of Gorsuch’s face with the word “Dangerous” covering his eyes. The article says Gorsuch’s decision in the 2013 10th Circuit Hobby Lobby case is “disqualifying.”
“The Hobby Lobby decision set a terrible and destructive standard for bosses being allowed to meddle in our sex lives and decide whether or not birth control is covered by the employer’s insurance plan. In Judge Gorsuch’s decision, he calls the inclusion of health coverage that includes birth control – ‘complicity … in the wrongdoing of others.’”
However, this example from a Gorsuch opinion cited by Lambda Legal is precisely why social conservatives are excited about his nomination. They agree with the implication that people or small businesses should not be forced to take part in practices they believe are morally wrong, whether it is subsidized contraception or a homosexuality-based “wedding.”
Social conservatives hope the same reasoning cited by Trump’s nominee of not forcing citizens to be “complicit … in the wrongdoing of others” would lead a potential Supreme Court “Justice Gorsuch” to also rule against laws compelling Christian- and faith-based businesses to participate in homosexual “marriages” if they believe that homosexual behavior is wrong.
As Mat Staver, founder and chairman of the Christian legal group Liberty Counsel, wrote, Gorsuch “supported the religious liberty arguments against forced abortion mandates under ObamaCare in [the decisions] Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor.”
The Lambda Legal article states: “We absolutely must not confirm a Supreme Court nominee who has ruled that the religious beliefs of employers can trump the law. It is a short hop from birth control restrictions to restrictions on the intimate relationships and healthcare needs of LGBT people.”
Not surprisingly, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins took a different view, praising Gorsuch:
"Judge Gorsuch’s record over the last 14 years, especially on religious liberty, gives Americans every reason to believe he will make a fine Supreme Court justice. His reputation as a judge with integrity and dedication to the Constitution should be an encouragement to all Americans.”
FRC, while fighting on a range of issues from abortion to pornography, is the leading pro-family opponent of the LGBTQ agenda in Washington, D.C.
Another major pro-family group that opposes the homosexual-bisexual-transgender agenda is American Family Association (AFA). Its president, Tim Wildmon, urged his group’s millions of followers to thank President Trump for the Gorsuch nomination.
“Gorsuch is a believer in a broad definition of religious freedom and sided with Christian employers and religious organizations in the cases of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Little Sisters of the Poor.
“In the Hobby Lobby case, he wrote: ‘The ACA's [Obama] mandate requires them to violate their religious faith by forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong.’

Gorsuch not pro-“transgender” enough?

The homosexual legal group also cites then-Circuit Judge Gorsuch’s ruling in a 2015 case, Druley v. Patton, involving a transsexual prisoner who sued “the Oklahoma Department of Corrections had violated her constitutional rights by denying her medically necessary hormone treatment and her request to wear feminine clothing.”
Lambda Legal faults Gorsuch for joining a ruling that stated, in part:
“To date, this court has not held that a transsexual plaintiff is a member of a protected suspect class for purposes of Equal Protection claims. . . . Ms. Druley [a biological man] did not allege any facts suggesting the ODOC defendants' decisions concerning her clothing or housing do not bear a rational relation to a legitimate state purpose. Thus, she has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on her Equal Protection claims.”

Human Rights Campaign opposes Gorsuch

The homosexual activist group Human Rights Campaign, which endorsed Hillary Clinton for president and routinely classifies Christian conservatives as hateful, joined Lambda Legal in opposing Gorsuch’s nomination. Equating the LGBTQ political agenda with “civil rights,” HRC writes that “Gorsuch has a long and troubling career opposing civil rights, including for LGBTQ people.”
It cites the following as evidence for that charge:
  • “Gorsuch called marriage equality [LGBTA activist euphemism for homosexual “marriage”] part of the liberal social agenda, saying “American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom … as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide … ”
  • “He joined the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, which asserted that that some private corporations are “people” under federal law and have a right to deny basic healthcare coverage if it violates their religious belief.  This expansive ruling could allow employers to deny transgender employees access to hormone treatment, access to birth control and other crucial health care for LGBTQ people.
  • “Hobby Lobby could have negative long-term consequences beyond healthcare for the LGBTQ community. There are those who are already trying to use the decision to support discrimination against LGBTQ workers.
  • “In 2015, Gorsuch joined a ruling against a transgender woman who was denied consistent access to hormone therapy while incarcerated. The ruling dismissed the prisoner’s claims that the denial of care amounted to cruel and unusual punishment under the U.S. Constitution.
  • “He has advocated for eliminating Chevron deference [see below], a critical administrative law doctrine that allows our federal system of regulations to function, which could result in the significant loss protections for LGBTQ people.”
HRC states that it “has taken the extraordinary step of opposing this Supreme Court nominee prior to his confirmation hearing — a first for the organization.”
For a conservative defense of Gorsuch and his judicial record, see The Daily Signal, put out by the conservative Heritage Foundation.
The Daily Signal piece reports on the “Chevron deference” below:
“Courts will typically defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute if that interpretation is reasonable. Known as ‘Chevron deference,’ this practice is controversial and often criticized by conservatives.
“In 2016, Gorsuch authored a separate concurring opinion, explicitly calling Chevron deference into question. He wrote, ‘ … the fact is Chevron … permit[s] executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design.’”

Out of touch?

Yet another homosexual-bisexual-transgender organization, the National LGBTQ Task Force, put out this harsh statement calling Gorsuch “out of touch.”
“Judge Neil Gorsuch’s record reveals a jurist who: believes that bosses should control their employees’ private health care decisions; supports the misuse of religion to legalize discrimination; and holds LGBTQ equality with disdain. He is also a darling of those who are vehemently opposed to marriage equality. He seems like someone who aligns perfectly with Donald Trump and Mike Pence’s view of the world, but is completely out of touch with the realities of most people’s lives,” said Rea Carey, Executive Director, National LGBTQ Task Force.”
The Task Force is a leftist organization that supports — beyond homosexuality and transgenderism — “polyamory” (multiple-partner sexual unions), sadomasochism and other practices on the sexual and gender fringe. Every year at its “Creating Change” conference for LGBTQ activists, it gives out a “Leather Leadership Award” to a prominent sadomasochism (“kink”) advocate.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

New Supreme Court Designee Announced

Photo
Judge Neil M. Gorsuch last week in Denver. He is President Trump’s pick to fill the seat on the Supreme Court left open by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. CreditDavid Zalubowski/Associated Press
WASHINGTON — President Trump on Tuesday nominated Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, a federal appeals court judge in Denver, to fill the Supreme Court seat left open by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, elevating a jurist whose conservative bent and originalist philosophy fit the mold of the man he would succeed.
Mr. Trump’s announcement, delivered during prime time in the East Room of the White House, marked his first bid to reshape the nation’s highest court.
It presaged a bitter political battle on Capitol Hill, where Democrats in the Senate, still stung by the Republican refusal to confirm President Barack Obama’s nominee for the seat, Judge Merrick B. Garland, have promised stiff resistance.
If confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would restore the 5-to-4 split between liberals and conservatives on the court, handing Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, 80, who votes with both blocs, the swing vote.
At 49, Judge Gorsuch is the youngest nominee to the Supreme Court in 25 years, underscoring his potential to shape major decisions for decades to come. In choosing him, Mr. Trump reached for a reliably conservative figure in the Scalia tradition but not someone known to be divisive.
Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story
unmute
A Colorado native who was in the same class at Harvard Law School as Mr. Obama, Judge Gorsuch is known for his well-written, measured opinions that are normally, though not exclusively, conservative. He holds a Ph.D. from Oxford University, where he was a Marshall Scholar, and a pedigree as a law clerk at the Supreme Court to Justices Byron R. White and Kennedy. President George W. Bush nominated Judge Gorsuch to the federal bench in 2006.
Judge Gorsuch’s personal connections to Justice Kennedy are no accident. By choosing a familiar figure, several officials said, the White House is sending a reassuring signal to Justice Kennedy, 80, who has been mulling retirement.
Choosing a more ideologically extreme candidate, the officials said, could tempt Justice Kennedy to hang on to his seat for several more years, depriving Mr. Trump of another seat to fill.
Still, Judge Gorsuch’s conservative credentials are not in doubt. He has voted in favor of employers, including Hobby Lobby, who invoked religious objections for refusing to provide some forms of contraception coverage to their female workers. And he has criticized liberals for turning to the courts rather than the legislature to achieve their policy goals.
There had been speculation that Mr. Trump would choose someone with a less elite background for the court. The other finalist for the post, Judge Thomas M. Hardiman, was the first person in his family to graduate from college, and helped pay for his education by driving a taxi.
Judge Gorsuch, on the other hand, is the son of Anne Gorsuch Burford, who became the first female head of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Ronald Reagan. He attended Georgetown Preparatory School, outside Washington, before going to Columbia University.
Democrats, who declined invitations from Mr. Trump to attend the White House announcement ceremony, seemed unlikely to be satisfied with Mr. Trump’s choice. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, has said he is ready to block any candidate he sees as outside the mainstream, a stance that could touch off a Senate showdown in which Mr. Trump is already urging Republicans to change longstanding rules and push through his nominee on a simple majority vote.
Judge Gorsuch will need to draw the support of eight Democrats to join the 52 Republicans in the Senate to surmount a filibuster and move forward with an up-or-down confirmation vote.
Progressive groups were already planning a rally in front of the court on Tuesday night, anticipating an “extreme” nominee.
“Activists will make clear that the Senate cannot confirm a nominee who will simply be a rubber stamp for President Trump’s anticonstitutional efforts that betray American values,” according to a statement from the organizations, which include People for the American Way, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and Naral Pro-Choice America.
Conservative groups, too, were planning a major push to defend Mr. Trump’s nominee. Within minutes of the president’s announcement, organizers said, the Judicial Crisis Network was to begin the first phase in a $10 million television advertising campaign on the nominee’s behalf, along with a website promoting Mr. Trump’s pick. More than 50 groups were backing the effort, including gun rights and anti-abortion rights activists and the Tea Party.

Monday, February 29, 2016

Cruz Loses Out On Important Endorsement

Key Ally Stabs Ted Cruz in the Back

  • 02/29/2016 
  • Source: AAN 
  • by: AAN Staff
 7  4  0  0  0 0
Ted Cruz has spent his time in the Senate as a zealot advocate for religious
freedom. When the Hobby Lobby decision came down, Ted Cruz took to
his Facebook to post the following:

A tremendous victory, not only for Hobby Lobby, but for all those being forced

to violate their deeply held convictions as a result of this Administration's

assault on religious liberty.
You would think that those who most cherish religious liberty would back
Cruz as their candidate. You'd be wrong. On Saturday, David Green, the
founder and CEO of the popular chain, endorsed Marco Rubio:
“Our family business that we began with $600 has quite possibly been more

successful than Mr. Trump’s, but that doesn’t make either of us qualified to

be president. And unlike Mr. Trump, we give all the credit to God. Marco

Rubio has impressed us with his preparation and the way he carries himself.

But most importantly, Marco regularly exhibits humility and gives the glory

to God. Humility is what brings success. I don’t see humility in Mr. Trump,

and that scares me to death. I want a president that my kids, my grandkids

and my great-grandkids can emulate. In Marco Rubio, I see a man who has

achieved great things from humble beginnings, but gives the glory to God,

where it belongs. I see a man who is prepared to be president, and someone

I would be proud for my children to emulate. I will be voting for Marco Rubio

on Tuesday and I encourage my fellow Oklahomans to do the same,” Green

said in a statement.
This is a major endorsement for Rubio, but it's an even larger loss for Cruz.
 If religious conservatives believe that Marco Rubio is the candidate that
has the best chance to win, then Cruz's candidacy ceases to be relevant. 
 Source: AAN
- See more at: http://americanactionnews.com/articles/key-ally-stabs-ted-cruz-in-the-back#sthash.zOrBXqhq.dpuf

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Is First Amendment Only For Odd Balls And Muslims Or For The Rest Of Us? It Is For ALL Americans Regardless Of Religious Orientation!




Do Christians have a First Amendment right to be Christians in their everyday life when their convictions place them at odds with Obamacare, anti-discrimination ordinances, hate-crimes laws and a rash of legislation and judicial rulings that have elevated progressive secular humanism to the status of state religion?
That is the real question that confronts America in light of two stunning incidents:
  • Houston Mayor Annise Parker, a radical lesbian activist, used organized clergy opposition to a city ordinance that would permit “gender-confused people” to use any public restroom they choose to issue subpoenas for the sermons and other writings of five city pastors.
  • City officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, threatened to prosecute under an ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis sexual orientation a husband and wife team of evangelical pastors for refusing to conduct a same-sex wedding in their chapel.
While there are signs some city officials and judges are backing down from prosecuting and harassing specific Christians for following their faith dictates, they are doing so in a way that effectively eliminates First Amendment religious freedom guarantees to 99.9 percent of the population.
What do I mean?
In Coeur d’Alene, city officials are artificially moving the bar to avoid the ugly controversy they created. They are hinting they will not prosecute – but not because it’s illegal to coerce Christians to violate their religious convictions. They are only open to making an exception because the pastors actually perform Christian weddings in their chapel, not secular weddings. They would also make an exception, the city officials say, in the case of a nonprofit operation, which the Coeur d’Alene chapel is not.
Likewise, at the federal level, Obamacare abortion mandate exceptions have been granted to some corporations, notably Hobby Lobby, that have had the burden of proof on them to establish that they operate on Christian principles. The U.S. Supreme Court examined evidence for this including the ownership stake of the principals. It’s clear that the Hobby Lobby decision might have been much different for a new company, a sole proprietorship by a Christian layman or a corporation whose board of trustees favored operating on Christian principles but whose ownership included non-Christians.
Hello?
Does anyone notice the danger of getting the state involved in splitting hairs over religious freedom – especially given the fact that everyone in America operates within the confines of some kind of religious view, even if it is atheism or secularism? Religious freedom is for everyone in America. That’s the guarantee of the First Amendment. It’s not just for clergymen, nonprofits and businesses solely owned by Christians.

Having bared their contempt for Christian values in passing “non-discrimination laws” that discriminate against Christians, the secular progressives and their LGBT allies are now attempting to carve out loopholes for Christians who get their limited seal of approval. That’s not the way religious freedom operates.
This is a disturbing pattern emerging among the judicial and progressive elite.
It’s designed to divide and conquer.
After all, few want to see people go to jail or pay exorbitant fines for merely following their religious convictions.
Yet that is what is happening across the country today to ordinary Christians who don’t have the resources of the Hobby Lobby ownership, who don’t operate as religious nonprofit ministries, who aren’t pastors or clergymen but who have just as much right to follow their religious convictions as anyone else.
Freedom of religion is not for a professional class only. Freedom of religion is not for the rich only. Freedom of religion is not for nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations only. Freedom of religion is for everyone.
And that’s the way attacks on freedom of religion need to be addressed – by everyone and for everyone.