What's a Christian police officer to do? One day, an Indiana cop adds a ticketed driver to a prayer list and gets fired for proselytizing the citizenry, and the next day an Idaho cop prays for the passenger in a car stopped for breaking the law, yet he receives unmitigated praise for compassion and ignoring the violation.
For background, read Cop Fired for Praying for Traffic Violator
Also read Mississippi Police Chief Holds City Prayer Meetings to Thank God
And read Georgia Sheriff's Christmas Sign Peeves Atheists
-- From "Officer offers speeding driver prayer instead of ticket" by Taylor Viydo, KREM-TV2 (Spokane, WA) posted at USA TODAY 4/18/16
[Kootenai County sheriff’s] Deputy Matthew Brakeman said the woman was going about 10 miles over the speed limit.
"I asked where they were headed, and she said to the oncologist," Brakeman said. "She then started to become a little bit emotional."
He learned the driver's mother had been battling cancer. They were making another painful visit to the doctor's office.
"Walked back up to the passenger side and asked her mother if she would accept a prayer," Brakeman said. "And she said, 'Absolutely.' So then we prayed and told them to have a good day and went back to my car."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Showing posts with label Idaho. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Idaho. Show all posts
Monday, April 18, 2016
Saturday, August 08, 2015
Chicken Cruelty Exposed, Baby Slaughter Concealed
In the span of only a few days, one federal judge ruled that an Idaho "ag-gag" law that prohibits undercover videotaping to expose cruelty to animals is unconstitutional, while another federal judge, appointed by President Obama (after the judge bundled campaign contributions for him), blocked release of undercover video exposing the horrors of abortion.
For background, read Planned Parenthood Caught Selling Aborted Babies on Video while the Media, Obama and Democrats Conspire With Abortionists to Counter Videos
-- From "Judge Strikes Down Idaho 'Ag-Gag' Law, Raising Questions For Other States" by Luke Runyon, National Public Radio NPR 8/4/15
Animal rights groups cheered the decision on the Idaho law this week from U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill. Winmill found the state's "Agricultural Security Act" unconstitutional for criminalizing certain types of speech.
Laws in Montana, Utah, North Dakota, Missouri, Kansas and Iowa have also made it illegal for activists to smuggle cameras into industrial animal operations. A new North Carolina law goes into effect in January 2016. But now those laws' days could be numbered, according to the lead attorney for the coalition of animal welfare groups that sued the state of Idaho.
"Ag-gag" refers to a variety of laws meant to curb undercover investigations of agricultural operations, often large dairy, poultry and pork farms. The Idaho law criminalized video or audio recording of a farm without the owner's consent and lying to a farm owner to gain employment there to do an undercover investigation.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Idaho Ag-Gag Law Struck Down" posted at Corporate Crime Reporter 8/4/15
Idaho’s ag-gag statute makes it a crime to conduct an undercover investigation at an Idaho agricultural facility. Under this law, journalists, workers, activists, and members of the public can be convicted for videotaping animal cruelty or life-threatening safety violations.
Public Justice challenged the law in Idaho federal court as part of a broad coalition including the Animal Legal Defense Fund, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho, Center for Food Safety, and Farm Sanctuary.
The coalition argued that the ag-gag statute violates the First Amendment by suppressing speech that criticizes factory farms, and that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was motivated by unconstitutional animus against animal advocates.
The court agreed on both counts, holding that the law has the effect of suppressing speech on topics of immense public importance including the safety of the food supply, and the safety of farm workers and animals.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge extends order blocking antiabortion group’s video release" by Bob Egelko, a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer 8/7/15
A federal judge in San Francisco agreed Friday to extend by at least six weeks his order prohibiting an antiabortion group from releasing videos or confidential information it obtained by infiltrating two national conventions of a group of abortion providers.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick had issued a temporary restraining order against the Center for Medical Progress [CMP] on Aug. 3, saying its members had signed a pledge of confidentiality before entering the meetings of the National Abortion Federation and might expose federation members to harassment and violence by posting videos.
Orrick had scheduled a hearing Aug. 27 on whether to convert the restraining order into a preliminary injunction that would remain in effect until a trial on the abortion federation’s suit for damages. He postponed the hearing until Oct. 9 on Friday at the request of both sides, who said they needed more time to prepare.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "U.S. judge halts release of secretly recorded videos of abortion providers" by Alan Zarembo, Los Angeles Times 8/1/15
In a statement Friday, the nonprofit Center for Medical Progress described the National Abortion Federation as "a criminal organization" and said it "will contest any attempt to suppress our First Amendment rights to free speech."
The court order was the second issued last week against the Center for Medical Progress. On July 28, a Superior Court judge in Los Angeles ordered the group not to publish footage from a May lunch meeting with leaders of Stem Express, a Placerville, Calif., company that provides fetal tissue to researchers.
California Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris is investigating whether the Center for Medical Progress violated any state laws in obtaining the videos. In California, it is generally illegal to record a confidential conversation without the consent of all parties.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Federal Judge Who Banned Planned Parenthood Video Releases Once Raised $230,000 For Obama" by Timothy Meads, Daily Caller 8/1/15
The National Abortion Federation filed a restraining order against the CMP early Friday morning, and only a few hours later Judge William Orrick, III approved the request to temporarily ban CMP from releasing any more videos.
Orrick was not only an Obama appointee in 2012 but also a prominent campaign bundler, the Federalist first reported. According to Public Citizen, Judge Orrick raised $200,000 for Obama in 2008 as well as over $30,000 for committees supporting Obama.
Orrick’s approval of NAF’s injunction came just a day after White House Press Secretary John Earnest said in regards to Planned Parenthood, “the President certainly will not support another effort by Republicans to try to defund an organization that offers important and needed healthcare services to women across the country.”
Earnest also said that “extremists on the right” released the videos in a “fraudulent way.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
When reading the following opinion piece, interchange "animal" with "unborn baby," and interchange "agriculture industry" with "abortion industry."
From "Idaho's Anti-Whistleblower Ag Gag Law Ruled Unconstitutional" by Amanda Hitt, Director of the Food Integrity Campaign (Government Accountability Project) 8/4/15
. . . U.S. Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill, who struck down Idaho's anti-whistleblower Ag Gag law [wrote]:
The Idaho law didn't just try to stop undercover investigations; it attempted to silence the truth and truth-tellers - even whistleblowing employees. . . .
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below to read previous articles:
Animals Should be Treated as Humans: Gallup Poll
Plants' & Animals' Civil Rights - Antihumanism
Chimps Like Black Slaves: Animal Rights Lawsuit
President Obama's Czar Nominee Elevates Animals to Human Stature
American Trend: Fewer Children, More Animals/Pets
Pope Slams Environmentalists on Abortion
For background, read Planned Parenthood Caught Selling Aborted Babies on Video while the Media, Obama and Democrats Conspire With Abortionists to Counter Videos
-- From "Judge Strikes Down Idaho 'Ag-Gag' Law, Raising Questions For Other States" by Luke Runyon, National Public Radio NPR 8/4/15
Animal rights groups cheered the decision on the Idaho law this week from U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill. Winmill found the state's "Agricultural Security Act" unconstitutional for criminalizing certain types of speech.
Laws in Montana, Utah, North Dakota, Missouri, Kansas and Iowa have also made it illegal for activists to smuggle cameras into industrial animal operations. A new North Carolina law goes into effect in January 2016. But now those laws' days could be numbered, according to the lead attorney for the coalition of animal welfare groups that sued the state of Idaho.
"Ag-gag" refers to a variety of laws meant to curb undercover investigations of agricultural operations, often large dairy, poultry and pork farms. The Idaho law criminalized video or audio recording of a farm without the owner's consent and lying to a farm owner to gain employment there to do an undercover investigation.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Idaho Ag-Gag Law Struck Down" posted at Corporate Crime Reporter 8/4/15
Idaho’s ag-gag statute makes it a crime to conduct an undercover investigation at an Idaho agricultural facility. Under this law, journalists, workers, activists, and members of the public can be convicted for videotaping animal cruelty or life-threatening safety violations.
Public Justice challenged the law in Idaho federal court as part of a broad coalition including the Animal Legal Defense Fund, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho, Center for Food Safety, and Farm Sanctuary.
The coalition argued that the ag-gag statute violates the First Amendment by suppressing speech that criticizes factory farms, and that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was motivated by unconstitutional animus against animal advocates.
The court agreed on both counts, holding that the law has the effect of suppressing speech on topics of immense public importance including the safety of the food supply, and the safety of farm workers and animals.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Judge extends order blocking antiabortion group’s video release" by Bob Egelko, a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer 8/7/15
A federal judge in San Francisco agreed Friday to extend by at least six weeks his order prohibiting an antiabortion group from releasing videos or confidential information it obtained by infiltrating two national conventions of a group of abortion providers.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick had issued a temporary restraining order against the Center for Medical Progress [CMP] on Aug. 3, saying its members had signed a pledge of confidentiality before entering the meetings of the National Abortion Federation and might expose federation members to harassment and violence by posting videos.
Orrick had scheduled a hearing Aug. 27 on whether to convert the restraining order into a preliminary injunction that would remain in effect until a trial on the abortion federation’s suit for damages. He postponed the hearing until Oct. 9 on Friday at the request of both sides, who said they needed more time to prepare.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "U.S. judge halts release of secretly recorded videos of abortion providers" by Alan Zarembo, Los Angeles Times 8/1/15
In a statement Friday, the nonprofit Center for Medical Progress described the National Abortion Federation as "a criminal organization" and said it "will contest any attempt to suppress our First Amendment rights to free speech."
The court order was the second issued last week against the Center for Medical Progress. On July 28, a Superior Court judge in Los Angeles ordered the group not to publish footage from a May lunch meeting with leaders of Stem Express, a Placerville, Calif., company that provides fetal tissue to researchers.
California Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris is investigating whether the Center for Medical Progress violated any state laws in obtaining the videos. In California, it is generally illegal to record a confidential conversation without the consent of all parties.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Federal Judge Who Banned Planned Parenthood Video Releases Once Raised $230,000 For Obama" by Timothy Meads, Daily Caller 8/1/15
The National Abortion Federation filed a restraining order against the CMP early Friday morning, and only a few hours later Judge William Orrick, III approved the request to temporarily ban CMP from releasing any more videos.
Orrick was not only an Obama appointee in 2012 but also a prominent campaign bundler, the Federalist first reported. According to Public Citizen, Judge Orrick raised $200,000 for Obama in 2008 as well as over $30,000 for committees supporting Obama.
Orrick’s approval of NAF’s injunction came just a day after White House Press Secretary John Earnest said in regards to Planned Parenthood, “the President certainly will not support another effort by Republicans to try to defund an organization that offers important and needed healthcare services to women across the country.”
Earnest also said that “extremists on the right” released the videos in a “fraudulent way.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
When reading the following opinion piece, interchange "animal" with "unborn baby," and interchange "agriculture industry" with "abortion industry."
From "Idaho's Anti-Whistleblower Ag Gag Law Ruled Unconstitutional" by Amanda Hitt, Director of the Food Integrity Campaign (Government Accountability Project) 8/4/15
. . . U.S. Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill, who struck down Idaho's anti-whistleblower Ag Gag law [wrote]:
The effect of the statute will be to suppress speech by undercover investigators and whistleblowers concerning topics of great public importance: the safety of the public food supply, the safety of agricultural workers, the treatment and health of farm animals, and the impact of business activities on the environment.The Court also emphasized the utility of undercover video, often relied upon by whistleblowers who justifiably fear retaliation when going through internal channels to report wrongdoing.
Audio and visual evidence is a uniquely persuasive means of conveying a message, and it can vindicate an undercover investigator or whistleblower who is otherwise disbelieved or ignored.The agriculture industry is not known for its transparency. But increasingly routine undercover investigations showing mistreatment of animals have inspired more public interest in how these operations run and what's really happening behind the barn doors. Despite the public outcry, the industry hasn't changed its behavior. . . .
The Idaho law didn't just try to stop undercover investigations; it attempted to silence the truth and truth-tellers - even whistleblowing employees. . . .
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
Click headlines below to read previous articles:
Animals Should be Treated as Humans: Gallup Poll
Plants' & Animals' Civil Rights - Antihumanism
Chimps Like Black Slaves: Animal Rights Lawsuit
President Obama's Czar Nominee Elevates Animals to Human Stature
American Trend: Fewer Children, More Animals/Pets
Pope Slams Environmentalists on Abortion
Friday, July 24, 2015
Vampire Normalization Urged in Idaho Univ. Study
University researchers have concluded that vampires in America "seem to function normally" and are simply people who have an "alternative identity" (think sexual orientation) who should be treated like everyone else by government social workers because "We should not be surprised to see a proliferation of nontraditional identities in the future."
Judge Says Incest OK; It's the New Gay
Pedophilia is Sexual Orientation, Like 'Being Gay'
Normalization of Pedophilia Urged by Psychiatrists
Democrat Senate Legalizes Bestiality in Military
-- From "Researchers: Vampires are people, too, and need as much psychotherapy as the rest of us" by Ariana Eunjung, Washington Post 7/9/15
Vampires are real. No, not the impossibly perfect Cullens in the "Twilight" movies or tortured but well-dressed souls in CW shows. But human beings who self-identify as vampires and may drink blood or sleep in coffins. And these people need as much psychotherapy and medical help as the rest of us.
That's the conclusion of a study by D.J. Williams, director of social work at Idaho State University, and published in the July issue of the peer-reviewed journal Critical Social Work.
Williams and his co-author, Emily E. Prior, a researcher at the College of the Canyons, interviewed 11 vampires from across the United States and South Africa and found that they were reluctant to come out to clinicians because they were fearful about being labeled as being psychopathological or "perhaps wicked, and not competent to perform in typical social roles, such a parenting."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "'Vampires' keep doctors in the dark for fear of stereotyping: study" posted at Reuters 7/7/15
Williams, who has studied self-identified vampires for nearly a decade, finds they come from every walk of life and profession, including doctors, attorneys and candlestick makers.
Except they are very, very tired. That’s apparently the chief reason they find a consenting adult willing to allow them to use a scalpel to make a tiny incision in the chest area so they can ingest a small amount of blood for energy, the study found.
“The real vampire community seems to be a conscientious and ethical one,” Williams said.
The challenge is finding non-judgmental clinicians to whom vampires can disclose their alternative lifestyles, he added.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Self-identified vampires subject of study by ISU professor" by Debbie Bryce, Idaho State Journal 7/9/15
“We live in an age of technology and live in a time when people can select new, alternate identities to fit how they understand themselves better,” Williams said. “We really need to understand some of these new identities and new ways to identify ourselves, and some of these new identities do not fit into stereotypes. Helping professionals of all varieties need more education on these kinds of topics. ”
“It’s not a religion. It’s akin to our sexual orientation,” Williams said. “It’s their identity, and it’s an important part of who they are.”
Williams hopes his research helps to shine light on the issue of alternate identities and the need to be sensitive and aware.
“In our codes of ethics — and this is true of social work, counseling, psychology and medicine — we talk about being open and non-judgmental to try to understand a client’s world and context,” Williams said. “This study explored the world and context of self-proclaimed vampires. A lot of clinicians are still not willing to accept these types of studies or are not aware of them.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Study: Self-Identified ‘Vampires’ Fear Being Judged if They ‘Come Out of the Coffin’" by Rudy Takala, CNSNews.com 7/17/15
“People don’t seem to be diagnosed as vampires, at least not the way that the vampires in our study use that term. The self-identified vampires that we have dealt with seem to recognize at some point in their lives that they chronically seem to need extra energy.
“Eventually, they learn that there are other people who seem to have this same need, and they find a community with an explanation that seems to make sense to them,” Williams said.
Eighty-two percent of the study participants reported their gender as female, with one “intersexed, female assigned individual” and one “postoperative, male-to-female transsexual.” One participant identified as male, and one as “gender-queer.”
Five said they were pagan; four were wiccan; one identified as “spiritual”; and one said they had no religious affiliation.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
"Real vampires seem to be ordinary human beings with common, everyday human issues, such as trying to be successful in relationships and careers, managing stress, coping with daily living tasks, and adjustments to transitions, to name a few."For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
-- D. J. Williams, Idaho State University sociology professor
Judge Says Incest OK; It's the New Gay
Pedophilia is Sexual Orientation, Like 'Being Gay'
Normalization of Pedophilia Urged by Psychiatrists
Democrat Senate Legalizes Bestiality in Military
-- From "Researchers: Vampires are people, too, and need as much psychotherapy as the rest of us" by Ariana Eunjung, Washington Post 7/9/15
Vampires are real. No, not the impossibly perfect Cullens in the "Twilight" movies or tortured but well-dressed souls in CW shows. But human beings who self-identify as vampires and may drink blood or sleep in coffins. And these people need as much psychotherapy and medical help as the rest of us.
That's the conclusion of a study by D.J. Williams, director of social work at Idaho State University, and published in the July issue of the peer-reviewed journal Critical Social Work.
Williams and his co-author, Emily E. Prior, a researcher at the College of the Canyons, interviewed 11 vampires from across the United States and South Africa and found that they were reluctant to come out to clinicians because they were fearful about being labeled as being psychopathological or "perhaps wicked, and not competent to perform in typical social roles, such a parenting."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "'Vampires' keep doctors in the dark for fear of stereotyping: study" posted at Reuters 7/7/15
Williams, who has studied self-identified vampires for nearly a decade, finds they come from every walk of life and profession, including doctors, attorneys and candlestick makers.
Except they are very, very tired. That’s apparently the chief reason they find a consenting adult willing to allow them to use a scalpel to make a tiny incision in the chest area so they can ingest a small amount of blood for energy, the study found.
“The real vampire community seems to be a conscientious and ethical one,” Williams said.
The challenge is finding non-judgmental clinicians to whom vampires can disclose their alternative lifestyles, he added.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Self-identified vampires subject of study by ISU professor" by Debbie Bryce, Idaho State Journal 7/9/15
“We live in an age of technology and live in a time when people can select new, alternate identities to fit how they understand themselves better,” Williams said. “We really need to understand some of these new identities and new ways to identify ourselves, and some of these new identities do not fit into stereotypes. Helping professionals of all varieties need more education on these kinds of topics. ”
“It’s not a religion. It’s akin to our sexual orientation,” Williams said. “It’s their identity, and it’s an important part of who they are.”
Williams hopes his research helps to shine light on the issue of alternate identities and the need to be sensitive and aware.
“In our codes of ethics — and this is true of social work, counseling, psychology and medicine — we talk about being open and non-judgmental to try to understand a client’s world and context,” Williams said. “This study explored the world and context of self-proclaimed vampires. A lot of clinicians are still not willing to accept these types of studies or are not aware of them.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Study: Self-Identified ‘Vampires’ Fear Being Judged if They ‘Come Out of the Coffin’" by Rudy Takala, CNSNews.com 7/17/15
“People don’t seem to be diagnosed as vampires, at least not the way that the vampires in our study use that term. The self-identified vampires that we have dealt with seem to recognize at some point in their lives that they chronically seem to need extra energy.
“Eventually, they learn that there are other people who seem to have this same need, and they find a community with an explanation that seems to make sense to them,” Williams said.
Eighty-two percent of the study participants reported their gender as female, with one “intersexed, female assigned individual” and one “postoperative, male-to-female transsexual.” One participant identified as male, and one as “gender-queer.”
Five said they were pagan; four were wiccan; one identified as “spiritual”; and one said they had no religious affiliation.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Idaho Univ. Pays $20,000 to Unmuzzle Pro-lifers
Boise State University has agreed to pay Abolitionists4Life nominal damages plus legal fees for unfairly limiting the free speech of the pro-life student group compared to other student groups.
Ohio College Pays $9,000 for Censoring Christian Speech
Virginia College Lifts Muzzle on Christian Speech
Buffalo NY Univ. Charges Pro-life Students Extra $
Judge Rules Illinois College Must Accept 'Anti-Gay' Speech
Also read myriad examples of colleges and public schools censoring pro-life speech.
And read Gallup Poll Shows 'Higher Education' Indoctrinates Pro-abortion -- for example: University of Chicago Teaches Students How to Get Abortion
-- From "BSU, anti-abortion group settle free speech lawsuit" by Bill Roberts, Idaho Statesman 6/3/15
Signs were an integral part of what prompted the suit last June. Abolitionists4Life claimed that Boise State clipped its First Amendment rights when it asked the group to place warning signs around two exhibits that showed images from abortions and an autopsy photo of a woman who died having an abortion. Other groups weren’t asked to provide any signs, Abolitionists4Life said.
As part of the settlement, Boise State may either require signs that read, “Public display ahead; viewer discretion advised,” in all open spaces reserved for events, or simply require no signs at all.
The change puts people exercising their rights of free speech on an equal footing without regard to their message, said Lisa Atkins, who was president of the campus Abolitionists4Life group and was at the event last year that led to the lawsuit.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Idaho college no longer requires warning for contentious protests" by Laura Zuckerman, Reuters 6/3/15
The Alliance Defending Freedom [ADF], a conservative Christian legal organization, last year sued Boise State claiming the college deprived anti-abortion activists of their constitutional rights and unfairly targeted them by restricting where they could distribute fliers.
The lawsuit in federal court in Idaho was filed after the anti-abortion group Abolitionists4Life hosted two events on campus last spring that sought through images to “communicate its pro-life message,” the organization's senior legal counsel, David Hacker, said in a statement.
The university told Abolitionists4Life that so-called warning signs were required for events tied to issues considered controversial and that it must distribute anti-abortion pamphlets inside one of the school’s eight “speech zones,” said Hacker.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Boise State University to Pay $20,000 to Pro-Life Group After Backtracking on Censorship" by Ray Nothstine, Christian Post Contributor 6/6/15
In April and May of 2014, Abolitionists4Life hosted two events titled "Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust" and "What Has Roe Done for Us?" An official at the University demanded that the students had to use warning signs around their displays because they were deemed "controversial" in nature. The ADF pointed out in their lawsuit that the pro-life group was targeted with demands not consistent with other campus groups, including Planned Parenthood and an atheist group which both had free reign to disseminate their message on campus.
A press release by Alliance Defending Freedom quotes Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for America: "Pro-life students have every right to host events on campus as does any other student. Universities are supposed to be beacons of free speech and tolerance, not discriminatory havens of censorship where the only views tolerated are those of liberal administrators."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Boise State University Stops Making Pro-Life groups Post Warning Signs for Their Events" by Alliance Defending Freedom 6/3/15
Boise State University has allowed other groups to host events without warning signs, including Planned Parenthood, which distributed condoms on campus, and the Secular Student Alliance, which held “Does God Exist?” signs in open spaces on campus.
The university also prohibited [Abolitionists4Life] from distributing fliers outside one of the school’s eight “speech zones,” which together are limited to less than one percent of the entire campus.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Abortion Clinic Bombing Targets Pro-lifers Praying
And read myriad other examples of violence against pro-lifers.
“I am pretty happy with the policy they [Boise State] have ended up with.”For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
-- Lisa Atkins, Students For Life
"Perhaps colleges are slowly getting the message – after all, they aren't even trying to defend their 'free speech zones' in court…"
-- Susan Kruth, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
Ohio College Pays $9,000 for Censoring Christian Speech
Virginia College Lifts Muzzle on Christian Speech
Buffalo NY Univ. Charges Pro-life Students Extra $
Judge Rules Illinois College Must Accept 'Anti-Gay' Speech
Also read myriad examples of colleges and public schools censoring pro-life speech.
And read Gallup Poll Shows 'Higher Education' Indoctrinates Pro-abortion -- for example: University of Chicago Teaches Students How to Get Abortion
-- From "BSU, anti-abortion group settle free speech lawsuit" by Bill Roberts, Idaho Statesman 6/3/15
Signs were an integral part of what prompted the suit last June. Abolitionists4Life claimed that Boise State clipped its First Amendment rights when it asked the group to place warning signs around two exhibits that showed images from abortions and an autopsy photo of a woman who died having an abortion. Other groups weren’t asked to provide any signs, Abolitionists4Life said.
As part of the settlement, Boise State may either require signs that read, “Public display ahead; viewer discretion advised,” in all open spaces reserved for events, or simply require no signs at all.
The change puts people exercising their rights of free speech on an equal footing without regard to their message, said Lisa Atkins, who was president of the campus Abolitionists4Life group and was at the event last year that led to the lawsuit.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Idaho college no longer requires warning for contentious protests" by Laura Zuckerman, Reuters 6/3/15
The Alliance Defending Freedom [ADF], a conservative Christian legal organization, last year sued Boise State claiming the college deprived anti-abortion activists of their constitutional rights and unfairly targeted them by restricting where they could distribute fliers.
The lawsuit in federal court in Idaho was filed after the anti-abortion group Abolitionists4Life hosted two events on campus last spring that sought through images to “communicate its pro-life message,” the organization's senior legal counsel, David Hacker, said in a statement.
The university told Abolitionists4Life that so-called warning signs were required for events tied to issues considered controversial and that it must distribute anti-abortion pamphlets inside one of the school’s eight “speech zones,” said Hacker.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Boise State University to Pay $20,000 to Pro-Life Group After Backtracking on Censorship" by Ray Nothstine, Christian Post Contributor 6/6/15
In April and May of 2014, Abolitionists4Life hosted two events titled "Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust" and "What Has Roe Done for Us?" An official at the University demanded that the students had to use warning signs around their displays because they were deemed "controversial" in nature. The ADF pointed out in their lawsuit that the pro-life group was targeted with demands not consistent with other campus groups, including Planned Parenthood and an atheist group which both had free reign to disseminate their message on campus.
A press release by Alliance Defending Freedom quotes Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for America: "Pro-life students have every right to host events on campus as does any other student. Universities are supposed to be beacons of free speech and tolerance, not discriminatory havens of censorship where the only views tolerated are those of liberal administrators."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Boise State University Stops Making Pro-Life groups Post Warning Signs for Their Events" by Alliance Defending Freedom 6/3/15
Boise State University has allowed other groups to host events without warning signs, including Planned Parenthood, which distributed condoms on campus, and the Secular Student Alliance, which held “Does God Exist?” signs in open spaces on campus.
The university also prohibited [Abolitionists4Life] from distributing fliers outside one of the school’s eight “speech zones,” which together are limited to less than one percent of the entire campus.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Abortion Clinic Bombing Targets Pro-lifers Praying
And read myriad other examples of violence against pro-lifers.
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Courts Strike Abortion Bans, Supreme Court Next
Even as medical science proves fetal viability ever earlier in gestation, federal appeals courts continue to strike down state laws protecting unborn viable human beings from abortionists. Now, with Congress passing a ban on abortions after 20 weeks gestation, the Supreme Court will soon have no choice but to consider when life begins.
Physicians Force New York Times to Admit 22-week Fetus is a Baby!
Study Shows Babies Can Hear the Abortionist Coming
Abortionists Stymied by New Oklahoma & Kansas Laws
Abortion Outlawed in Florida for Viable Fetuses
Also read about new abortion restriction laws requiring tests for viability after 20 weeks in Ohio and also in Missouri.
And read Planned Parenthood President Asks, Who Cares When Life Begins?
-- From "Court nixes Idaho's 20-week abortion ban" by Peter Sullivan, The Hill 5/29/15
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Idaho's law violates Supreme Court precedent protecting abortions up to the point of viability for a fetus, which has been considered to be around 24 weeks.
Courts have struck down such bans before. In 2013, the 9th Circuit also ruled an Arizona ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to that decision.
Ten states currently have 20-week abortion bans, according to the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute. [Those states being Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Dakota, Texas and West Virginia].
There has been rising support for 20-week bans among Republicans. . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Idaho's Abortion Ban Struck Down" by Matt Reynolds, Courthouse News Service 5/29/15
Idaho's Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is "facially unconstitutional," a 9th Circuit panel said in a 28-page ruling, because "it categorically bans some abortions before viability" and "places an undue burden on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion by requiring hospitalizations for all second-trimester abortions."
The panel found that Jennie McCormack and her attorney-physician Richard Hearn still faced the "lingering risk" of prosecution under a law which banned abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Therefore they could challenge the constitutionality of the law, the panel said.
In March 2013, Chief U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill found that the regulations are unconstitutional.
The 9th Circuit unanimously affirmed that decision on Friday . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Arkansas: Stringent Abortion Limit Struck Down" by The Associated Press 5/27/15
A federal appeals court struck down one of the nation’s toughest abortion restrictions [Act 301 of 2013, the Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act] on Wednesday, agreeing with a lower court that a state law unconstitutionally burdens women by banning abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy if a doctor can detect a fetal heartbeat.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit sided with doctors who challenged the law, ruling that abortion restrictions must be based on a fetus’s ability to live outside the womb, not the presence of a fetal heartbeat, which can be detected weeks earlier.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "8th Circuit Strikes Down Arkansas Abortion Law" by Joe Harris, Courthouse News Service 5/27/15
In 2014, an Arkansas federal judge sided with Supreme Court precedent and struck down the law.
Arkansas appealed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that the viability standard cannot be the end of the discussion when weighed against the state's interest in protecting human life.
The court did acknowledge that medical advances since Roe v. Wade - the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision holding that privacy and due-process rights extend to a woman's decision to have an abortion - have moved fetus viability closer to conception, but found that "viability determination necessarily calls for a case-by-case determination and changes over time based on medical advancements" and that legislatures are better suited to make judgments in this area.
Circuit Judges Lavenski R. Smith, Duane Benton and Bobby E. Shepherd comprised the three-judge panel.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Court: 12-week abortion ban unconstitutional" by John Lyon, Arkansas News Bureau 5/27/15
Then-Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat, vetoed the bill [in 2013], saying it was unconstitutional, but the Republican-led Legislature overrode his veto.
The Center for Reproductive Rights and the Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging Act 301 on behalf of two Little Rock doctors who perform abortions [Dr. Louis Jerry Edwards and Dr. Tom Tvedten].
Sen. Jason Rapert, R-Conway, who sponsored the legislation that became Act 301, said he was disappointed with the ruling but happy that “every single woman who goes to a clinic is going to have to have an ultrasound. She will have to be informed if there is the presence of a heartbeat in the womb.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Supreme Court to decide whether to plunge back into abortion debate" by David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times 5/29/15
For years, the [Supreme Court] justices have steered clear of most abortion cases. A decision to turn down the latest appeals, from Mississippi and North Carolina, would be a victory for abortion rights advocates. . . .
At the Supreme Court, justices could announce as soon as Monday whether they will hear the Mississippi case. A decision on whether to hear North Carolina's appeal should come by mid-June.
Attorneys for the states that have passed new restrictions say the court should clarify the law governing abortions. In 1992, in its last sweeping abortion ruling, the high court said states may regulate the procedures so long as their rules do not put an “undue burden” on women seeking to end a pregnancy.
Lawyers for Mississippi called that a “vague and amorphous standard” which has not provided “meaningful guidance” to lawmakers or judges.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Abortion Edges Up as Important Voting Issue for Americans" by Rebecca Riffkin, Gallup 5/29/15
The percentage of Americans who say they would only vote for a candidate who shares their views on abortion has been edging up over the past seven years. The 21% who currently say this is, by one percentage point, the highest Gallup has found in its 19-year history of asking the question. The percentage of Americans who do not see abortion as a major issue in their voting decision has declined over the same period, and is now at 27%. Most of the rest (46%) say that abortion is one of many important factors they will take into account.
The recent uptick in the importance Americans place on where candidates stand on abortion comes as many states have enacted new or increased abortion restrictions. State lawmakers have passed more than 200 regulations on abortion since 2010, after Republicans gained control of many state legislatures. Republicans in Congress are currently advocating a federal bill banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, although President Barack Obama is unlikely to sign it.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read this Gallup poll: Americans Want Abortion Laws Changed
However, as Pro-life Laws Sweep America, Liberals Battle Back; for example, Abortionists and Satanists Team Up vs. Missouri Law
And read Abortionists Forced to Risk All in Supreme Court
“It is high time for this court to revisit the issue” of abortion, Mississippi Atty. Gen. Jim Hood told the Supreme Court justices in a brief filed in early May.For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
Physicians Force New York Times to Admit 22-week Fetus is a Baby!
Study Shows Babies Can Hear the Abortionist Coming
Abortionists Stymied by New Oklahoma & Kansas Laws
Abortion Outlawed in Florida for Viable Fetuses
Also read about new abortion restriction laws requiring tests for viability after 20 weeks in Ohio and also in Missouri.
And read Planned Parenthood President Asks, Who Cares When Life Begins?
-- From "Court nixes Idaho's 20-week abortion ban" by Peter Sullivan, The Hill 5/29/15
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Idaho's law violates Supreme Court precedent protecting abortions up to the point of viability for a fetus, which has been considered to be around 24 weeks.
Courts have struck down such bans before. In 2013, the 9th Circuit also ruled an Arizona ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to that decision.
Ten states currently have 20-week abortion bans, according to the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute. [Those states being Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Dakota, Texas and West Virginia].
There has been rising support for 20-week bans among Republicans. . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Idaho's Abortion Ban Struck Down" by Matt Reynolds, Courthouse News Service 5/29/15
Idaho's Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is "facially unconstitutional," a 9th Circuit panel said in a 28-page ruling, because "it categorically bans some abortions before viability" and "places an undue burden on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion by requiring hospitalizations for all second-trimester abortions."
The panel found that Jennie McCormack and her attorney-physician Richard Hearn still faced the "lingering risk" of prosecution under a law which banned abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Therefore they could challenge the constitutionality of the law, the panel said.
In March 2013, Chief U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill found that the regulations are unconstitutional.
The 9th Circuit unanimously affirmed that decision on Friday . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Arkansas: Stringent Abortion Limit Struck Down" by The Associated Press 5/27/15
A federal appeals court struck down one of the nation’s toughest abortion restrictions [Act 301 of 2013, the Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act] on Wednesday, agreeing with a lower court that a state law unconstitutionally burdens women by banning abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy if a doctor can detect a fetal heartbeat.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit sided with doctors who challenged the law, ruling that abortion restrictions must be based on a fetus’s ability to live outside the womb, not the presence of a fetal heartbeat, which can be detected weeks earlier.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "8th Circuit Strikes Down Arkansas Abortion Law" by Joe Harris, Courthouse News Service 5/27/15
In 2014, an Arkansas federal judge sided with Supreme Court precedent and struck down the law.
Arkansas appealed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that the viability standard cannot be the end of the discussion when weighed against the state's interest in protecting human life.
The court did acknowledge that medical advances since Roe v. Wade - the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision holding that privacy and due-process rights extend to a woman's decision to have an abortion - have moved fetus viability closer to conception, but found that "viability determination necessarily calls for a case-by-case determination and changes over time based on medical advancements" and that legislatures are better suited to make judgments in this area.
Circuit Judges Lavenski R. Smith, Duane Benton and Bobby E. Shepherd comprised the three-judge panel.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Court: 12-week abortion ban unconstitutional" by John Lyon, Arkansas News Bureau 5/27/15
Then-Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat, vetoed the bill [in 2013], saying it was unconstitutional, but the Republican-led Legislature overrode his veto.
The Center for Reproductive Rights and the Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging Act 301 on behalf of two Little Rock doctors who perform abortions [Dr. Louis Jerry Edwards and Dr. Tom Tvedten].
Sen. Jason Rapert, R-Conway, who sponsored the legislation that became Act 301, said he was disappointed with the ruling but happy that “every single woman who goes to a clinic is going to have to have an ultrasound. She will have to be informed if there is the presence of a heartbeat in the womb.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Supreme Court to decide whether to plunge back into abortion debate" by David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times 5/29/15
For years, the [Supreme Court] justices have steered clear of most abortion cases. A decision to turn down the latest appeals, from Mississippi and North Carolina, would be a victory for abortion rights advocates. . . .
At the Supreme Court, justices could announce as soon as Monday whether they will hear the Mississippi case. A decision on whether to hear North Carolina's appeal should come by mid-June.
Attorneys for the states that have passed new restrictions say the court should clarify the law governing abortions. In 1992, in its last sweeping abortion ruling, the high court said states may regulate the procedures so long as their rules do not put an “undue burden” on women seeking to end a pregnancy.
Lawyers for Mississippi called that a “vague and amorphous standard” which has not provided “meaningful guidance” to lawmakers or judges.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Abortion Edges Up as Important Voting Issue for Americans" by Rebecca Riffkin, Gallup 5/29/15
The percentage of Americans who say they would only vote for a candidate who shares their views on abortion has been edging up over the past seven years. The 21% who currently say this is, by one percentage point, the highest Gallup has found in its 19-year history of asking the question. The percentage of Americans who do not see abortion as a major issue in their voting decision has declined over the same period, and is now at 27%. Most of the rest (46%) say that abortion is one of many important factors they will take into account.
The recent uptick in the importance Americans place on where candidates stand on abortion comes as many states have enacted new or increased abortion restrictions. State lawmakers have passed more than 200 regulations on abortion since 2010, after Republicans gained control of many state legislatures. Republicans in Congress are currently advocating a federal bill banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, although President Barack Obama is unlikely to sign it.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read this Gallup poll: Americans Want Abortion Laws Changed
However, as Pro-life Laws Sweep America, Liberals Battle Back; for example, Abortionists and Satanists Team Up vs. Missouri Law
And read Abortionists Forced to Risk All in Supreme Court
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Pastors Face Fines, Jail for Refusing 'Gay Wedding'
Donald and Evelyn Knapp, owners of The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, have filed a federal lawsuit against the city for unconstitutionally forcing them to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.
UPDATE 7/25/15: Kentucky Forbids Pastors Calling Homosexuality 'Sinful'
UPDATE 8/2/15: Christian Prayer Outrages California City Council
For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
Houston Lesbian Mayor Subpoenas Pastors' Sermons
North Carolina Christians Lose Job: Refuse Same-sex 'Wedding'
American Preacher Arrested for Talking of Sexual Sin in Scotland
Canada: Pastor Found Guilty of Hate Crime
Supreme Court Rules Bible as 'Hate Speech' in Canada
European Union High Court Rules Gay Agenda Trumps Christianity
Also read Pentagon Says Christians Who Oppose Gay Agenda are 'Hate Groups'
In addition, read about states passing religious liberty laws to protect citizens and their businesses from lawsuits by homosexualists and/or fines by courts, and to ensure the free practice of religion without government interference.
So what is this ObamaNation? It's a 'Fake Church,' Says Catholic Cardinal
-- From "Hitching Post sues Coeur d’Alene after declining to marry gay couple" by Nina Culver, The Spokesman-Review 10/17/14
The city passed an ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in 2013. It applies to housing, employment and “public accommodation.” Religious entities are exempt from the ordinance. But in May city attorney Warren Wilson told The Spokesman-Review that The Hitching Post, which is a for-profit business, likely would be required to follow the ordinance.
According to the lawsuit, a man called the business Friday to ask about a same-sex wedding ceremony and was turned down. The Knapps are now asking for a temporary restraining order against the city to stop it from enforcing the ordinance. Violation of the ordinance is a misdemeanor punishable by fines and jail time.
The city’s ordinance is a violation of the couple’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights along with a violation of the Idaho Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act, the lawsuit said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail" by Ryan T. Anderson, The Daily Signal 10/18/14
The Idaho case involves Donald and Evelyn Knapp, both ordained ministers, who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel. Officials from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, told the couple that because the city has a non-discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, and because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the couple would have to officiate at same-sex weddings in their own chapel.
The non-discrimination statute applies to all “public accommodations,” and the city views the chapel as a public accommodation.
The Knapps have been married to each other for 47 years and are both ordained ministers of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. They are “evangelical Christians who hold to historic Christian beliefs” that “God created two distinct genders in His image” and “that God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "New America: Ordained ministers threatened with jail unless they perform same sex marriages" by Rick Moran, American Thinker 10/19/14
City officials in Coeur d'Alene Idaho have told a married couple who are both ordained ministers that they will go to jail if they refuse to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples.
The couple would face 180 days in jail and up to $1000 in fines per day if they dared to adhere to their religious beliefs.
How many other towns and cities have statutes like this? No doubt there are other budding fascists out there who would enjoy putting Christian ministers in jail for not violating the sacred tenets of their faith.
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
From "Can ministers who make a living by conducting weddings be required to conduct same-sex weddings?" by Eugene Volokh, Washington Post 10/18/14
Friday, the Knapps moved for a temporary restraining order, arguing that applying the antidiscrimination ordinance to them would be unconstitutional and would also violate Idaho’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I think that has to be right: compelling them to speak words in ceremonies that they think are immoral is an unconstitutional speech compulsion. Given that the Free Speech Clause bars the government from requiring public school students to say the pledge of allegiance, or even from requiring drivers to display a slogan on their license plates (Wooley v. Maynard (1977)), the government can’t require ministers — or other private citizens — to speak the words in a ceremony, on pain of either having to close their business or face fines and jail time. (If the minister is required to conduct a ceremony that contains religious language, that would violate the Establishment Clause as well.)
And I find it hard to see a compelling government interest in barring sexual orientation discrimination by ministers officiating in a chapel. Whatever interests there may be in equal access to jobs, to education, or even in most public accommodations, I don’t see how there would be a “compelling” government interest in preventing discrimination in the provision of ceremonies, especially ceremonies conducted by ministers in chapels.
Note that, if the law can be applied against the Knapps, public accommodation laws could also equally be applied to ministers who provide freelance officiating services in exchange for money.
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
Also read 'Gay Marriage' Not Favored in Polls, Only in Court
And read Gay Agenda will be Complete when Christians are Muzzled, Say Homosexualists as well as Senator Ted Cruz Says the Gay Agenda Ends Christian Liberty
“The Knapps are thus under a constant, coercive and substantial threat to violate their religious beliefs due to the risk that they will incur the penalties of jail time and criminal fines for declining to speak a message and perform a wedding service that contradicts their religious beliefs and ministerial vows.”UPDATE 6/20/15: Homosexuals Force Closure of Iowa Wedding Chapel
-- Lawsuit filed by Coeur d’Alene attorney Virginia McNulty Robinson, in partnership with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)
UPDATE 7/25/15: Kentucky Forbids Pastors Calling Homosexuality 'Sinful'
UPDATE 8/2/15: Christian Prayer Outrages California City Council
For background, click headlines below to read previous articles:
Houston Lesbian Mayor Subpoenas Pastors' Sermons
North Carolina Christians Lose Job: Refuse Same-sex 'Wedding'
American Preacher Arrested for Talking of Sexual Sin in Scotland
Canada: Pastor Found Guilty of Hate Crime
Supreme Court Rules Bible as 'Hate Speech' in Canada
European Union High Court Rules Gay Agenda Trumps Christianity
Also read Pentagon Says Christians Who Oppose Gay Agenda are 'Hate Groups'
In addition, read about states passing religious liberty laws to protect citizens and their businesses from lawsuits by homosexualists and/or fines by courts, and to ensure the free practice of religion without government interference.
So what is this ObamaNation? It's a 'Fake Church,' Says Catholic Cardinal
 |
| Click here for local TV news video, and also see video of the Coeur d'Alene City Attorney Warren Wilson assuring prosecution of pastors. |
-- From "Hitching Post sues Coeur d’Alene after declining to marry gay couple" by Nina Culver, The Spokesman-Review 10/17/14
The city passed an ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in 2013. It applies to housing, employment and “public accommodation.” Religious entities are exempt from the ordinance. But in May city attorney Warren Wilson told The Spokesman-Review that The Hitching Post, which is a for-profit business, likely would be required to follow the ordinance.
According to the lawsuit, a man called the business Friday to ask about a same-sex wedding ceremony and was turned down. The Knapps are now asking for a temporary restraining order against the city to stop it from enforcing the ordinance. Violation of the ordinance is a misdemeanor punishable by fines and jail time.
The city’s ordinance is a violation of the couple’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights along with a violation of the Idaho Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act, the lawsuit said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail" by Ryan T. Anderson, The Daily Signal 10/18/14
The Idaho case involves Donald and Evelyn Knapp, both ordained ministers, who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel. Officials from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, told the couple that because the city has a non-discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, and because the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Idaho’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, the couple would have to officiate at same-sex weddings in their own chapel.
The non-discrimination statute applies to all “public accommodations,” and the city views the chapel as a public accommodation.
The Knapps have been married to each other for 47 years and are both ordained ministers of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. They are “evangelical Christians who hold to historic Christian beliefs” that “God created two distinct genders in His image” and “that God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "New America: Ordained ministers threatened with jail unless they perform same sex marriages" by Rick Moran, American Thinker 10/19/14
City officials in Coeur d'Alene Idaho have told a married couple who are both ordained ministers that they will go to jail if they refuse to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples.
The couple would face 180 days in jail and up to $1000 in fines per day if they dared to adhere to their religious beliefs.
How many other towns and cities have statutes like this? No doubt there are other budding fascists out there who would enjoy putting Christian ministers in jail for not violating the sacred tenets of their faith.
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
From "Can ministers who make a living by conducting weddings be required to conduct same-sex weddings?" by Eugene Volokh, Washington Post 10/18/14
Friday, the Knapps moved for a temporary restraining order, arguing that applying the antidiscrimination ordinance to them would be unconstitutional and would also violate Idaho’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I think that has to be right: compelling them to speak words in ceremonies that they think are immoral is an unconstitutional speech compulsion. Given that the Free Speech Clause bars the government from requiring public school students to say the pledge of allegiance, or even from requiring drivers to display a slogan on their license plates (Wooley v. Maynard (1977)), the government can’t require ministers — or other private citizens — to speak the words in a ceremony, on pain of either having to close their business or face fines and jail time. (If the minister is required to conduct a ceremony that contains religious language, that would violate the Establishment Clause as well.)
And I find it hard to see a compelling government interest in barring sexual orientation discrimination by ministers officiating in a chapel. Whatever interests there may be in equal access to jobs, to education, or even in most public accommodations, I don’t see how there would be a “compelling” government interest in preventing discrimination in the provision of ceremonies, especially ceremonies conducted by ministers in chapels.
Note that, if the law can be applied against the Knapps, public accommodation laws could also equally be applied to ministers who provide freelance officiating services in exchange for money.
To read the entire opinion column above, CLICK HERE.
Also read 'Gay Marriage' Not Favored in Polls, Only in Court
And read Gay Agenda will be Complete when Christians are Muzzled, Say Homosexualists as well as Senator Ted Cruz Says the Gay Agenda Ends Christian Liberty
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Activist Judges Say Scalia Right on 'Gay Marriage'
Gay Agenda judges across America are rapidly falling in line to forbid American voters the right to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a devout Roman Catholic, has warned for more than a decade that judicial activism in the high court decisions were pointing toward an eventual stripping of moral values from the fabric that created America.
Just as Scalia predicted, when he Slammed the Supreme Court Majority in June 2013:
UPDATE 5/20/14: 'Gay Marriage' Not Favored in Polls, Only in Court
! ! ! ! UPDATE 11/7/14: 'Gay Marriage' Loses in Federal Appeals Court; on to Supreme Court
-- From "Judge Completely Trolls Justice Scalia In Striking Down Utah's Gay Marriage Ban" by Brett LoGiurato, Business Insider 12/20/13
[Justice Antonin Scalia's] prediction came true on Friday, when U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that Utah's 2004 ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. And Shelby even made note of Scalia's dissent at points in his ruling, citing it as part of his reasoning in striking down the Utah law.
Scalia warned that the Supreme Court's reasoning that struck down [one portion of] the Defense of Marriage Act — which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples — could be used to strike down state laws banning same-sex marriage. Scalia, who's notoriously anti-gay marriage, was saying this was a bad thing. In an interesting twist, Utah's Judge Shelby quoted Scalia's negative prophecy in his pro-gay marriage opinion [and] then wrote that he "agreed" with that part of Scalia's opinion, and offered his response. Though Scalia meant it as some kind of dire warning, Shelby cited the Supreme Court's decision as a reason to overturn Utah's law:
From "Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling ripples through lower courts" by Matt Pearce, Los Angeles Times 12/23/13
The scenarios must have sounded all too familiar to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In June, when the court issued a landmark decision ordering the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they were legal, Scalia warned of what could come next.
"How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status," Scalia wrote in a scathing dissent in United States vs. Windsor, which struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act but left state laws intact. "No one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe" to drop.
Now, for opponents of same-sex marriage, the other shoe is dropping.
"Now it is just as Justice Scalia predicted," [U.S. District Judge Timothy S.] Black wrote in his Ohio ruling. "The lower courts are applying the Supreme Court's decision, as they must, and the question is presented whether a state can do what the federal government cannot — i.e., discriminate against same-sex couples. ... Under the Constitution of the United States, the answer is no."
[Numerous] judges have overridden legislators and voters who had approved the bans before national popular opinion began to tilt in favor of same-sex marriage.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Same-Sex-Marriage Supporters Applaud Ohio and Utah Rulings" by Jack Healy And Trip Gabriel, New York Times 12/23/13
The same-sex weddings began in a joyful chaos on Friday afternoon after Judge Shelby declared that the ban that Utah voters approved in 2004 violated the United States Constitution. While many gay-rights advocates expected a favorable ruling from Judge Shelby, an appointee of President Obama, the timing caught many gay couples off-guard. . . .
Gov. Gary R. Herbert, a Republican, said the flurry of new marriages and unresolved legal questions — lawyers on both sides said the case was likely to reach the United States Supreme Court — had created “a lot of chaos” in Utah. He condemned the ruling as an activist judge’s attack on a definition of traditional marriage that was supported by a wide majority of Utah residents.
. . . A spokeswoman for Ohio’s attorney general, Mike DeWine, said he would appeal the [Ohio] ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The Ohio decision did not go as far as the ruling in Utah, but experts said both were among federal cases around the country likely to return the issue of same-sex marriage to the Supreme Court.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Same-Sex Marriage, The Legal Deluge" by Jeffrey Toobin, The New Yorker 12/24/13
. . . The Mormon Church, once a leader of the anti-marriage-equality fight and a major force in Utah, was practically apologetic in its disagreement with the decision. “The Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with respect,” the Church statement said. “This ruling by a district court will work its way through the judicial process.” A few dead-enders in Utah have fought back, and there is no guarantee that the decision will survive on appeal, but the muted response suggests that everyone, on all sides of the issue, sees where the country is headed.
Dominoes are falling all over. The day before Utah became the eighteenth state (in addition to the District of Columbia) to allow same-sex marriage, New Mexico became No. 17. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled unanimously that its state constitution required marriage equality.
. . . The Ohio [Judge Black] decision is crucial because people in the United States tend to move from state to state. . . . It would be a disorderly mess to have separate spheres of law [from state to state] for gay married couples and straight married couples . . .
What [Utah's Judge] Shelby and all these judges are seeing is that it is impossible to offer gay people some rights and not others. . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Federal Judge: Right to Same-Sex Marriage Is 'Deeply Rooted in Nation’s History and Implicit in The Concept of Ordered Liberty'" by Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com 12/21/13
“The alleged right to same-sex marriage that the State claims the Plaintiffs are seeking is simply the same right that is currently enjoyed by heterosexual individuals: the right to make a public commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner with whom the person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond,” wrote [Judge Shelby].
“This right is deeply rooted in the nation’s history and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty because it protects an individual’s ability to make deeply personal choices about love and family free from government interference,” he declared. “And, as discussed above, this right is enjoyed by all individuals. If the right to same-sex marriage were a new right, then it should make new protections and benefits available to all citizens. But heterosexual individuals are as likely to exercise their purported right to same-sex marriage as gay men and lesbians are to exercise their purported right to opposite-sex marriage. Both same-sex and opposite-sex marriage are therefore simply manifestations of one right—the right to marry—applied to people with different sexual identities.”
“The Plaintiffs are seeking access to an existing right, not the declaration of a new right,” said the judge.
The judge argued that the Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1791, and the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, are the two provisions of the Constitution that have guaranteed the “existing right” of a man to marry another man or a woman to marry another woman.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Ohio gay marriage ruling may just be beginning" by Amanda Lee Myers, Associated Press 12/24/13
In a broadly written ruling Monday, Judge Timothy Black said Ohio's ["Gay Marriage"] ban is unconstitutional and that states cannot discriminate against same-sex couples simply because some voters don't like homosexuality.
Bridget Coontz, the attorney who argued on behalf of the state, said Wednesday in Black's Cincinnati courtroom that in the Supreme Court's historic June decision, the justices also found that states have the right to decide for themselves whether to recognize gay marriage, and Ohio voters decided not to in 2004.
"Ohio doesn't want Delaware or Maryland to define who is married under Ohio law," she said. "To allow that to happen would allow one state to set the marriage policy for all others."
Black said constitutional rights trump Ohio's gay marriage ban, questioning whether it was passed for a legitimate state interest "other than simply maintaining a 'traditional' definition of marriage."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 12/29/13: "Scalia finds his predictions on same-sex-marriage ruling being borne out" by Robert Barnes, Washington Post
. . . as Scalia pointed out, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s DOMA decision practically provided a blueprint for how such challenges might be successful.
It is not surprising that judges might want to quote a conservative justice when striking down what voters have put in place. Ohio and Utah voters amended their state constitutions to ban same-sex marriages in 2004, along with other states. Black and Shelby were nominated by President Obama.
Shelby, 43, does not have the reputation as a firebrand. He had been on the bench only six months when he was assigned the same-sex marriage case Kitchen v. Herbert. He was previously a Salt Lake City lawyer and was honored for his service in Operation Desert Storm while in the Utah National Guard.
The state of Utah has said it will ask the Supreme Court to stay Shelby’s ruling and stop same-sex marriages while an appeals court considers the merits of the decision. . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
And although 'Gay Marriage' is NOT America's Choice, as Polling Shows, nonetheless More High-profile Republicans are Going Gay Agenda, and the Republican Party is Funding Homosexualist Candidates, thus demonstrating that The GOP Has Failed the Nationwide Marriage Amendment Test
Also read Gay Agenda will be Complete when Christians are Muzzled, Say Homosexualists as well as Senator Ted Cruz Says the Gay Agenda Ends Christian Liberty
UPDATE 10/19/14: Idaho Pastors Face Fines, Jail for Refusing 'Gay Wedding'
Just as Scalia predicted, when he Slammed the Supreme Court Majority in June 2013:
Federal Judge OKs Polygamy in UtahIn contrast, 'Gay Marriage' Flops in Expanding European Union and also Africans Reject Obama's Gay Agenda, to his Face
Federal Judge Orders Utah 'Gay Marriages' to Proceed — UPDATE 7/19/14: Supreme Court Blocks "Gay Marriages" OKd by Obama's DOJ
Federal Judge Negates Ohio Voters, Recognizes 'Gay Marriage'
Pennsylvania Officials Defy Voters, Issue 'Gay Marriage' Licenses — UPDATE 5/20/14: Federal Judge Rules Voters Cannot Define Natural Marriage
North Carolina Officials Defy Voters re: 'Gay Marriage' Licenses
Hawaii Government Oppose Citizens re: 'Gay Marriage'
Illinois Government Oppose Black & Catholic Churches re: 'Gay Marriage'
New Jersey Supreme Court Mandates 'Gay Marriage'
New Mexico Supreme Court Legalizes 'Gay Marriage'
President Obama Edicts 'Gay Marriage' to ALL States
UPDATE 2/10/14: New Mexico Voters' Defense of Marriage Now Said to be Indefensible
UPDATE 2/10/14: Lawless Nevada GOP Governor Yields 'Gay Marriage' Victory at 9th Circuit
UPDATE 2/14/14: Judges Negate Marriage Votes in Kentucky, Virginia
UPDATE 3/4/14: GOP Coalition Pushes 'Gay Marriage' in 10th Circuit Appeals Court
UPDATE 3/22/14: Suddenly, Judge Proclaims 'Gay Marriages' Must Commence in Michigan
UPDATE 5/10/14: Judges Negate Voters in Arkansas & Indiana: Gay Agenda
UPDATE 5/20/14: Idaho ruling against natural marriage put on hold by 9th Circuit Appeals Court
UPDATE 5/20/14: Oregon Judge Enacts 'Gay Marriage,' Citizens Want Re-vote to Overrule Judge
UPDATE 6/10/14: 'Gay Marriage' Chaos in Wisconsin after Judicial Ruling
UPDATE 7/18/14: 10th Circuit Rules for Same-sex "Marriage" in Utah & Oklahoma
UPDATE 7/30/14: 4th Circuit Judge Says Polygamy Will Follow Ruling for 'Gay Marriage'
UPDATE 9/6/14: 7th Circuit Court Goes Gay for Indiana & Wisconsin
UPDATE 10/7/14: List of status of all 50 states - same-sex "marriage" (Associated Press)
UPDATE 1/6/15: Florida Goes Gay, as a Few Judges Overrule 5 Million Voters
UPDATE 5/20/14: 'Gay Marriage' Not Favored in Polls, Only in Court
! ! ! ! UPDATE 11/7/14: 'Gay Marriage' Loses in Federal Appeals Court; on to Supreme Court
-- From "Judge Completely Trolls Justice Scalia In Striking Down Utah's Gay Marriage Ban" by Brett LoGiurato, Business Insider 12/20/13
[Justice Antonin Scalia's] prediction came true on Friday, when U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled that Utah's 2004 ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. And Shelby even made note of Scalia's dissent at points in his ruling, citing it as part of his reasoning in striking down the Utah law.
Scalia warned that the Supreme Court's reasoning that struck down [one portion of] the Defense of Marriage Act — which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples — could be used to strike down state laws banning same-sex marriage. Scalia, who's notoriously anti-gay marriage, was saying this was a bad thing. In an interesting twist, Utah's Judge Shelby quoted Scalia's negative prophecy in his pro-gay marriage opinion [and] then wrote that he "agreed" with that part of Scalia's opinion, and offered his response. Though Scalia meant it as some kind of dire warning, Shelby cited the Supreme Court's decision as a reason to overturn Utah's law:
The court agrees with Justice Scalia’s interpretation of Windsor and finds that the important federalism concerns at issue here are nevertheless insufficient to save a state-law prohibition that denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the law.To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling ripples through lower courts" by Matt Pearce, Los Angeles Times 12/23/13
The scenarios must have sounded all too familiar to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In June, when the court issued a landmark decision ordering the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they were legal, Scalia warned of what could come next.
"How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status," Scalia wrote in a scathing dissent in United States vs. Windsor, which struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act but left state laws intact. "No one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe" to drop.
Now, for opponents of same-sex marriage, the other shoe is dropping.
"Now it is just as Justice Scalia predicted," [U.S. District Judge Timothy S.] Black wrote in his Ohio ruling. "The lower courts are applying the Supreme Court's decision, as they must, and the question is presented whether a state can do what the federal government cannot — i.e., discriminate against same-sex couples. ... Under the Constitution of the United States, the answer is no."
[Numerous] judges have overridden legislators and voters who had approved the bans before national popular opinion began to tilt in favor of same-sex marriage.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Same-Sex-Marriage Supporters Applaud Ohio and Utah Rulings" by Jack Healy And Trip Gabriel, New York Times 12/23/13
The same-sex weddings began in a joyful chaos on Friday afternoon after Judge Shelby declared that the ban that Utah voters approved in 2004 violated the United States Constitution. While many gay-rights advocates expected a favorable ruling from Judge Shelby, an appointee of President Obama, the timing caught many gay couples off-guard. . . .
Gov. Gary R. Herbert, a Republican, said the flurry of new marriages and unresolved legal questions — lawyers on both sides said the case was likely to reach the United States Supreme Court — had created “a lot of chaos” in Utah. He condemned the ruling as an activist judge’s attack on a definition of traditional marriage that was supported by a wide majority of Utah residents.
. . . A spokeswoman for Ohio’s attorney general, Mike DeWine, said he would appeal the [Ohio] ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The Ohio decision did not go as far as the ruling in Utah, but experts said both were among federal cases around the country likely to return the issue of same-sex marriage to the Supreme Court.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Same-Sex Marriage, The Legal Deluge" by Jeffrey Toobin, The New Yorker 12/24/13
. . . The Mormon Church, once a leader of the anti-marriage-equality fight and a major force in Utah, was practically apologetic in its disagreement with the decision. “The Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with respect,” the Church statement said. “This ruling by a district court will work its way through the judicial process.” A few dead-enders in Utah have fought back, and there is no guarantee that the decision will survive on appeal, but the muted response suggests that everyone, on all sides of the issue, sees where the country is headed.
Dominoes are falling all over. The day before Utah became the eighteenth state (in addition to the District of Columbia) to allow same-sex marriage, New Mexico became No. 17. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled unanimously that its state constitution required marriage equality.
. . . The Ohio [Judge Black] decision is crucial because people in the United States tend to move from state to state. . . . It would be a disorderly mess to have separate spheres of law [from state to state] for gay married couples and straight married couples . . .
What [Utah's Judge] Shelby and all these judges are seeing is that it is impossible to offer gay people some rights and not others. . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Federal Judge: Right to Same-Sex Marriage Is 'Deeply Rooted in Nation’s History and Implicit in The Concept of Ordered Liberty'" by Terence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com 12/21/13
“The alleged right to same-sex marriage that the State claims the Plaintiffs are seeking is simply the same right that is currently enjoyed by heterosexual individuals: the right to make a public commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner with whom the person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond,” wrote [Judge Shelby].
“This right is deeply rooted in the nation’s history and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty because it protects an individual’s ability to make deeply personal choices about love and family free from government interference,” he declared. “And, as discussed above, this right is enjoyed by all individuals. If the right to same-sex marriage were a new right, then it should make new protections and benefits available to all citizens. But heterosexual individuals are as likely to exercise their purported right to same-sex marriage as gay men and lesbians are to exercise their purported right to opposite-sex marriage. Both same-sex and opposite-sex marriage are therefore simply manifestations of one right—the right to marry—applied to people with different sexual identities.”
“The Plaintiffs are seeking access to an existing right, not the declaration of a new right,” said the judge.
The judge argued that the Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1791, and the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, are the two provisions of the Constitution that have guaranteed the “existing right” of a man to marry another man or a woman to marry another woman.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Ohio gay marriage ruling may just be beginning" by Amanda Lee Myers, Associated Press 12/24/13
In a broadly written ruling Monday, Judge Timothy Black said Ohio's ["Gay Marriage"] ban is unconstitutional and that states cannot discriminate against same-sex couples simply because some voters don't like homosexuality.
Bridget Coontz, the attorney who argued on behalf of the state, said Wednesday in Black's Cincinnati courtroom that in the Supreme Court's historic June decision, the justices also found that states have the right to decide for themselves whether to recognize gay marriage, and Ohio voters decided not to in 2004.
"Ohio doesn't want Delaware or Maryland to define who is married under Ohio law," she said. "To allow that to happen would allow one state to set the marriage policy for all others."
Black said constitutional rights trump Ohio's gay marriage ban, questioning whether it was passed for a legitimate state interest "other than simply maintaining a 'traditional' definition of marriage."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 12/29/13: "Scalia finds his predictions on same-sex-marriage ruling being borne out" by Robert Barnes, Washington Post
. . . as Scalia pointed out, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s DOMA decision practically provided a blueprint for how such challenges might be successful.
It is not surprising that judges might want to quote a conservative justice when striking down what voters have put in place. Ohio and Utah voters amended their state constitutions to ban same-sex marriages in 2004, along with other states. Black and Shelby were nominated by President Obama.
Shelby, 43, does not have the reputation as a firebrand. He had been on the bench only six months when he was assigned the same-sex marriage case Kitchen v. Herbert. He was previously a Salt Lake City lawyer and was honored for his service in Operation Desert Storm while in the Utah National Guard.
The state of Utah has said it will ask the Supreme Court to stay Shelby’s ruling and stop same-sex marriages while an appeals court considers the merits of the decision. . . .
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
And although 'Gay Marriage' is NOT America's Choice, as Polling Shows, nonetheless More High-profile Republicans are Going Gay Agenda, and the Republican Party is Funding Homosexualist Candidates, thus demonstrating that The GOP Has Failed the Nationwide Marriage Amendment Test
Also read Gay Agenda will be Complete when Christians are Muzzled, Say Homosexualists as well as Senator Ted Cruz Says the Gay Agenda Ends Christian Liberty
UPDATE 10/19/14: Idaho Pastors Face Fines, Jail for Refusing 'Gay Wedding'
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Idaho School Takes Bible to Supreme Court
A now-defunct Idaho charter that sued the state because it wanted to use the Bible and other religious texts in the classroom has lost an appeal to the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
For background, read Bible Ban by Idaho State Agency Challenged
UPDATE 9/15/11 - Fox News report:
-- From "Idaho charter school loses federal appeal over Bible teaching" by Betsy, The Spokesman Review 8/18/11
The Idaho Constitution out-and-out bans state funding for religious instruction in Article 9, Section 5, and in Article 9, Section 6, states, “No sectarian or religious tenets or doctrines shall ever be taught in the public schools,” and adds, “No books, papers, tracts or documents of a political, sectarian or denominational character shall be used or introduced in any schools established under the provisions of this article.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Idaho charter school loses 9th circuit appeal" by Jessie L. Bonner, Associated Press 8/18/11
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the previous ruling against the now-defunct Nampa Classical Academy, in a decision earlier this week. The Idaho Public Charter School Commission closed the academy last year citing troubled finances.
The speech clause in the First Amendment does not "give Idaho charter school teachers, Idaho charter school students, or the parents of Idaho charter school students a right to have primary religious texts included as part of the school curriculum," the appeals court said.
The U.S. Supreme Court banned ceremonial school Bible readings in a 1963 ruling but said "the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities" so long as material is "presented objectively as part of a secular program of education." Public schools across the country have traditionally avoided Bible courses — and the potential controversy that surrounds them — but hundreds do offer voluntary classes to students.
The academy argued that the practice goes unchecked elsewhere in Idaho.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "ADF prepared to take Nampa Classical case to Supreme Court" by Idaho Press-Tribune Staff
David Cortman, senior legal counsel with ADF [The Alliance Defense Fund, the organization suing the state of Idaho on behalf of the Academy], said in an email to the Idaho Press-Tribune they are prepared to take the case to the Supreme Court.
“In our opinion, the court failed to perform any meaningful analysis of any issue in the case, including the seminal one: whether there is any educational purpose to ban all religious documents from objective teaching …” Cortman said.
He said the court also ignored the right of local school districts to choose their own texts and curriculum.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
For background, read Bible Ban by Idaho State Agency Challenged
UPDATE 9/15/11 - Fox News report:
-- From "Idaho charter school loses federal appeal over Bible teaching" by Betsy, The Spokesman Review 8/18/11
The Idaho Constitution out-and-out bans state funding for religious instruction in Article 9, Section 5, and in Article 9, Section 6, states, “No sectarian or religious tenets or doctrines shall ever be taught in the public schools,” and adds, “No books, papers, tracts or documents of a political, sectarian or denominational character shall be used or introduced in any schools established under the provisions of this article.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Idaho charter school loses 9th circuit appeal" by Jessie L. Bonner, Associated Press 8/18/11
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the previous ruling against the now-defunct Nampa Classical Academy, in a decision earlier this week. The Idaho Public Charter School Commission closed the academy last year citing troubled finances.
The speech clause in the First Amendment does not "give Idaho charter school teachers, Idaho charter school students, or the parents of Idaho charter school students a right to have primary religious texts included as part of the school curriculum," the appeals court said.
The U.S. Supreme Court banned ceremonial school Bible readings in a 1963 ruling but said "the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities" so long as material is "presented objectively as part of a secular program of education." Public schools across the country have traditionally avoided Bible courses — and the potential controversy that surrounds them — but hundreds do offer voluntary classes to students.
The academy argued that the practice goes unchecked elsewhere in Idaho.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "ADF prepared to take Nampa Classical case to Supreme Court" by Idaho Press-Tribune Staff
David Cortman, senior legal counsel with ADF [The Alliance Defense Fund, the organization suing the state of Idaho on behalf of the Academy], said in an email to the Idaho Press-Tribune they are prepared to take the case to the Supreme Court.
“In our opinion, the court failed to perform any meaningful analysis of any issue in the case, including the seminal one: whether there is any educational purpose to ban all religious documents from objective teaching …” Cortman said.
He said the court also ignored the right of local school districts to choose their own texts and curriculum.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
'Late-Term' Abortion Redefined: Fetal Pain
Pro-life state legislatures across America, including Kansas, are passing new laws to protect unborn babies of more than 20 or 21 weeks gestation from a painful death by an abortionist.
UPDATE 9/1/11: Woman challenges Idaho fetal pain law
UPDATE 7/15/11: Missouri Dem. Gov. Restricts Abortion after 20 Weeks
UPDATE 6/10/11: Alabama Restricts Abortion on Fetal Pain
UPDATE 4/21/11: Oklahoma "fetal pain" law enacted
UPDATE 4/12/11: Kansas governor makes parental consent and "fetal pain" restrictions law
UPDATE 4/6/11: Idaho passes "fetal pain" abortion restriction bill
UPDATE 4/2/11: Abortion Fetal Pain Bill Passes Iowa House
-- From "States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion" by Judson Berger, FoxNews.com 3/25/11
The bills were modeled after legislation passed last year in Nebraska premised on research suggesting a fetus is able to feel pain after 20 weeks. Similar proposals are percolating in at least nine other states, according to one organization's estimate.
In Kansas, the Senate-passed bill stands a much better chance of becoming law than in prior years, when Democrats Mark Parkinson and before that Kathleen Sebelius -- now President Obama's health secretary -- were in the governor's office. Newly seated Republican Gov. Sam Brownback is expected to sign it.
Should they pass, the bills would considerably limit the window -- by a month or more -- in which some women are able to seek an abortion. The proposals would, unlike most existing restrictions, prohibit abortions well within the second trimester.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "[Kansas] Senate moves abortion regulation bill" by Tim Carpenter, Topeka Capital-Journal 3/23/11
In January, [Kansas] Republican Gov. Sam Brownback called upon lawmakers to aggressively advance legislation based on the belief "all life is sacred."
Laborious debate driven by opponents of a multifaceted abortion regulation bill Wednesday failed to inhibit passage of a new parental consent mandate for minors, greater clinic reporting on abortions and expanded opportunity to file lawsuits against physicians.
Under the bill, a female under age 18 would need notarized consent from both parents or guardians to obtain an abortion. Current law requires minors to notify a parent.
The bill would allow a woman, her husband or the parents of a minor to bring a civil lawsuit against a physician performing an abortion in violation of Kansas law.
A woman seeking an abortion would have to be told her fetus was a "whole, separate, unique, living human being."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Legislators in three states pass new restrictions on abortion" posted at Reuters 3/23/11
State lawmakers in Arizona, Kansas and Idaho moved on Wednesday to place new restrictions on abortion, as opponents of the procedure looked to seize on gains by conservatives in the November mid-term elections.
. . . the Idaho Senate approved legislation placing similar restrictions on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, sending its bill to the state House of Representatives, where passage is expected.
A National Right to Life Committee representative predicted the legislation will find favor with Idaho's Republican governor.
Seventeen states in all are considering bills that would outlaw abortion after 20 weeks of gestation, unless it could be proved the pregnancy endangered the woman's life. Supporters cite research suggesting a fetus can feel pain at that stage of development.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read, Media See Pro-lifers Gaining on Abortionists, as well as Abortion Prayer Vigil Nationwide: 40 Days for Life
"It's kind of amazing to me that there can be an uproar if any pain was inflicted on a cat but to inflict almost unbearable pain on a child, well that's okay."Read companion articles: Pro-life Legislation Floods America and Virginia Abortion Clinics Likely to Close
UPDATE 9/1/11: Woman challenges Idaho fetal pain law
UPDATE 7/15/11: Missouri Dem. Gov. Restricts Abortion after 20 Weeks
UPDATE 6/10/11: Alabama Restricts Abortion on Fetal Pain
UPDATE 4/21/11: Oklahoma "fetal pain" law enacted
UPDATE 4/12/11: Kansas governor makes parental consent and "fetal pain" restrictions law
UPDATE 4/6/11: Idaho passes "fetal pain" abortion restriction bill
UPDATE 4/2/11: Abortion Fetal Pain Bill Passes Iowa House
-- From "States Looking to Change Definition of Late-Term Abortion" by Judson Berger, FoxNews.com 3/25/11
The bills were modeled after legislation passed last year in Nebraska premised on research suggesting a fetus is able to feel pain after 20 weeks. Similar proposals are percolating in at least nine other states, according to one organization's estimate.
In Kansas, the Senate-passed bill stands a much better chance of becoming law than in prior years, when Democrats Mark Parkinson and before that Kathleen Sebelius -- now President Obama's health secretary -- were in the governor's office. Newly seated Republican Gov. Sam Brownback is expected to sign it.
Should they pass, the bills would considerably limit the window -- by a month or more -- in which some women are able to seek an abortion. The proposals would, unlike most existing restrictions, prohibit abortions well within the second trimester.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "[Kansas] Senate moves abortion regulation bill" by Tim Carpenter, Topeka Capital-Journal 3/23/11
In January, [Kansas] Republican Gov. Sam Brownback called upon lawmakers to aggressively advance legislation based on the belief "all life is sacred."
Laborious debate driven by opponents of a multifaceted abortion regulation bill Wednesday failed to inhibit passage of a new parental consent mandate for minors, greater clinic reporting on abortions and expanded opportunity to file lawsuits against physicians.
Under the bill, a female under age 18 would need notarized consent from both parents or guardians to obtain an abortion. Current law requires minors to notify a parent.
The bill would allow a woman, her husband or the parents of a minor to bring a civil lawsuit against a physician performing an abortion in violation of Kansas law.
A woman seeking an abortion would have to be told her fetus was a "whole, separate, unique, living human being."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Legislators in three states pass new restrictions on abortion" posted at Reuters 3/23/11
State lawmakers in Arizona, Kansas and Idaho moved on Wednesday to place new restrictions on abortion, as opponents of the procedure looked to seize on gains by conservatives in the November mid-term elections.
. . . the Idaho Senate approved legislation placing similar restrictions on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, sending its bill to the state House of Representatives, where passage is expected.
A National Right to Life Committee representative predicted the legislation will find favor with Idaho's Republican governor.
Seventeen states in all are considering bills that would outlaw abortion after 20 weeks of gestation, unless it could be proved the pregnancy endangered the woman's life. Supporters cite research suggesting a fetus can feel pain at that stage of development.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read, Media See Pro-lifers Gaining on Abortionists, as well as Abortion Prayer Vigil Nationwide: 40 Days for Life
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Bible Ban by Idaho State Agency Challenged
Public charter school continues legal action against state ban of Bible as instructional text
-- From "NCA appeals court ruling on religious texts" by Jessie L. Bonner, Associated Press Writer 6/14/10
The Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based group of Christian lawyers, contend to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that a federal judge erred when he threw out Nampa Classical Academy's case last year.
"A wholesale ban on books with religious content conflicts with established U.S. Supreme Court precedent," said David Cortman, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.
The academy sued the Idaho Public Charter School Commission in September 2009, saying the state had illegally barred use of the Bible as an instructional text. At the time, Cortman said he had never seen such a broad-reaching ban on using the Bible as a resource in public schools.
U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge dismissed the case last month, saying the ban did not violate the school's rights.
The U.S. Supreme Court banned ceremonial school Bible readings in 1963 but said "the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities" so long as material is "presented objectively as part of a secular program of education."
Public schools across the country have traditionally avoided Bible courses and the potential controversy but hundreds do offer voluntary classes to students.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Is Boise banning the Bible?" by Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily 6/16/10
The dispute centers on curriculum plans adopted by Nampa Classical Academy, which was preparing for its instruction of more than 500 students. Officials obtained approval from the state board of education in 2008 and then followed up with positive responses from the Public Charter School Commission as it developed its standards and curriculum.
Then, last year, the state commission suddenly raised objections and prohibited the academy from using any "religious documents and text" in its curriculum or in its classrooms, even if used objectively as a resource.
State officials threatened they would not allow the academy to open if school officials used the Bible or other religious texts on their classroom resource list.
The ADF sued, but Judge Ed Lodge dismissed the complaint, ruling that the commission members "have control over the content of the curriculum."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
-- From "NCA appeals court ruling on religious texts" by Jessie L. Bonner, Associated Press Writer 6/14/10
The Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based group of Christian lawyers, contend to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that a federal judge erred when he threw out Nampa Classical Academy's case last year.
"A wholesale ban on books with religious content conflicts with established U.S. Supreme Court precedent," said David Cortman, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund.
The academy sued the Idaho Public Charter School Commission in September 2009, saying the state had illegally barred use of the Bible as an instructional text. At the time, Cortman said he had never seen such a broad-reaching ban on using the Bible as a resource in public schools.
U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge dismissed the case last month, saying the ban did not violate the school's rights.
The U.S. Supreme Court banned ceremonial school Bible readings in 1963 but said "the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities" so long as material is "presented objectively as part of a secular program of education."
Public schools across the country have traditionally avoided Bible courses and the potential controversy but hundreds do offer voluntary classes to students.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Is Boise banning the Bible?" by Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily 6/16/10
The dispute centers on curriculum plans adopted by Nampa Classical Academy, which was preparing for its instruction of more than 500 students. Officials obtained approval from the state board of education in 2008 and then followed up with positive responses from the Public Charter School Commission as it developed its standards and curriculum.
Then, last year, the state commission suddenly raised objections and prohibited the academy from using any "religious documents and text" in its curriculum or in its classrooms, even if used objectively as a resource.
State officials threatened they would not allow the academy to open if school officials used the Bible or other religious texts on their classroom resource list.
The ADF sued, but Judge Ed Lodge dismissed the complaint, ruling that the commission members "have control over the content of the curriculum."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Idaho Charter School Closure Threatened over Bible
Nampa Classical Academy has, until now, balked at orders from the state Public Charter School Commission to abandon plans to use the Bible and other texts for their literary and historic qualities.
-- From "Charter school abandons Bible plans for now" Associated Press 12/23/09
Eric Makrush is on Nampa Classical Academy's Board of Directors and told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the charter school would comply with the state order until matter is settled in court.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "NCA agrees to not use religious texts - for now, at least" by Mike Butts, Idaho Press-Tribune 12/24/09
The development comes with NCA's response to a Charter Commission request for information about reported religious material used in NCA classrooms. NCA submitted the response Wednesday on its due date to the Commission.
The compliance will assure that the Charter Commission does not begin to take action to revoke the new school's charter, which its chairman had said could happen and which would result in an end to the school's public funding.
Although the Academy said it would comply with the Charter Commission prohibition of the use of religious texts, it stated in its response that it still believes it is legal to do so. NCA has sued the Charter Commission for the right to use the texts.
"We're certainly doing it under protest," NCA acting board chairman Mike Moffett said. "It's clear that statewide we're not the only ones doing it (using religious texts). And it's certainly an issue (where) we're the only ones being singled out."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click for related articles from Texas.
-- From "Charter school abandons Bible plans for now" Associated Press 12/23/09
Eric Makrush is on Nampa Classical Academy's Board of Directors and told The Associated Press on Wednesday that the charter school would comply with the state order until matter is settled in court.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "NCA agrees to not use religious texts - for now, at least" by Mike Butts, Idaho Press-Tribune 12/24/09
The development comes with NCA's response to a Charter Commission request for information about reported religious material used in NCA classrooms. NCA submitted the response Wednesday on its due date to the Commission.
The compliance will assure that the Charter Commission does not begin to take action to revoke the new school's charter, which its chairman had said could happen and which would result in an end to the school's public funding.
Although the Academy said it would comply with the Charter Commission prohibition of the use of religious texts, it stated in its response that it still believes it is legal to do so. NCA has sued the Charter Commission for the right to use the texts.
"We're certainly doing it under protest," NCA acting board chairman Mike Moffett said. "It's clear that statewide we're not the only ones doing it (using religious texts). And it's certainly an issue (where) we're the only ones being singled out."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Click for related articles from Texas.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Atheists Step-up Recruiting during "Holidays"
The American Humanist Association [AHA] is expanding its “Godless Holiday” advertising campaign to five major American cities this Christmas -- taking its message of a holiday season without religion nationwide for the first time.-- From "Let the publicity war begin: Atheists roll out new holiday ad" by John Kelly, Washington Post 11/24/09
. . . the American Humanist Association -- the atheistical folks who last year caused such a fuss when they plastered Metrobuses with ads that read: "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake."
This year's ads say: "No god? . . . No problem! Be good for goodness' sake." At the peak, 220 ads will run on Metro buses and 50 ads will run on Metro trains. With a $40,000 budget, the campaign has also bought ads on buses in New York, San Francisco, Chicago and Los Angeles -- plus a billboard in Idaho.
. . . The wording echoes a bumper sticker you might have seen: "No Jesus, No Peace. Know Jesus, Know Peace."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Atheist Group Takes ‘Godless Holiday’ Campaign Nationwide" by Matt Cover, CNSNews Staff Writer 12/01/09
AHA spokesman Karen Frantz told CNSNews.com . . . that while the campaign was not trying to do away with religion entirely, it was trying to break the “stranglehold” religious institutions have on public policy.
The ad campaign, which emphasizes that people can be morally good without being religious, aims at stopping religious people who “enforce” their views on others, she said. “Too often religion is used to enforce a narrow version of morality onto others who don't necessarily share it.”
A pro-Christian conservative group, meanwhile, told CNSNews.com that despite the AHA’s anti-holy day message, religious Americans shouldn’t be intimidated – and have every right to continue to celebrate Christmas proudly. But Christians also shouldn’t treat the atheist campaign with contempt.
“People of faith should view the Humanist displays at this special -- even holy -- time of year, with compassion,” said Kristi Hamrick, president of the Campaign for Working Families and spokeswoman for Gary Bauer’s American Values.
“Because of the blessings of liberty we enjoy as Americans, they certainly have the right to their strident displays of antagonism to faith. But at this time of year when so many of us are thanking God for our blessings, especially the blessing of his only Son come to earth for us, we need to pray for them.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Friday, June 06, 2008
Good News! Idaho: Library Board Votes to Protect Children From Porn
Decency sometimes does prevail when we take a stand...
From "Nampa Library Board Votes to Protect Children From Porn" posted 6/4/08 at IdahoExaminer.com
Editor’s note: The subject material in the following story will be objectionable to some people
Apparently Idahoans still have a remnant of leaders possessing some common sense and decency. Wish we could say the same for Chicago area schools in Deerfield and District 214...
From "Nampa Library Board Votes to Protect Children From Porn" posted 6/4/08 at IdahoExaminer.com
Editor’s note: The subject material in the following story will be objectionable to some people
Two books with graphic, leave-nothing-to-the-imagination sexual illustrations will not be allowed back on the general circulation shelves in the Nampa Library.
“The New Joy of Sex” and “The Joy of Gay Sex” were made permanently inaccessible to minors on a 3-2 vote yesterday by the Nampa Library Board. “The Joy of Gay Sex” is particularly objectionable, showing in vivid and realistic detail virtually every conceivable way of engaging in homosexual sex, and which includes an entire chapter on “Daddy-Son Sex Fantasies” to book.
The controversy began over two years ago when a 15-year-old stumbled across the “Joy of Gay Sex” on a table in the middle of the library where any child could find it.Kudos to activist husband and father Randy Jackson, who launched the effort to remove this smut from general circulation in 2005. His efforts show what an engaged citizen can accomplish through cheerful persistence. And kudos to Mayor Tom Dale, who appointed family-friendly members to the Board to replace members who insisted that gay porn remain accessible to young children.
Apparently Idahoans still have a remnant of leaders possessing some common sense and decency. Wish we could say the same for Chicago area schools in Deerfield and District 214...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)