Intimidation and harrassment of Christian businesses and moral Americans by Obamao's gays and the left must stop

[calfoxwc]

We need to stop pretending that five lawyers can impose their will on 320 million Americans without one shred of authority under the Constitution. Their opinion to legalize same-sex "marriage" is lawless and we should not play Charades pretending that it has one ounce of legal authority.

As a constitutional attorney, and someone who has argued before the Supreme Court, I have lost all confidence in this Court. If we act as though this decision has the weight of law then we can no longer expect justice or reasoned legal opinions from this Court.

And yes, while we need to make all the usual legal arguments and vote for the right people and hope the right judicial philosophy and restraint prevails on the Court, we have run out of time with those typical approaches and something more drastic must occur. We are at a moment of obeying God or five lawyers. History will judge us as to how we decide that question.

+ + Americans are rising up against this lawless ruling!

On Sunday, Liberty Counsel called for a "Declaration of Dependence" upon God to be issued in churches by pastors all across America. That call will be ongoing.

Last week, Pastor Jim Garlow in California held up the 5-4 opinion on same-sex "marriage" in one hand and the Bible in the other and publicly proclaimed that he would obey the Bible and not the lawless opinion of five lawyers!

And we learned today that a church in North Carolina began a movement called, "God Before Government!"

+ + African-American Pastors group calls for civil disobedience.

Rev. Bill Owens, president of the Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP), toldNewsmax Saturday that Christians must oppose the Supreme Court's same-sex "marriage" ruling through civil disobedience.

"I was in the civil rights movement, so I know how to do it… I know that if the people come together in force, things will happen.

All the Christian churches in the United States that believe marriage is between a man and a woman, need to rise up.

It's the new civil rights movement, because they are taking away our rights. They are taking away the Christian's rights. This is just a start."

+ + Civil disobedience to this outrageous Supreme Court ruling is growing.

Many clerks and other government officials, such as Liberty Counsel client Casey Davis who recently appeared on MSNBC, are refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

Molly Crimer, elected clerk for Irion County, Texas, has vowed to stand for natural marriage. Referring to the opinion of five lawyers regarding marriage, Ms. Crimer said ...

"To keep my oath to uphold the Constitution, I must reject this ruling that I believe is lawless…. I have to stand for the Constitution and the rule of law.

[O]ur founding fathers were fearful of too much power in the hands of a few. Consequently, they created a Constitutional Republic in which authority to rule belonged to the PEOPLE, to be exercised through their elected representatives. In that Constitution, the Supreme Court was given the authority to expound the law, not rewrite it or remake it," Crimer said.

"Natural marriage cannot be redefined by government without stepping out of the bounds of nature and nature's God, who was recognized at the founding of our nation as the very Source of our liberties."

The Supreme Court has historically made a number of bad rulings that time and justice have been able to realize and overcome. The opinion of five lawyers regarding marriage is another example of an unjust law that will be overcome as people stand together, individually, and as States.

Liberty Counsel is offering Ms. Crimer and Ms. Davis pro bono legal counsel.

Because of the generosity of friends and partners like you, Liberty Counsel has already fought more than 50 same-sex "marriage" cases around the nation. In fact, Liberty Counsel has been at the forefront of this battle since our founding in 1989. But an explosion of litigation is just ahead.

The Court's egregious ruling will continue to unleash unprecedented religious discrimination and persecution against people of faith like you and me. Pastors, ministry leaders, and Christian business owners now face a stark and troubling choice: Do I obey God or Caesar?

Like Casey Davis, Molly Crimes, Pastor Garlow, and Reverend Owens, just to name a few, each of us should vow not to be intimidated but, instead, to stand united for our God-given liberties and the Rule of Law.

As I have said many times, Liberty Counsel will defend pastors, church leaders, Christian business owners, or ministry operators who comes under assault by the LGBT community or government entity for standing up for their constitutionally guaranteed religious rights.

That's why we continue to need your help now as we build the war chest to defend religious freedom against an unprecedented and calculated assault by radical extremists – and our own government.

Every tax-deductible gift you make is still being doubled by a generous Matching Challenge Grant toward our Stand Your Ground nationwide initiative! Any gift you give today will be doubled by this generous matching challenge grant!

[LogicIsForSquares]

So upset over something that in no way effects them. But the newsletter does its job and I am sure it is making them some nice scratch by scaring people.

[calfoxwc]

Forcing them to accept a redefinition of marriage, forcing them to accept

and provide services for an abomination farce, or lose their livelihoods,

homes..

 

doesn't affect them at all?

 

Come on.

[MLD Woody]

What is the best part of that post?

 

"Moral Americans"

"Natural Marriage"

The plug for money at the end

or Christians thinking their rights are violated because something didn't go their way

 

?

[DieHardBrownsFan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDAaWfk5DuE

[calfoxwc]

Our First Amendment rights are under siege. Pastors, Christian business owners, ministry operators, and many others are being taken to court, fined, and/or forced to close their doors because of the assaults on our religious liberties and rights of conscience. Right now, many Americans are being attacked because of our shared belief that natural marriage is solely the union between one man and one woman.

Mark my words: Now that "five lawyers" on the Supreme Court have employed judicial activism in ruling that homosexuals have the legal right to "marry," a flurry of legal and cultural consequences will rain down upon the Christian community. The assaults against our First Amendment rights have already intensified and Americans who believe in natural marriage are finding they are on the wrong side of the law.

It is outrageous that our constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment protections are being marginalized by our own government. The Obama administration and sycophants at the Department of Justice, working in tandem with pro-LGBT organizations, are aggressively subverting the Constitution!

Recently, Attorney General Loretta Lynch commended Lambda, the legal arm of the LGBT movement, for their "great work" and announced that they have the "enthusiastic partnership" of both the Justice Department and the president.

Earlier this year, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli testified during the Supreme Court oral arguments that same-sex "marriage" will "be an issue" for religious institutions, which may lose their tax-exempt status.

Following the ruling of the "five lawyers" of the Supreme Court, Representative Raúl Labrador issued his own scathing retort...

"The decision turns the principles of democracy on their head. As Justice Scalia correctly states in his dissent, our founding documents gave the citizens of this great nation the 'freedom to govern themselves.' That freedom was taken away today in the name of 'liberties' not mentioned in the Constitution.

The decision makes it all the more important that Congress move to protect the religious liberty of those who believe in traditional marriage. No American should be penalized for following their religious beliefs or moral convictions."

+ + Liberty Counsel Action is calling for the passage of "The First Amendment Defense Act" in Congress!

Representative Labrador and Senator Mike Lee have introduced legislation called, "The First Amendment Defense Act" (FADA) into their respective Chambers of Congress.

According to their joint press release, the bill will "clarify and strengthen religious liberty protections in federal law, by safeguarding those individuals and institutions who promote traditional marriage from government retaliation. The bill would also prohibit the IRS from stripping a church of its tax exemption for refusing to officiate same-sex weddings."

As Rep. Labrador said of the bill, "'The First Amendment Defense Act' ensures that the federal government does not penalize Americans for following their religious beliefs or moral convictions on traditional marriage. Our bill shields against federal intrusion without taking anything away from anyone. In a shifting landscape, it's time that Congress proactively defend this sacred right."

We wholeheartedly agree that it is time that "Congress proactively defend this sacred right." The First Amendment is among the most important legal guarantees in America for people of faith.

join us in this extremely important initiative as we petition both Chambers of Congress to pass "The First Amendment Defense Act."

Click here to read the petition and to quickly and easily add your name.

+ + We face an ominous threat to the family and to freedom.

While it is unconscionable that a bill is necessary to further protect our constitutional rights, under the Obama administration our religious liberties and rights of conscience have been subordinated to a radical, far-left agenda.

As citizens of the United States of America, it is our duty to call on Members of Congress, who are elected and sworn to uphold the Constitution, to do the job we elected them to do: Defend our First Amendment protections!

Your signature is greatly needed as we rally patriots nationwide to help advance this bill in Congress. Click here to read the petition and to join with us.

God bless you for taking this important step with us!

Mat Staver, Chairman
Liberty Counsel Action

[LogicIsForSquares]

Forcing them to accept a redefinition of marriage, forcing them to accept

and provide services for an abomination farce, or lose their livelihoods,

homes..

 

doesn't affect them at all?

 

Come on.

Would you be upset if atheists started refusing service to Christians? I guarantee you with complete certainty that Christians would sue their ass off for exercising their non-belief in a religion.

[Clevfan4life]

Would you be upset if atheists started refusing service to Christians? I guarantee you with complete certainty that Christians would sue their ass off for exercising their non-belief in a religion.

 

There's zero question that this would happen, ZERO. Every year at Christmas FOX goes on a national rampage against business's that say "happy holidays" instead of Christmas. If a major business decided that people wearing crosses of any sort were unwelcome.....holy geezus would there be a shitstorm.

 

 

 

I wouldn't mind seeing exemptions for business's that directly deal in marriage type stuff...if you're a florist or cake maker whatever, you can opt out of servicing gay weddings. But you can't opt out of serving someone who might be gay food or something like that which has nothing to do with gay marriage.

[calfoxwc]

Would you be upset if atheists started refusing service to Christians? I guarantee you with complete certainty that Christians would sue their ass off for exercising their non-belief in a religion. Logic

****************************************************************

Not the same. What moral conviction would alienate atheists from serving Christians?

 

They are against real marriage? I think most atheists are fine with real marriage - most of them are surely

married. Being different and being discriminated against, is one thing, and being perverted and forcing the issue

with those who refuse to condone that perversion, is quite a different deal.

 

Being an atheist violates no natural law of science.

[LogicIsForSquares]

Oh I am completely for a businesses being able to choose who they associate with. Let the market deal with it.

 

However, that is not how the discrimination laws are written and Christians had no problem with it being that way until recently. Now they are suddenly under attack yada yada.

[LogicIsForSquares]

Would you be upset if atheists started refusing service to Christians? I guarantee you with complete certainty that Christians would sue their ass off for exercising their non-belief in a religion. Logic

****************************************************************

Not the same. What moral conviction would alienate atheists from serving Christians?

 

They are against real marriage? I think most atheists are fine with real marriage - most of them are surely

married. Being different and being discriminated against, is one thing, and being perverted and forcing the issue

with those who refuse to condone that perversion, is quite a different deal.

 

Being an atheist violates no natural law of science.

So you never answered. Would it be OK for a business run by atheists to refuse service to Christians?

[calfoxwc]

No - that would be BASELESS discrimination.

 

It's no reach that Christian bakers should not have to violate their religious beliefs that gay phony "marriage" is a farce.

 

Had one of the "couple" come in, ordered a cake, put their own stupid gay figures on the top, who cares?

 

But the culture war of daring Christains to not be forced into violating their religious and moral beliefs is a lot different,

 

than me going into a Steelers fan's bakery, and ordering a cake about the Browns. COME ON.

 

My explanation stands.

[LogicIsForSquares]

No - that would be BASELESS discrimination.

 

It's no reach that Christian bakers should not have to violate their religious beliefs that gay phony "marriage" is a farce.

 

Had one of the "couple" come in, ordered a cake, put their own stupid gay figures on the top, who cares?

 

But the culture war of daring Christains to not be forced into violating their religious and moral beliefs is a lot different,

 

than me going into a Steelers fan's bakery, and ordering a cake about the Browns. COME ON.

 

My explanation stands.

What if an atheist doesn't see it as baseless and disagrees with Christians asking for things like a cross or some other religious symbol on a cake? Would it be o.k. for that business to refuse service? Because by the standard that some Christians are wanting, it should be completely o.k. for businesses to start refusing service to Christians.

[LogicIsForSquares]

Bear in mind, I think all businesses should be able to be ran as they wish. I just think it would be pretty damn hypocritical if Christians were o.k. with refusing service to gays based upon religious freedom but then throw a fit if they are refused service.

[tiamat63]

Would you be upset if atheists started refusing service to Christians? I guarantee you with complete certainty that Christians would sue their ass off for exercising their non-belief in a religion. Logic

****************************************************************

Not the same. What moral conviction would alienate atheists from serving Christians?

 

They are against real marriage? I think most atheists are fine with real marriage - most of them are surely

married. Being different and being discriminated against, is one thing, and being perverted and forcing the issue

with those who refuse to condone that perversion, is quite a different deal.

 

Being an atheist violates no natural law of science.

 

Good Christ, man. At least be consistent in your argument. Why is anyone discriminated against? Because they're 'different'.

The only difference here is what you deem perversion.

 

Being gay doesn't violate laws of science last I looked. It violates perhaps religious doctrine or law, but not science.

 

Actually, I find it that since Christianity damns unbelievers to eternal flame, that anyone following said belief structure would inherently offend an atheist business owner with their patronage. Why would I want to serve you in my shop if you feel I'm going to hell? I'm deeply offended and my moral constructs, though not grounded in the Christian religion, still hold a 'religious' type respect. Lets say I simply follow the Golden Rule and deem that my faith. Ergo, I would find moral grounds that I do not HAVE to serve you.

 

 

Logic hit the nail on the head just above me. Bravo.

[calfoxwc]

No, he missed the head of the nail and hit you in the head.

 

In our country, we have freedom of religion. I don't agree about

Buddhist faiths, etc etc etc etc....

 

but we are all free. Color of skin is different - but we are all free. You nonsense argument

that perversion and FORCING religious people, and even non-religious people to serious violate

their own morals, is not just "different".

 

As to Tiam's angst about my claim of science, I am very happy to explain again. @@

 

You see, Tiam, when you take two magnets, N-S poles attract. It's an abolute natural science law.

and N-N and S-S poles repel each other.

 

So it is, that throughout history, the consensus of mankind's understanding, is that mates are

of opposite sexes.

 

Now, biology and psychology being whatever it is in this case, there are anomalies.

 

But still, the latest judgement by the Surpreme Court also could be the same for human-sheep "marriage",

muliple people "marriage"... you name it. It's all pandering to the fringe of society.

 

As I said before - two gay people can go buy a freaking cake. It's the message of forcing the owners to

condone gay false "marriage" that is the issue.

 

There is no historical precedent of atheists believing that Christians are perverse and therefore, that violates

their beliefs.

 

You have to look at situations deeper than emotionally cherry-picked.... to accurately gauge whether they are the same or not.

 

Now, if atheists went into a Christian bakery and ordered a cake, what offense is there to refuse to bake them a cake, or vice versa?

 

Nothin.

 

But you left atheists order a cake that says satanic things just to offend the Christain bakers... and you have a point.

It is not discrimation - it's the nonright to intimidate and legally make money off of the bakers that refuse to violate

their religious principles.

 

If you keep pretending you don't see that, you're just being belligerent.

[calfoxwc]

There is no moral excuse to refuse to serve different races, religions, political parties, etc etc etc.

 

But at issue here, is the right of a fringe that is forcing bakers to ACCEPT gay "marriage" or be

violated and put out of business by liberal courts.

 

One of the age old reasons for marriage, is to establish permanent responsibility for children

they have, for the survival of society. Society has a right to protect itself.

 

Gay couples cannot have children. Right there, on one point, the idea that the courts can force

hundreds of millions of people to change the definition of marriage is bogus.

 

You can force millions of Americans to call water dry, but the truth is, they know better.

 

And for all the liberals whining about "well, okay, you can believe that, but you had better expect

consequences"....

 

right...back...at...ya.

[tiamat63]

So the complexity of organic life is so relatively simply it can be explained by the polarity of magnets?

Also, you might want to stop saying "false" marriage. That's implying it isn't real. I understand you may not agree, but legally it is now very real. I'd suggest coming up with a different put down.

To compound that, you truly believe there is no historical precedent that atheists may hold Christians beliefs as bigotry, hate speech, perverse and or otherwise detrimental to social and or scientific advances? Galileo would like a word with you.

 

 

 

 

And even

 

 

Or common sense could rule the day? What Christian would even go to bakery run by a satanist? I think it is common sense to allow a black owned bakery to refuse to make cakes with KKK or a Jewish owned bakery to refuse to make a cake with a swastika.

 

I highly doubt any satanist would glorify their believes on the front door or signage. Its highly likely this may have already occurred.

[LogicIsForSquares]

You will see all sorts of creative ways to refuse service to people if the religious folks are allowed to discriminate on religious grounds. You can make up any old religion you want and refuse service to whoever you wish. That will also apply when some guy becomes an honorary church of Satan member and begins refusing service to Christians. After all, it would be against his religion to give service to Christians.

[OldBrownsFan]

Bear in mind, I think all businesses should be able to be ran as they wish. I just think it would be pretty damn hypocritical if Christians were o.k. with refusing service to gays based upon religious freedom but then throw a fit if they are refused service.

 

And even

 

You will see all sorts of creative ways to refuse service to people if the religious folks are allowed to discriminate on religious grounds. You can make up any old religion you want and refuse service to whoever you wish. That will also apply when some guy becomes an honorary church of Satan member and begins refusing service to Christians. After all, it would be against his religion to give service to Christians.

 

Or common sense could rule the day? What Christian would even go to bakery run by a satanist? I think it is common sense to allow a black owned bakery to refuse to make cakes with KKK or a Jewish owned bakery to refuse to make a cake with a swastika.

[tiamat63]

There is no moral excuse to refuse to serve different races, religions, political parties, etc etc etc.

 

But at issue here, is the right of a fringe that is forcing bakers to ACCEPT gay "marriage" or be

violated and put out of business by liberal courts.

 

One of the age old reasons for marriage, is to establish permanent responsibility for children

they have, for the survival of society. Society has a right to protect itself.

 

Gay couples cannot have children. Right there, on one point, the idea that the courts can force

hundreds of millions of people to change the definition of marriage is bogus.

 

You can force millions of Americans to call water dry, but the truth is, they know better.

 

And for all the liberals whining about "well, okay, you can believe that, but you had better expect

consequences"....

 

right...back...at...ya.

 

I think that needs to be cleared up. Asking bakers to bake a cake, isn't asking them to 'accept' gay marriage. It isn't.

They're putting flour, confection, eggs and milk together and selling it for profit. I would love to know how that is truly against the Christian belief structure?

No where have I found in biblical reference would this violate ANY commandment, scripture or teaching. Keep in mind I was raised in the church and attended

Catholic school for 3 years.

 

Look no further than whom the Savior choose to live amongst. He didn't fraternize with the wealthy, royal or powerful. He walked and lived amongst the poor, the sinners, the unclean. It didn't make him any less holy.

 

While I'm at my desk and waiting for my next shift rotation, the age old reason for marriage in YOUR mind is what you've stated.

Marriage for the longest time was pre-arranged, the woman essentially property that gave the promise of a son and dowry. Shit, it was as such in Bible as well.

Christians can't begin to claim this modern day equality and sanctity that the good word itself shown a different light on. That's ignoring quite a bit.

 

Now a days gay couples (well, female) can have children with the advances in modern technology.

Also, the reason's you point out for marriage, 'responsibility to children' 'survival of society'. One of those is bullshit.

Society would survive just fine without marriage in the modern sense we see it as. Matter of fact, society persisted for thousands of years before that just fine. As for the responsibility to children, that isn't heterosexual specific language. Any couple having a child has a permanent responsibility to it.

[Clevfan4life]

No - that would be BASELESS discrimination.

 

 

ahh now it's baseless. You rubbish unprincipled Shiite cunt. Where's Chris I want a cookie for rubbish Shiite cunt.

[Clevfan4life]

 

Not the same. What moral conviction would alienate atheists from serving Christians?

 

 

 

The fact that they believe in a god that, according them, doesn't exist. And furthermore expect everyone else to conform to their ill gotten norms. There's plenty moral convictions an atheist can stand on, be they right or wrong, to potentially deny service to Christians/muslims/jews etc, etc.

 

I'm neither religious nor atheist but I can "many" reasons if I ran certain business's to say F you to bible thumpers but serve atheists without complaint. An atheist after all doesn't care what I do on my own time, in my own bed etc, etc.

[MLD Woody]

How often does "real marriage" end in divorce?

[LogicIsForSquares]

How often does "real marriage" end in divorce?

Well never because that would be against the teachings of the Bible.

[MLD Woody]

Christians have Avery old book, atheists don't. Therefore, the atheist's claims are baseless...

[calfoxwc]

So...Jesus witnessing among sinners means he would approve of gay false "marriage"

 

wow. Talk about a non-sensical emotional outburt.

 

Jesus did not hang out with them because he approved of their sin, he was

trying to explain to them their sinful ways.

 

You think Jesus would be a baker, and bake a cake that said "gay marriage is great" on it?

 

I think not. If a gay couple went and bought a cake, no problem. But having ordered two men or women figures

on it....and putting a gay marriage message on it....requires the bakers to condone what they are doing....

and explaining that it's for a gay "marriage" is condoning what they are about - which is perverting the

definition of true marriage.

 

You don't see them going to a bakery owned by Muslims. Know why?

 

Because they are fighting a culture war against American conservatives and Christians.

 

And I'll call it for what it is, FALSE "marriage". And two women can most certainly not have a child.

The woman, regardless of the technology, must get pregant with male sperm.

 

Male-female. It's biology, it's science, and it's natural law. God made it that way. Science is that way.

 

Anyone who believes in gay "marriage" is a science denier. Requiring a male sperm and female egg is just

as an absolute law as magnetism.

 

I always liked that magnetism thing I invented...thanks for challenging me on it, heh heh heh......

 

And pre-arranged marriage didn't redefine what is it. It simply coerced the marriage between a man and a woman.

 

No perversion involved, just wrong. Stop emoting and think about the partial analogies you are dishing out.

[OldBrownsFan]

If there was only one copy of that very old book and I had it I would not part with it for all the riches in the world. That book is life to those whose spiritual eyes have been opened.

[calfoxwc]

Again, it's ignorant to say that a baker should be allowed to refuse service

to black people, liberals, Muslims... the list is long.

 

None of those has to do, with forcing an acceptance of the redefinition of marriage.

 

None of those lies outside the basic definition of marriage - still man-woman.

 

It's a biological truth. Male sperm - female egg to have children.

 

Like we keep saying - I understood stupid civil unions, whatever.

 

But the fringe left is on a warpath to wipe out all the beliefs that other people have...

that they don't like.

 

Liberals always want to invent completely different phony "realities". Weird.

[LogicIsForSquares]

Again, it's ignorant to say that a baker should be allowed to refuse service

to black people, liberals, Muslims... the list is long.

 

None of those has to do, with forcing an acceptance of the redefinition of marriage.

 

None of those lies outside the basic definition of marriage - still man-woman.

 

It's a biological truth. Male sperm - female egg to have children.

 

Like we keep saying - I understood stupid civil unions, whatever.

 

But the fringe left is on a warpath to wipe out all the beliefs that other people have...

that they don't like.

 

Liberals always want to invent completely different phony "realities". Weird.

So religious freedom to refuse service only applies to services associated with weddings? What if my personal religion dictates that I don't serve people of any other faith? Would it be o.k. to impede upon the religious freedoms of the guy who feels that way? Hell, at one point in our history, the KKK used bible passages to justify their treatment of black people. We can't be hypocrites. You have to allow them to be able to discriminate against black people because to not let them is to infringe upon their religious freedoms.