Religious Liberty Is Part Of Our Constitution

The following is a June 29th press release from Liberty Council:

ASHEVILLE, NC – The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals handed North Carolina magistrates a huge victory by ruling that the plaintiffs who opposed their religious liberty opt out of same-sex “marriage” lacked standing to challenge the law.

Liberty Counsel represented, among others, Magistrate Brenda Bumgarner, who has an excellent record during her 10 years of service as a magistrate, and who sought a religious opt out of performing “marriages” for same-sex couples. Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief that argued that SB 2 is not only constitutionally permissible but actually required for magistrates and judges. SB 2 states: “Every magistrate has the right to recuse from performing all lawful marriages under this Chapter based upon any sincerely held religious objection.”

In 2015, Liberty Counsel filed suit on behalf of magistrates seeking accommodation for their religious convictions regarding same-sex “marriage.” The state house and senate passed SB 2 granting an accommodation, and both houses later overrode the governor’s veto. Liberty Counsel dismissed its suit, but then the new law was challenged by those who want to force magistrates to violate their religious convictions and consciences.

“We celebrate this victory for North Carolina magistrates who have the constitutional right to follow their conscience and rights to free exercise without fear of punishment,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “The LGBT agenda seeks to steamroll over the conscience of everyone, including those who serve in the court system who believes in natural marriage. We were proud to defend Magistrate Brenda Bumgarner and others in this case as it sets a precedent and has an effect on all judges and their sincerely held religious beliefs,” said Staver.

Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.

If homosexuals want to get married, that is not my concern. If gay marriage is legal, then let them get married. However, I don’t believe anyone who holds a Biblical view on homosexuality should be forced to condone or participate in that marriage in any way. I would also like to note that with all the efforts to force Christians to participate in gay marriages–bake cakes, take pictures, provide pastors, settings, or churches, etc., the same effort has not been made to include the Islamic community in this acceptance of homosexuality, Considering the fact that being a homosexual can result in death in an Islamic country, and being a homosexual in America is barely noteworthy, I find that interesting.

Justice Turned Upside Down

In June of last year, I reported on a rape case in Idaho (here). I don’t usually write about such things, but this was an unusual case (I hope). A five-year-old special needs girl was sexually assaulted after being lured to the laundry room of the apartment complex where she lived. Three young men assaulted her–two from Iraq ages 7 and 10, and one from Sudan aged 14. The attack was filmed by the oldest boy, so there is little doubt as to what happened.

However, it seems as if our justice system is not particularly interested in protecting little girls. World Net Daily recently posted an article about the trial of the young thugs.

Some highlights from the article:

A judge sentenced three Muslim refugee boys in the sexual assault of a 5-year-old girl in Idaho, but nobody knows the length or terms of the sentence because the judge has barred everyone in the courtroom, including the victim’s own parents, from speaking about the case.

The three boys — two from Iraq ages 7 and 10, and one from Sudan aged 14 — pleaded guilty in juvenile court in April to multiple counts of sex crimes in an incident that occurred last June in Twin Falls. The assault occurred at Fawnbrook Apartments, when 5-year-old Jayla, who is developmentally disabled, was lured into a laundry room, stripped of her clothing and sexually assaulted while the oldest boy filmed the entire incident.

Now, following a sentencing hearing Monday at the Snake River Juvenile Detention Center in Twin Falls, Judge Thomas Borresen of Idaho’s 5th Judicial District issued a gag order preventing everyone in the courtroom from saying anything about the sentence received by the boys.

Borresen did allow the family to say they were unhappy with the sentencing, but threatened to jail them for contempt of court if they say why they are unhappy.

“We can’t talk about it since it’s a sealed case,” said Lacy Peterson, the girl’s mother, when contacted by WND Tuesday.

Mathew Staver, chairman and co-founder of the nonprofit legal assistance agency Liberty Counsel, has stated that the judge does not have the right to place a gag order after the trail has taken place. This is a violation of the Constitution.

Why would the judge seal the records after the trial? I understand that our legal system does not usually release the names of juvenile defendants, but are these thugs a threat to other women in the community? Shouldn’t parents be aware of who these thugs are?

If you had a young daughter and lived in this community, would you want these young men on the sexual predators list? The gag order is totally insane. I for one would like to know exactly what the sentence was for this crime.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. The young girl’s parents were treated very badly, and the court seemed very concerned about any trauma her attackers might have suffered because they were arrested and not concerned about the trauma the little girl suffered. The entire story is upside down, and the judge is an example of a judge who is obviously not interested in making sure the lives and rights of Americans are protected.

 

Wasting The Time Of The Local Deputy Sheriff

Yesterday The Conservative Tribune posted an article about an incident in Palmdale, California, that illustrates the erosion of free speech in America.

The article reports:

The boy, a student at Desert Rose Elementary School in Palmdale, always got an encouraging note along with a Bible verse packed in his lunch every day. Other students were curious about the notes, packed by his mother, Christina Zavala, and expressed that they, too, would like to have some.

Zavala was more than happy to oblige.

The above story is a very simple example of how little kids do things–if your mom puts something in your lunch box that is unique, the other kids want one too.

The story continues:

However, it didn’t take long for school officials to put an end to the sharing. On April 18, Zavala was told by a teacher that her son could no longer share the Bible verses at school, but he could share them outside the school gate after the bell rang.

Apparently that was not enough, and on May 9, the school’s principal banned sharing Bible verses on school property altogether, citing school policy.

And just to make sure the family understood the school’s firm stance, a deputy sheriff was dispatched to the Zavala’s home to reinforce the message.

What law was broken? Why would a deputy sheriff visit the child’s home? What is the school afraid of? Does the child not have First Amendment rights?

This is the correct response to the school principal‘s actions:

Attorney Richard Mast, who represented the Zavala family, told Fox News the visit was “outrageous and should shock the conscious of every freedom-loving American.”

“Apparently all the real criminals have been dealt with in Palmdale — and now they’re going after kids who share Bible verses during lunch time,” he added.

Raul Maldonado, superintendent of Palmdale School District, said he was reviewing the matter and did not answer questions regarding the sheriff’s visit to the Zavala’s residence.

Liberty Counsel has demanded the school stop suppressing and censoring the religious freedom of students. If they do not comply, they could face a federal lawsuit.

Little kids share. Let them.

 

Pay Attention–Your Freedom Is At Risk

The Justice Department is now going after individual citizens who disagree with their political policies. A recent case, the Judge ruled correctly, but the fact that the case was brought is chilling. It is easy to see from the actions of the President and the Justice Department that both are strong supporters of abortion. Although the heathcare directive that religious organizations provide contraception services (and abortion services) violates the First Amendment rights of these organizations, the Obama Administration has strongly supported the directive. The Executive Order stating that no taxpayer dollars would be used to pay for abortions has turned out to be worthless when viewed against the procedures set up in Obamacare.

The pro-abortion attitude is now reflected in an attack on a pro-life citizen acting within her rights. On Friday the Daily Caller posted a story about the court case against Mary “Susan” Pine, a pro-life sidewalk counselor. Holder v. Pine charged Ms. Pine with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrance (FACE) Act.

The article reports:

You won’t hear it from the mainstream media, but the Justice Department has just faced an embarrassing smack down on the highest profile of these cases. It has dropped an appeal in Holder v. Pine against pro-life sidewalk counselor Mary “Susan” Pine, who is represented by the civil rights firm Liberty Counsel. The DOJ has agreed to pay $120,000 for this frivolous lawsuit which, as the evidence indicated, was intended to intimidate Ms. Pine and send a shot over the bow of pro-lifers around the country.

The case itself was interesting. The article reports some of the Judge’s statement:
 
Judge Ryskamp wrote that Holder’s complete failure to present any evidence of wrongdoing, coupled with the DOJ’s cozy relationship with PWC and their apparent joint decision to destroy video surveillance footage of the alleged “obstruction,” caused the court to suspect a conspiracy at the highest levels of the Obama administration. “The Court is at a loss as to why the Government chose to prosecute this particular case in the first place,” wrote Judge Ryskamp. “The Court can only wonder whether this action was the product of a concerted effort between the Government and PWC, which began well before the date of the incident at issue, to quell Ms. Pine’s activities rather than to vindicate the rights of those allegedly aggrieved by Ms. Pine’s conduct.”
 
At least the Judge acted on the evidence and not the politics.
 
Enhanced by Zemanta