And now the post that has taken five days to write. As I was looking at my various news feeds I was wondering what should make the cut. Not much in Robotic Over Lords, there was some news on the Pro-life front and then I saw it. Something that coincided with the 240th celebration of the independence of the USA. What you may ask? And even if you don’t ask, well let me point you to a few news items first.
Are you seeing a pattern here? If I am being obtuse let me spell it out for you. Each of these cases has to do will religious freedom, in particular the right of persons to behave or operate a business under their belief system.
In Item 1 Christian pharmacists because they view plan B morning after pills as an abortifacient and do not want to dispense the drug. But are compelled by Washington State law to do so. They filed suit claiming that the law put undo burden upon religious objectors. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
At issue are Washington State regulations that are likely to make a pharmacist unemployable if he or she objects on religious grounds to dispensing certain prescription medications,” argued Justice Alito
“Yet the Ninth Circuit held that the regulations do not violate the First Amendment, and this Court does not deem the case worthy of our time. If this is a sign of how religious liberty
claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern.”
Item 2 A district judge struck down a religious liberty law based upon other religious freedom laws and the federal religious freedom law. The judge claims that “The State has put its thumb on the scale to favor some religious beliefs over others. Showing such favor tells ‘nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and . . . adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community,’ ” Reeves wrote, citing precedent. “And the Equal Protection Clause is violated by HB 1523’s authorization of arbitrary discrimination against lesbian, gay, transgender, and unmarried persons.”
Item 3 Christian Mingle a dating site that specified whether you were a man seeking a woman or a woman seeking a man was sued by two gay men under California’s anti-discrimination law saying that the limited options violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Because of the suit Christian Mingle has changed it’s policy to allow same sex users.
Item 4 California Senate Bill 1146 would prohibit any faith based policies from religious schools that take any state assistance and “discriminate” against LGBT persons.
“State assistance” includes any participation in the Cal Grants or Pell Grants programs, which provide critical financial assistance to lower-income students.
This means that a Catholic school that receives state aid can be sued for refusing to hire a non-Catholic applicant to serve as its president. It means an Adventist school can be sued for refusing to hire a professor living in a gay marriage. It means a Baptist school can be sued for refusing to allow a male student who “identifies” as a woman to live in a women’s dormitory, or to use women’s restrooms and showers.
The intent of this bill is transparent: to target Christian schools that maintain Biblical beliefs on marriage and sexuality, and to use the threat of losing government funds to force them to change those beliefs. It puts schools into a terrible predicament. If they maintain their beliefs, their prospective students will not be eligible for Cal Grants or Pell Grants, and the schools will suffer significant financial loss. If they give in to this requirement, they compromise their core principles.
Do you see the pattern? Can you see what we are losing here? Do you understand that for the opposition it is a take no prisoner situation? No matter who wins the presidency we can no longer depend on the courts to protect our rights that is no longer an option as they don’t rule based upon actual constitutional law rather they are an oligarchy of ideologues that rule based upon social theory.