As many of our readers will attest to we have been covering this particular case since Day One of its inception. For background information please see here, here, and here. (Please click any one of the “here’s” for additional articles.)
A ruling from Judge Tim L. Garcia in the New Mexico Court of Appeals says states can require Christians to violate their faith in order to do business, affirming a penalty of nearly $7,000 for a photographer who refused to take pictures at a lesbian “commitment” ceremony in the state where same-sex “marriage” was illegal.
The other two judges joined in the ruling by Garcia, which involved Elane Photography, whose owners, Elaine and Jonathan Huegeunin, are Christians and declined to do photography for lesbians Vanessa Willock and another woman.
The women complained and subsequently sued under the state’s anti-discrimination requirements and a state commission, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, imposed the penalty, which now has been affirmed by the appeals court judges. The judges explained in the 45-page ruling that the photography company is a “public accommodation” and those cannot discriminate under state law based on “sexual orientation.” (Oh! That is wonderful…what the Hades is a public accommodation?)
“The owners of Elane Photography must accept the reasonable regulations and restrictions imposed upon the conduct of their commercial enterprise despite their personal religious beliefs that may conflict with these governmental interests,” the judges wrote.
Officials with the Alliance Defense Fund, which has been representing Elane, said there would be an appeal.
“Americans in the marketplace should not be subjected to legal attacks for simply abiding by their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. “Should the government force a videographer who is an animal rights activist to create a video promoting hunting and taxidermy?
Of course not, and neither should the government force this photographer to promote a message that violates her conscience. Because the U.S. Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling artists to promote a message they disagree with, we will certainly appeal this decision to the New Mexico Supreme Court.”
“Services, facilities and accommodations are available to the general public through a variety of resources. Elane Photography takes advantage of these available resources to market to the public at large and invite them to solicit services offered by its photography business,” the judges explained.
They cited the idea of a KKK rally asking a black photographer to supply his work, and the photographer refusing. Could then the KKK cite racial discrimination?
This is an egregious and rather erroneous aspect of the judges’ mindset. Although the KKK is not a protect class, the useable law nonetheless protects the black photographer insofar as racial discrimination is a protected class. This is what has been going on in this kangaroo court.
The judges continued, “The act of photographing a same-sex ceremony does not express any opinions regarding same-sex commitments, or disseminate a personal message about such ceremonies.” And it may not; however, where is it written in law that one must disclose their prayers or religious beliefs? There simply isn’t any. It is very much as if this Appeals court is attempting to compare apples to oranges.
They called the state requirement “a neutral regulation of commercial conduct” and said that it does not “infringe upon freedom of speech or compel unwanted expression.” Again just so they know…this is not or has ever been a case about freedom of speech or expression. This is however a case of one exercising another portion of their First Amendment rights pursuant to the “Free exercise” clause of the amendment. Furthermore, it has very much to do with the “Establishment” of religion clause as well.
The judges wrote that the photography company’s claim of protection under the state constitution’s requirement that “no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion” was not applicable.
The judges suggested the interesting scenario of the photographer accepting the job, and vocally condemning the women while taking pictures. Although this is clearly a hypothetical, it is apparent that the judges are legislating from the bench.
“The owners are free to express their religious beliefs and tell Willock or anyone else what they think about same-sex relationships and same-sex ceremonies,” they said. Furthermore, we believe this to be an absolute mockery! Sue the photography company for sexual orientation and then advise the same to confront the lesbians? (Click here for more of story…)
There really needs to be some clarity carefully given to all uniformed services across the board; albeit, the US Navy, US Air Force, US Army, US Coast Guard, or the nation’s oldest fighting organized service, the US Marine Corps with regard to one’s First Amendment rights and an even more consideration given to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice which is the military’s code of conduct and how to handle those who don’t abide by it.
The name Gary Stein is of first order when one’s 1st Amendment rights are abridged. Oh yes the military has changed from that of the old “brown boot” Army where an individual basically did not have rights insofar as they were considered “government property.”
And in those brown boot Army days if one were stationed in Hawaii, Panama, the Caribbean, or the Mediterranean, and just happened to be fair-skinned and subject to sun burns well that individual would not for his life go on Sick-Call and or mention the problem to anyone. Like – what problem – just as the sunburn did not exist.
One could be brought up on charges for destruction of government property! We’ve discussed context and content on this site numerous times. When one is speaking, as a general rule it is always best to leave politics as well as Cabinet members, immediate supervisors, then again anyone who has a higher rank than you possess – for fear of reprisal actions. Herein lays the largest gaping misnomer in the military:
However, the US Constitution is the law of the land and are we to believe that oath of service supersedes the language of liberty? Furthermore, there exists another idiosyncrasy that to us is far more blatantly egregious. If one is expected to give their lives, limbs, or other body parts to defend something (in this case the Constitution) their very country – the United States of America – shouldn’t they therefore at the very least be given the opportunity to exercise those very rights, liberties, and freedoms they are fighting to protect?
Such is the precise cause to which Gary Stein, a Marine who posted on Facebook that he would not follow orders from President Barack Obama should be dismissed from the military with a less-than-honorable discharge, a Marine Corps review board ruled.
Gary Stein, 26, did not comment on the ruling issued late Thursday, one day after his lawyers unsuccessfully sought to delay the review board by seeking an injunction in federal court in San Diego.
The Marines’ recommendation to administratively discharge Stein came after a 13-hour hearing and an hour of deliberation by the panel. It will be submitted to Brigadier General Daniel Yoo, the commanding general of the Marine Corps Recruiting Depot, where Stein is stationed.
Stein, who is a meteorologist at Camp Pendleton, served nearly nine years, including a tour of duty in Iraq. He was due to either re-enlist or end his enlistment at the end of July, according to court documents.
He later removed the comments and said he meant only unlawful orders. In 2010, he got in similar trouble with the Marine Corps and was advised to post a disclaimer that the Armed Forces Tea Party is not affiliated with the Armed Forces.
Not to be misunderstood there is a decorum and standards by which an individual conducts him/herself whilst on military duty; however, we do not believe that what Mr. Stein said was out of the purview of his First Amendment rights. We furthermore believe that his Constitutional rights definitely hold position over any oath that anyone gives the military.
Hello “Friends of Critical Thought” or friends of The Thinker; today is a little different than most insofar as I am beginning to lose patience with Obama, Holder, Napolitano, Tony Perez, and the rest of the acting troupe that does not have our best interests at hand.
I believe that there is training and massive years of experience that can account for it; however, I am not even close to others’ I admire and can keep a cool head about themselves under the most of trying circumstances. And no! This is not one of those “No More Mr. Nice guy’s” type of written correspondence either.
However, I do believe that if there is anything that I am entitled to do that would be to exercise my 1st Amendment rights of free speech. I just completed an excellent work called Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment, and whoo-saa! This book is definitely on my most recommended list carrying with it the seal of “Must Reading” written by Anthony Lewis and published by Perseus Books.
This is why I can say with repose that more than any other people on earth, Americans are free to say and write what they think. It is clearly within the boundaries to criticize the White House or even to air the secrets of the bedroom with little fear of punishment.
Yet, now the freedom we take most assuredly for granted did not take hold when the First Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1791. It was more than a century later, in 1931, when the Supreme Court first enforced the Amendment to protect speakers and the press.
This is done artfully by Mr. Lewis, and if I may, just about every person I know, read about, or otherwise hates – with passion – any reading of the Colonial Era, history in general, or anything of the sort. In this book we are told the story of legal and political conflict, hard choices, and determined, sometimes eccentric Americans who led the legal system to realize one of America’s great founding ideas.
As much as the Founder’s and their supporters wanted too, these statesmen and citizens also realized that more than anything they had to demonstrate responsibility and good conscience.
And as such it concerns me deeply that our own elected officials, who are remunerated greatly for a service that should come far more easily to them.
Just for the sake that I do have free speech rights, then please hear me out. My distrust of our principle leadership in our nation is pitiful. I can openly say without difficulty that there isn’t anything about the executive branch of government – from Barack Obama and just about every person who is heading up a department within that branch, especially the Justice Department, Homeland Security, as well as Health and Human Services that I would have either of them on my left or right side during wartime battlefield conditions. From as far back as I can remember in our little hood a person’s fidelity, pride, and trust was measured by if we’d go to war with them.
Ladies and gentlemen I make no qualm about it – I would not share a foxhole with Barack Obama, much less Eric Holder, and especially Tony Perez. These individuals have yet to prove to me: one, that they have any original fight in them; two, why does it seem as though every time our nation takes a step forward, the resulting actions by these aforementioned people make sure that in reality, we’ve taken 5 steps backwards?
We say we would like something done about a completely defunct agency within our government – the Immigration and Naturalization Service and please why is it okay that to perform a criminal act suddenly now there is no criminal activity and the person becomes undocumented?
I want someone to explain to me why every one of us that want to operate a motor vehicle must have proof of insurance and a state issued driver’s license? Yet, when anyone says a thing about any one of these freeloaders who are preparing to what should be the single most cognitive privilege in government – Voting.
Please oh pulheez, explain to me why we need to back up our courts deciding whether or not the “simple” criminals should be deported first or at all, against the more egregious and heinous “severe” criminals. People get it together! Stop doing what you’re doing and by the will of the American people deport these people who are here illegally.
Remember the 1 step forward followed by the 5 steps backward analogy? Someone please tell me how and why the Justice Department and some of its various agencies like ATF, FBI, snitches, and insiders are allowed to knowingly and quite willingly set up gun running operations with drug cartels that literally run Mexico?
How is it that the United States Attorney General, who just happens to be in charge of all of it – when subpoenaed to bring some 80.000 documents relative to Operation Fast & Furious has taken over a year to selectively pass over approximately 7,000 of those documents which incidentally came from the White House?
The Reverend Al Sharpten was openly espousing his views on the legitimacy of a Voter ID. A real brouhaha over the notion that “…we’ve come a long way in the 50 years since the Voting Rights Act of 1965” simply implies a what if scenario. But what does all of that mean? Requiring a person to have some legal authorization for them to vote only supports the Act of 1965. Or would you rather a person who is not entitled to vote in a general election in the United States of America be given a special circumstance?
Word from our sources is that there appears to be several make-shift training facilities in Mexico and other Middle American countries. In other words people, we have a government that is supplying weapons to them and intelligence that either al-Qaeda or Hamas or some radical factions of operatives are training…for what?
A federal judge has temporarily blocked yet another provision of Arizona’s controversial SB 1070 immigration measure from being enforced. The 2010 law made it a crime for a person to block traffic when seeking or offering work on streets.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled Wednesday that groups who challenged the provision to succeed in proving the measure violates were likely the 1st Amendment. Immigrant and civil rights groups had argued that the law targeted day laborers’ speech, not traffic problems; however, this is only a diversion if you’ve ever been there. (Special interest groups, La Raza, etc.)
Bolton rightly noted that state officials already have a slew of civil penalties on the books that can be used against individuals who violate traffic laws or create road hazards.
The ruling shouldn’t come as a surprise. On Feb. 21, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to reinstate Redondo Beach‘s anti-solicitation ordinance. The high court let stand a lower court ruling that found the city’s attempt to stop day laborers from seeking work on street corners was so broad that it was nothing short of an unconstitutional attack on free speech. Redondo Beach had spent more than 20 years defending its anti-solicitation ordinance.
No one disputes that cities or states should be able to prosecute those who endanger public safety or create a nuisance. But communities should avail themselves of laws already in place that target jaywalking, trespassing or traffic violations instead of enacting new ones that result only in long and expensive legal battles. That is precisely what the attitude has been in our country since before the 12 million illegal aliens invaded. Moreover, when there is a new issue to deal with, one simply does not revert to old and impractical methods.
For those who do not work or live in areas where huge numbers of illegal immigrants congregate during the morning hours perhaps setting up an example of what it looks like would be proper.
Say it is six o’clock in the morning (6:00am) and for some earlier and other’s later, and you are all decked out in your “Dress for Success” clothes driving to work. You’ve already had your morning cupper’ but since today is Monday, you’ve decided to visit the local Starbucks for that heavenly Hazelnut Latte you’ve been craving since last night.
Once having arrived at Starbucks there are numerous “cat-calls,” whistles, and obscene sounding Spanish remarks aimed directly at you. You look back and at the corner are who knows…maybe 50 to 100 illegal’s waiting for something; nonetheless they are still creating a nuisance and just a wee bit of sweat begins to roll down you back.
Before reaching the door at Starbucks you happen to notice one of the people cover his nostril with one finger and being puffed-up and …there she blows! Snot being led by the biggest wad of nose collection you’ve ever seen. You continue and whilst waiting for that coveted latte you glance over and just happen to notice and woman between a fence and the side of a gas station holding two infant babies when at once she stoops only to leave a puddle with steam and then she’s up again intermingling with the others and you happen to notice that she is now directing another female toward the puddling area.
After a rather rude start of your day you’ve decided something must be done about this cesspool corner. It’s not that people are going there to catch public transportation; in fact, you come to understand that only about 20 percent of the day-working individuals are actually going to procure work. The eighty (80%) percent of others are hoping for that job but if you’re not there, then you’ll never get the work – or so the saying goes.
What you soon find out is that these are coordinated stops along the illegal-supporting-companies supply lines. They honestly could care less about your property…”no my problem” they’ll say and by the way, does anyone know what it costs to live in Redondo Beach, California these days?
Moreover, this is not even close to an issue of an “unconstitutional attack on free speech;” unless you are the older male or female who lives within an area where they smartly don’t make pick-ups. Yet, all the same, it is certainly not like a group of civilized individuals standing politely on a street corner. What we have is an unruly, mass of people that won’t fit on the corner anymore and now they’re spreading out and down the street…oh! Did I mention being in the street causing havoc? People in Redondo Beach don’t hate people…they hate the thought of killing them by unintended consequences.
Infidel victim, Ernest Perce, has received 471 verifiable threats.
American District Court Judge, Mark Martin, in an American court espoused; “Our forefathers intended that we use the first amendment so that we could speak what’s on our mind, not piss off other cultures….. Islam is not just a religion; it’s their culture, their culture, the very essence, their very being. They pray five times a day, towards Mecca. To be a good Muslim before you die, you have to make a pilgrimage to Mecca unless you are otherwise told you cannot because you are too ill, too elderly, whatever, you must make the attempt. Their greetings salum alaikum waliakum as-salm (as answered by voice), uh may god be with you. It is very common, their language, when they are speaking to each other, it is very common for them to say, uh Allah willing, this will happen. It’s they are so immersed in it.
And what you’ve done is you’ve completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very, very, very offensive. I am a Muslim. I find it very offensive….. You are way outside your bounds of first amendment rights.”
Before going too far into this travesty we’d like to make it clear that although as some person states something that may be offensive to one does not necessitate that it is offensive to every person who hears what is said. Consider this is you will:
“Professor Zechariah Chaffee Jr., whose writing on the freedom of speech had such a profound effect on Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes insofar that Holmes divided the subject into to large categories. “The First Amendment” he wrote, “protects two kinds of interests in free speech. There is an individual interest, the need of many men to express their opinions on matters vital to them if life is to be worth living, and a social interest in the attainment of truth…”
Perhaps there is something especially American about the need for self-expression if life is to be worth living, as Professor Chafee put it.
Albert Einstein used the same phrase in describing what he found when he came to the United States. “From what I have seen of Americans” he wrote in 1944, “I think that life would not be worth living without this freedom of self-expression.”
All things being equal (and we soon shall see that they are not) this incident alone is why there needs to be anti-Sharia legislation immediately. Most of the following narrative is from ABC news (local in PA) with the strong hands and quill from one of this nation’s leading and foremost experts, Ms. Pam Geller.
It is from Ms. Geller’s website, Atlas Shrugs, that the majority of what you are about to read came from. We have no need and zero tolerance for any sitting judge to behave in this manner. So without further adieu here goes:
This is why we must have Sharia legislation in America, it is referred to as, Equal protection under the law. There is no “equal protection under the Sharia” for non-Muslims. Under Islam, Sharia supersedes the law of the land, any and every land.
Earlier today, I have been spending time researching while gathering as much information as possible on a matter reported on a Muslim judge who sided with a violent Muslim who beat up a parade-goer wearing a “Zombie Muhammad” costume while marching in a local Pennsylvania Halloween parade.
According to reports, the Parading Atheists of Central Pennsylvania (PACP) were marching in a Halloween parade in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, when a Muslim stormed out of the hometown crowd to assault one of the marching atheists who happened to be wearing a Zombie Muhammad costume.
But this case is worse than that. Ernest Perce, victim of a Muslim beating, may soon be spending time in jail because he released audio footage (above YouTube video) of a court proceeding. Aren’t court cases open to the public?
According to the description of a released video by Perce, Judge Mark Martin – the presiding judge of the court proceedings — is threatening to hold Perce in contempt of court for releasing recorded audio of the case even though, according to Perce, Perce was given permission to release the audio.
Commenting for this article, Perce notes that he released the video because he believes that he was treated unfairly and contends that his alleged assailant had been shown preferential treatment by Judge Mark Martin. Perce says he also released the video because he wants persons to evaluate the audio from the court proceeding.
But wait, it gets worse. The Judge refused to allow the video into evidence, and then said,
“All that aside I’ve got here basically.. I don’t want to say he said she said but I’ve got two sides of the story that are in conflict with each other.” And,
“The preponderance of, excuse me, the burden of proof… “ And,
“…he has not proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is guilty of harassment, therefore I am going to dismiss the charge”
The Judge neglected to address the fact that the ignorance of the law does not justify an assault and that it was the responsibility of the defendant to familiarize himself with our laws. This is to say nothing of the judge counseling the defendant that it is also not acceptable for him to teach his children that it is acceptable to use violence in the defense of religious beliefs.
This is a travesty. Not only did Judge Martin completely ignore video evidence, but a Police Officer who was at the scene also testified on Mr. Perce’s behalf, to which the Judge also dismissed by saying the officer didn’t give an accurate account or doesn’t give it any weight. So much for law enforcement.
To view this video please click here.