Melissa and Aaron Klein, the Christian couple from Oregon who are being fined $135,000 for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, are standing by their faith and pushing for laws that protect Christian business owners in the United States.
In 2013, the Kleins of Grasham, Oregon, were named in a civil rights complaint filed by Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman who were turned away at Sweet Cakes by Melissa on grounds of the bakery owners' religious views of same-sex marriage. On Friday, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries issued a 110-page proposed order recommending that the owners of the now-closed bakery pay $135,000 to Cryer and Bowman for "emotional, mental and physical suffering." Just days later, Aaron Klein spoke to The Christian Post about the case, starting with his own message for Americans.
"I would say, on a personal note, don't be afraid to stand up for the Bible, for God's truth, for the sake of Jesus Christ ... that is something that is near and dear to my heart," Klein began. "From a political standpoint, I would say this: every American should be free to live and work by their faith without being afraid that the government will punish them for doing so." more >>
The U.S. Supreme Court has thrown out a ruling against a Catholic organization that was being compelled to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives at the threat of being fined by the Internal Revenue Service.
On Monday the highest court in the nation granted the Michigan Catholic Conference their request for an exemption for religious reasons against the Health and Human Services contraception mandate.
In the Supreme Court's order, the Justices invoked last year's landmark Hobby Lobby decision, which concluded that "closely-held businesses" could be exempted from the HHS mandate due to religious objections. more >>
Oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges are now complete, and there is just a bit less triumphalism from the Left than expected. It turns out that Justice Kennedy — the presumed deciding vote — was not uniformly enthusiastic about expanding the definition of marriage, noting at one point that he had "a word on his mind, and that word is 'millennia.'" He seemed to be indicating reluctance to step in and redefine an institution that has existed across cultures, for thousands of years, as a union between a man and a woman.
While that comment was promising, most observers said he was far more animated and impassioned in his statement sympathetic to same-sex marriage. Later in the argument, for example, he spoke forcefully about granting "dignity" to gay couples. From The Wall Street Journal live blog:
He [Michigan special assistant attorney general John Bursch] again said the states' position focused on the importance of marriage for childbearing. The institution of marriage was never meant to be about bestowing dignity on couples, he said. This drew a sharp response from Justice Kennedy. "I thought the whole purpose" was to bestow dignity, he said. more >>
Thank you for coming out and standing up for your convictions!
As a country, today we pray that our leaders do what's best for the health of society, the welfare of children, and the protection of freedom of conscience. But no matter what our nine Supreme Court Justices decide come June, to Christian citizens, I say to you the Church, that we must never compromise our convictions according to the tide of popular culture!
Marriage does not need to be compromised; it needs to be cherished with courage. more >>
Faggots. This is the name of the 1978 book by LGBTQ icon, Larry Kramer. He's gay and a prophetic voice for 37 years warning of homosexuality's health hazards. He's director of ACT UP whose slogan is: "Silence – Death."
Many gay marriage advocates wish Larry would shut his mouth. His message undercuts the image of being "gay and blissful." Folks are uncomfortable adding unsavory elements like this to the conversation.
Do you think lawyers who presented arguments to the Supreme Court included the following? more >>
Thousands of years of human history cannot be overruled by three hours of debate before nine imperfect people. But today that is the best liberals can hope for in the race to upend nature's law -- and nature's God. Outside the U.S. Supreme Court, where the future of civilization was on trial, people from both sides of the marriage debate soaked in the sun while inside clouds gathered over the question that's shadowed America for the last 11 years: does the court have a right to force same-sex "marriage" on every state in the union?
Two years ago, these same justices argued no. It was wrong, Anthony Kennedy warned, for courts to "put a thumb on the scales and influence a state's decision as to how to shape its own marriage laws." Now, a vocal minority is asking these nine justices to put -- not just a thumb, but the body of America's highest court on the scales, toppling 240 years of self-governance. If they concede, burying the nation's democratic heritage under an avalanche of judicial activism, states' rights are forever at risk.
"If you prevail here, there will be no more debate," Chief Justice John Roberts told the other side's attorneys. "People feel very differently if they have a chance to vote on it" as opposed to having it forced on them. Justice Antonin Scalia chimed in as well, insisting that the key question here was who should decide the issue, pointing out that only 11 states had done so by a "vote of the people or the legislature." more >>