The state of New Mexico severely restricted the First Amendment rights of its residents on August 22, 2013, when the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled against Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin in a case centered around religious rights and freedom of speech versus discrimination.
In 2006, the Huguenins, who own and operate a photography business in Albuquerque, refused to photograph a lesbian wedding because their Christian beliefs do not agree with or accept same sex marriage. The state of New Mexico ruled that their refusal to photograph the couple's union violated the couple's civil rights in the same way as if it was an interracial couple - which is absolutely ludicrous and makes no logical sense.
The United States Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed to the American people that their religious beliefs and their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression are no longer guaranteed. They refused to hear the case, thus allowing the ruling in New Mexico to stand.
In March of 2013, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights conducted a briefing on reconciling nondiscrimination principles with civil liberties. One expert explained in his written statement, “The sweeping application of non-discrimination principles poses an increasingly severe threat to civil liberties, especially to our first liberty of religious freedom.”
In other words, giving everything a blanket non-discrimination status without considering what the First Amendment says is a threat to everyone's civil liberties and not just a particular group.
Following the ruling, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence said "Only unjust laws separate what people say from what they believe. The First Amendment protects our freedom to speak or not speak on any issue without fear of punishment. We had hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would use this case to affirm this basic constitutional principle; however, the court will likely have several more opportunities to do just that in other cases of ours that are working their way through the court system."
In a recent incident , radical LGBT activst groups targeted Mozilla CEO Breden Eich immediately following his appointment as CEO because in 2008 he donated $1000 to support Proposition 8, the anti-same sex marriage bill in California. The dating website okCupid called for a boycott of Mozilla and Firefox because of that donation. Their co-founder, Samuel Yagun, demanded that Eich resign.
Following the ruling, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence said "Only unjust laws separate what people say from what they believe. The First Amendment protects our freedom to speak or not speak on any issue without fear of punishment. We had hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would use this case to affirm this basic constitutional principle; however, the court will likely have several more opportunities to do just that in other cases of ours that are working their way through the court system."
In a recent incident , radical LGBT activst groups targeted Mozilla CEO Breden Eich immediately following his appointment as CEO because in 2008 he donated $1000 to support Proposition 8, the anti-same sex marriage bill in California. The dating website okCupid called for a boycott of Mozilla and Firefox because of that donation. Their co-founder, Samuel Yagun, demanded that Eich resign.
Activists took to Twitter to rail against Eich's support of traditional marriage and called for him to be removed from his position.
Once Yagun learned that Eich would resign on Thursday he ended the boycott saying "I would have loved to have engaged in a debate over what happens when freedoms collide," Yagun said. "We have freedom of speech, which I would defend to the end."
So Mr. Yagun is all about freedom of speech as long as 1) you agree with his beliefs or 2) you shut up and go away if you disagree with his beliefs. That's so typically liberal.
By the way - on Monday it was learned that in 2004, Yagan made a $500 donation to Utah Representative Chris Cannon, who opposed same-sex marriage, voted against a ban on sexual-orientation based job discrimination and for prohibition of gay adoptions, according to the blog site Uncrunched. Should Yagun now be forced to resign from his position? Did I mention hypocrisy?
Mother Jones goes into a little more detail on Yagun.
"Of course, it’s been a decade since Yagan’s donation to Cannon, and a decade or more since many of Cannon’s votes on gay rights. It’s possible that Cannon’s opinions have shifted, or maybe his votes were more politics than ideology; a tactic by the Mormon Rep. to satisfy his Utah constituency. It’s also quite possible that Yagan’s politics have changed since 2004: He donated to Barack Obama’s campaign in 2007 and 2008. Perhaps even Firefox’s Eich has rethought LGBT equality since his 2008 donation. But OkCupid didn’t include any such nuance in its take-down of Firefox. Combine that with the fact that the company helped force out one tech CEO for something its own CEO also did, and its action last week starts to look more like a PR stunt than an impassioned act of protest."
By the way - on Monday it was learned that in 2004, Yagan made a $500 donation to Utah Representative Chris Cannon, who opposed same-sex marriage, voted against a ban on sexual-orientation based job discrimination and for prohibition of gay adoptions, according to the blog site Uncrunched. Should Yagun now be forced to resign from his position? Did I mention hypocrisy?
Mother Jones goes into a little more detail on Yagun.
"Of course, it’s been a decade since Yagan’s donation to Cannon, and a decade or more since many of Cannon’s votes on gay rights. It’s possible that Cannon’s opinions have shifted, or maybe his votes were more politics than ideology; a tactic by the Mormon Rep. to satisfy his Utah constituency. It’s also quite possible that Yagan’s politics have changed since 2004: He donated to Barack Obama’s campaign in 2007 and 2008. Perhaps even Firefox’s Eich has rethought LGBT equality since his 2008 donation. But OkCupid didn’t include any such nuance in its take-down of Firefox. Combine that with the fact that the company helped force out one tech CEO for something its own CEO also did, and its action last week starts to look more like a PR stunt than an impassioned act of protest."
On Thursday, Mr. Eich resigned from his position with the following statement: “I have decided to resign as CEO effective April 3rd, and leave Mozilla. Our mission is bigger than any one of us, and under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader. I will be taking time before I decide what to do next.”
"I don't believe this is a question of suppressing free speech," he said. "It's a question of the market regulating itself."
If Eich had remained in his position, "a tsunami of negativity was going to eventually overwhelm him and the company," Sainz said. "It's entirely a measure of our success as a movement that we are now part of that long list of issues that CEOs have to consider."
Of course you don't believe it's about suppressing free speech, Mr. Sainz. It's not your freedom of speech being suppressed.
It's entirely a measure of how the radical LGBT community and the "tolerant" left is steadily removing freedom of speech from Americans who disagree with their agenda. In their world you are fully entitled to freedom of speech - as long as your speech is the same as theirs. If you disagree with them you are a target and they will do whatever they have to do to shut you up or shut you down. Tolerance at its best.
Yesterday, baseball great Hank Aaron said basically that those who don't support President Obama are racists, particularly the Republicans in Washington. Apparently Mr. Aaron, like many other Obama supporters, believes that political ideologies don't count and that the only possible reason for people might disagree with the President is because he's black. Mr. Aaron is not alone.
Everyone from Al Sharpton, to Jesse Jackson, Sheila Jackson Lee, Eric Holder, Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and even Chris Matthews, have said the main reason people oppose Obama is because they're racists. It's an attempt to get people to shut up and quit criticizing the President. Their attitude is "If you continue to criticize President Obama, regardless of how true your words, we will shout you down with charges of racism and make you look bad. It's one of the main reasons the Republicans in the House haven't impeached President Obama yet.
And the same thing happens in the Muslim world. If you criticize Islam in today's society you will be called Islamophobic, or a bigot, or a racist (even though Islam is not a race.) The Muslim organization CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) is constantly complaining when some individual or group puts out true and accurate information that is derogatory to Islam. They blame Islamophobia because they have no other valid argument. They have also begun a movement in attempt to make any criticism of Islam illegal.
Now, before anyone gets their panties in a wad and begins leveling allegations of racism, bigotry, homophobia, Islamophobia, (and any other derogatory thing they can think of toward me, understand this. I don't care what your race, color, sexual preference, religious preference or political affiliation is. I have friends in nearly all of the named categories and none of them would tell you I'm bigoted, hateful, or treat them any different because of who they are or what they believe. I don't care who you love or want to spend you life with. I don't care where your parents and family came from (as long as you're here because you want to be in America and follow our laws and customs. I care about our First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. That goes for all of the aforementioned categories (and any other I may have missed) as well. You all have the right to say what you wish - even if it's a derogatory response to an idea someone has that is different than yours. And I will protect that right because, while I may not agree with what you say, if we take away your right to say it we all lose in the end.
Yesterday, baseball great Hank Aaron said basically that those who don't support President Obama are racists, particularly the Republicans in Washington. Apparently Mr. Aaron, like many other Obama supporters, believes that political ideologies don't count and that the only possible reason for people might disagree with the President is because he's black. Mr. Aaron is not alone.
Everyone from Al Sharpton, to Jesse Jackson, Sheila Jackson Lee, Eric Holder, Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and even Chris Matthews, have said the main reason people oppose Obama is because they're racists. It's an attempt to get people to shut up and quit criticizing the President. Their attitude is "If you continue to criticize President Obama, regardless of how true your words, we will shout you down with charges of racism and make you look bad. It's one of the main reasons the Republicans in the House haven't impeached President Obama yet.
And the same thing happens in the Muslim world. If you criticize Islam in today's society you will be called Islamophobic, or a bigot, or a racist (even though Islam is not a race.) The Muslim organization CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) is constantly complaining when some individual or group puts out true and accurate information that is derogatory to Islam. They blame Islamophobia because they have no other valid argument. They have also begun a movement in attempt to make any criticism of Islam illegal.
Now, before anyone gets their panties in a wad and begins leveling allegations of racism, bigotry, homophobia, Islamophobia, (and any other derogatory thing they can think of toward me, understand this. I don't care what your race, color, sexual preference, religious preference or political affiliation is. I have friends in nearly all of the named categories and none of them would tell you I'm bigoted, hateful, or treat them any different because of who they are or what they believe. I don't care who you love or want to spend you life with. I don't care where your parents and family came from (as long as you're here because you want to be in America and follow our laws and customs. I care about our First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. That goes for all of the aforementioned categories (and any other I may have missed) as well. You all have the right to say what you wish - even if it's a derogatory response to an idea someone has that is different than yours. And I will protect that right because, while I may not agree with what you say, if we take away your right to say it we all lose in the end.
Sadly, our courts are becoming more and more liberal as time goes by. And if the Supreme Court ever gets a liberal majority, religious rights and freedom of speech will be all but gone. So much for what the founders put in place. President Obama has been complaining about that since he took office. And slowly but surely he and his fellow liberals are getting their way.
No comments:
Post a Comment