U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito: Religious Freedom in ‘Greater Danger’ Than Free Speech

AlitoWASHINGTON — During a recent speech in Washington for the national lawyer’s convention of the Federalist Society, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito opined that religious freedom might be “in greater danger” than the right to free speech.

“I am reminded of a song by the latest recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature: It’s not dark yet, but it’s getting there,” he said.

Alito pointed to a case out of Washington State that was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, in which the owner of a pharmacy was required to stock the morning-after pill despite his religious convictions regarding abortifacients.

As previously reported, in 2006, Ralph’s Thriftway owner, Kevin Stormans, received a call inquiring whether the location sold the morning-after pill. After replying that the pharmacy did not carry it, he began to receive anonymous complaints via phone and email. Ralph’s Thriftway was soon also picketed and complaints were filed with the Washington Board of Pharmacy, which launched an investigation.

The following year, the state passed regulations requiring that pharmacies stock and dispense the morning-after pill, and the legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed suit on behalf of Stormans and two of his pharmacists, Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen, who objected to the requirement because of their Christian faith.

The pharmacy had asked for the right to provide referrals rather than provide Plan B and Ella themselves, but while the regulations allowed for referrals for a number of reasons, religious protections were not included.

“It violates their religious beliefs to sell these drugs,” Alito outlined. “Instead of selling them, the pharmacy referred customers to one of more than 30 other pharmacies located within a five-mile radius.”

  • Connect with Christian News

In 2012, a federal court ruled in favor of Ralph’s Thriftway, stating that the new regulations “appear to intentionally place a significant burden on the free exercise of religion for those who believe life begins at conception.” But the case was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which unanimously ruled that Ralph’s Thriftway must stock the drugs despite the pharmacy’s religious objections.

The battle consequently went to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the majority of justices declined to take the case, allowing the lower court ruling on the matter to stand. Only Justices, Alito, Thomas and Roberts desired to hear the matter.

“[N]ational and local pharmacist’s associations submitted an amicus brief telling us that this practice of referring customers to other pharmacies is standard, because no pharmacy can possibly stock every single drug that is approved by the Food and Drug Administration,” Alito noted in his speech to the Federalist Society this month.

“In this case, there is strong evidence that the law was enacted to rid the state of those troublesome pharmacists who objected to these drugs on religious grounds,” he told those gathered, “but the Ninth Circuit sustained the law, and the Supreme Court did not even think that case deserved review.”

Alito, a Roman Catholic, lamented that “Washington would rather have no pharmacy than one that doesn’t toe the line on abortifacient emergency contraceptives.”

“This case is an ominous sign. 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,” Alito wrote in his dissent from the court in June. “[T]here is much evidence that the impetus for the adoption of the regulations was hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the state.”

“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,” he bemoaned. “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.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • tatoo

    There will be no religious freedom for those who are not Christian. We will be subjected to proselytizing and other annoying crap.

    • Amos Moses

      freedom of speech is not a freedom to NOT be annoyed ………. if free speech does not protect unpopular speech ….. then it is meaningless ……… popular speech needs no protection …… freedom of speech protects those who have things to say that you DO NOT want to hear …………….

      • http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family Terri Geer

        Freedom of speech means just that – speech. The stopping line is where it is attempting to affect other people, or attempting to force others to live by someone else’s beliefs. There is no right to do that.

        • Amos Moses

          “The stopping line is where it is attempting to affect other people, or attempting to force others to live by someone else’s beliefs. ”

          and thus free speech FAILS to be free when the listener controls the speech ….. what self-refuting nonsense ………….. BTW …. speech …. IS NOT FORCE ….. and if you do not like what is being said …… TURN AROUND and WALK AWAY and stop listening ……

          • Palsgraf’s Scale

            Yup. Forcing people to act a certain way isn’t freedom of speech at that point. That is action not solely meant to communicate ideas, but instead to regulate. I disagree with it substantively, but I could hardly justify stifling that speech legally.

            That said, protection of free speech only applies to government action or situations where the government might be forced to enforce such a restriction. Private entities have a whole lot more leeway with telling you what you can and can’t say.

        • hytre64✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          Speech is supposed to “attempt to affect other people”. Why bother speaking to other people if not trying to influence them?

        • honeymonster

          Why are you writing this?

    • hytre64✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Freedom OF Religion does not mean Freedom FROM Religion. You are free to believe whatever you wish, worship however you wish and live your life according to your faith (or lack thereof). Christians, likewise have that same privilege – which includes telling others about Jesus.

      • RbtRgus

        The first amendment gives us both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. You are free to worship as you see fit, and we are free from any attempt you might make to impose your religion on us. It is brilliant.

        • hytre64✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          You are free to practice your atheism in peace. That does not mean that we Christians are forced to remain silent. You are free to speak about your lack of faith, we are free to speak about how Jesus saved us and all that he has done for us.

          • http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family Terri Geer

            But you are not allowed to make your religious beliefs into law.

          • RbtRgus

            Absolutely true. And you are not allowed to force your religion on us through government and schools and schools and government are not allowed to take an official position that your god story is nonsense. That is the freedom from religion part.

    • tatoo

      Fine. Then you will have to listen to me tell you about atheism, and the Satanists about Satan, and the Muslims about Islam, and the Hindu about Hinduism and the Buddhists about Buddha. Sounds fair. You are going to be busy.

      • hytre64✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        You are free to speak. I am also free to walk away.

        BTW – I have listened to Hindu’s, Buddhists, Jews, Agnostics, Atheists, Muslims and even a Zoroastrians speak of their beliefs.

      • Darlene

        That’s really stupid.

      • honeymonster

        Why does free speech mean that someone has to listen?

    • Royce E. Van Blaricome

      Oh please, try to be a little intellectually honest, will ya? You’re not losing any religious freedom just because someone tries to proselytize you!! My goodness, we Christians have to put up with you atheists (or whatever else you might be) calling God a sky fairy, a monster, etc. and the Bible a fairy tale, book of fiction from the Bronze Age, etc.

      THAT is ever bit as much “annoying crap” as you having to put up with a little spiritual talk, a Christmas tree, or a church in your neighborhood. Don’t like it – LEAVE. Nobody is stopping ya. Perhaps Cuba would be more to your liking.

    • Max

      Lock the trailer.

  • Codfish Ball

    With Scalia gone to his heavenly reward, Alito and Thomas are about the only Justices that are playing the role the Founders intended. Who would have ever dreamed that evangelicals’ best allies on the SCOTUS would be two Catholics?

    • johndoe

      Only because you agree with their rulings and not the others.

    • http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family Terri Geer

      Which founders are you talking about? You do realize that very few of the founders contributed to the Federalist Papers, don’t you?

      Plus, a pharmacist is not a religious position. ALL their job is to provide prescriptions for patients that doctors prescribe.

      • hytre64✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        Plan B does NOT require a prescription. It is an Over The Counter medication. No Doctor Involved.

        Whether it is a “religious” position or not – The person occupying it is permitted to HAVE Religious convictions and the state should show COMPELLING interest to force people to violate their religious principles.

  • TrueChristian

    Of course ‘the morning after pill ’ isn’t an abortifcant – it works just as birth control pills do by preventing ovulation. Ovums are good for 1 day, sperm hangs around for 3, the hope is to prevent ovulation for a conception that hasn’t happened yet.

    The longer the delay the higher the failure chance, and why every moment counts for the patient – referral to somewhere else isn’t a reasonable option.

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Not only is the morning after pill potentially taking a small human life, but it endangers the woman’s life as well.

      • http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family Terri Geer

        What part of “prevent ovulation” do you not understand? There is no small human life involved in this.

        As for endangering the life of the woman – prove it.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          It doesn’t prevent ovulation if ovulation and conception have already happened, which is the point of the morning after pill. It’s been linked to all sorts of problems including blood clots and death.

          • http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family Terri Geer

            Again, prove it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I already did. If it prevented ovulation, then it would have to be taken prior to ovulation which is what the birth control pill is for, not the morning after pill.

          • johndoe

            It temporarily prevents release of eggs from ovary, prevents fertilization, and can prevent attachment to the uterine wall. You need to better inform yourself.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            My point is that if a woman has already ovulated, it obviously doesn’t prevent it, and that’s not what it’s for. Anyone who tells you that is lying. “Preventing attachment to the uterine wall” is an attempt to whitewash the proper term, “abortion”. Stop lying.

          • johndoe

            Nobody is lying but you are making a fool of yourself. Look up the drug for yourself. It would seem that you are the one who is lying.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I know this stuff. I don’t have to look up anything, unlike you. Since you like “looking up” stuff so much, Google how many serious side effects, and death, have occurred from this garbage.

          • johndoe

            Sure you do. Thats why the Lexi Comp drug book sitting next to me says different. Liars for christ are still liars.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You do know there are medical reports and studies you can look up online, don’t you? Including death? So your false accusations are easily proven to be that – false.

          • johndoe

            Nope. Not false. Easily disproved. Your accusing of lying when you’re doing it blatantly.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Morningafterpill DOT com for starters. You are not only falsely accusing but you are blatantly lying to suit your agenda. You wouldn’t take the product with the risks so high but you don’t care if a woman dies taking it. Disgusting.

          • johndoe

            You’re the liar here. I have no agenda. The information is correct. Thanks for the sweet christian insult.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Truth telling isn’t an insult and I provided information that proved you were spreading propaganda. Shame on you.

          • johndoe

            HOW DOES THE PLAN B® MORNING-AFTER PILL WORK?

            Stop
            plan B® comes in a one-pill dose. If taken within 72 hours (3 days) and preferably within 12 hours after a contraceptive accident or unprotected sex, it can prevent pregnancy by doing one of three things:

            Temporarily stops the release of an egg from the ovary
            Prevents fertilization
            Prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            And what does preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus mean? Also, if a woman hasn’t ovulated when she’s had sex, she won’t need a morning after pill. You do know that there’s a very short window of time for conception, right? Didn’t you learn this stuff in grade school?

          • johndoe

            Nope. Read it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, I know this stuff. LOL You clearly do not. 🙂

      • johndoe

        On day one it is nothing mote than a sperm and ovum. Cell differentiation hasn’t started. Not a viable life at that point. Also, there are many medications that have severe side effects but the benefits outweigh the risks. I guess you would advocate for pharmacists prescribing the meds?

        • http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family Terri Geer

          Apparently, this person has no real-life concept of how the human body works.

          • johndoe

            Exactly

    • Chris Nash

      “the hope is” that, plan B can abort a conceived embryo for a period of time, you title your name as true christian, that being the case I am sure you are aware at what stage of pregnancy God determines the embryo as a separate life, i’m sure you are also aware that if people put in place God given direction, then there would be no need for morning after pills, abortions, etc. 1 man 1 woman, married before relations, divorce only on the grounds of adultery etc would prevent all these needs.

      • TrueChristian

        Yes, individuality comes with the breath, just like with Adam. And so you are saying the pharmacists are hypocrites since they will sell the exact same medications as birth control pills but not as plan B?

        • Chris Nash

          I think the god of this system has blinded your mind, 2cor 4:4

  • james blue

    Medicine and prescription dispensing are regulated for a reason. At what point do we say a licensed pharmacist can impose his religious views over the medical needs of those with legal prescriptions? There has to be rules regarding what pharmacies must carry as part of their license if there are no other outlets locally.

    That said the owners of a pharmacy in an area where there are alternative outlets that accept insurance etc. should be allowed to not stock certain medications. There has to be a local alternative compromise.

    On the flip side if you are employed in a pharmacy that does sell “Plan B” you should either dispense it or seek employment elsewhere. The owners should not be compelled by law to make accommodations for your religious beliefs. It’s nice when they do, but they shouldn’t be compelled by law to.

    • Amos Moses

      at what point do we think we have the right to impose our idea of what is right on the pharmacist …… the employers is free to dismiss the pharmacist at any time ….. but the owners should not be compelled by law to make accommodations for the customers objection to anyones religious beliefs ………….

      • http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family Terri Geer

        The pharmacist trained and took the job of dispensing medications based on the prescriptions of doctors. It has/had absolutely nothing to do with religious beliefs. Nor should ti.

        • Amos Moses

          depending on the pharmacist ….. the drug may not have been available when he/she was in school ….. regardless ….. if i sell hammers and a person wants to buy one and makes it known it will be used to kill a person …… i have no obligation to sell to them ……. no matter what religion i am ………

      • james blue

        In almost every case I’m against government forcing private business to carry anything, But in a regulated service there has to be a compromise. That’s why I based my comment on available alternatives. If you are the only outlet in town then the licensed service you provide is going to require stocking medications you don’t agree with. If on the other hand there are other outlets in town that do carry everything then there is zero reason to compel.

        Do you think emergency rooms should be forced by law to treat all, no matter ability to pay or what is wrong with the patient? Should emergency rooms be allowed to turn people away?

    • Royce E. Van Blaricome

      An Abortifacient is NOT a “need”. It’s a desire. That desire does NOT trump the Religious Freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and the customer can go to another pharmacy. There is NO need to force the Pharmacist to violate their conscience.

      Apart from that you’re spot on. They can go elsewhere and Employers should not have their business dictated by the various believes of employees. They can go elsewhere too.

      • james blue

        Should the morning after pill be available without prescription?

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          I agree that those things are not a need but a desire. And I still maintain that the Pharmacists should be able to carry or not carry them at will. One can go elsewhere to get their desires fulfilled. Whether there is a local alternative is irrelevant. With online sales being what they are these days, one can get pretty much anything they need or want in a very short period of time.

          The Morning After pill should not be available. Period. At all.

          Your other two questions seem to be irrelevant and have nothing to do with the OP or OC so I don’t see your point nor see the need to answer because any answer would only need to be qualified with an explanation and probably result in further discussion of which would also be irrelevant.

          • james blue

            The extra questions were about religious freedom and government mandating. That’s the relevance. if we had religious freedom polygamy would be legal.

            If you don’t think government should be mandating a pharmacist carry x or y because of his personal beliefs why would you think government should be mandating a procedure that isn’t needed for an abortion? I could also have asked about government written statements that doctors have to read even if they disagree with the statement.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            There is probably an infinite number of questions that one could ask regarding religious freedom and government mandating. I’ll just say that generally speaking I’m a proponent of the 10th Amendment and believe the Fed’l Gov’t has far too exceeded its bounds. Part of, in not a substantial amount of, the problem with Marriage is that its become part of the Tax Code. Eliminating that would go along ways toward eliminating much of the problem.

            I don’t recall ever stating that I think Gov’t should mandate a procedure before an abortion. Medical Science has now progressed to the point where there is NO need for an Abortion. What should be done now is to proclaim that an unborn child is still a child endowed with the same inalienable right to life as anyone else – including the mother who desires to kill it for her own selfish reasons.

            I don’t know what “statements” you may be referring to but I would submit if a doctor is “required” to read the statement and no other person there can without forcing the doctor to violate his religious convictions, then he should resign and find another occupation. If he doesn’t do that, then he really didn’t have a “conviction” after all.

          • james blue

            I’m a libertarian, I’m not for limiting freedom at any level of government.

            I didn’t suggest what you think about mandates before an abortion, I asked. When you declined to opine I explained why I was asking.

            On your last you think a doctor should resign and find another occupation if he disagrees with the government written statements he is mandated to read why don’t you think a pharmacist should find a different occupation if he disagrees with mandates he faces? Do you see why I posed the questions?

            I’m simply enjoying a debate here, I’m not condemning your views or playing “gotcha”. It has been a pleasant (from my view) back and forth.

            Have a pleasant evening

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “I’m a libertarian, I’m not for limiting freedom at any level of government.”

            That sounds more like an anarchist than Libertarian. The whole purpose of Government is to limit/restrict freedoms. That’s why we have laws.

            I do think a pharmacist should find a different occupation if he disagrees with mandates he faces. I would hold them to the same standard. If they’re not willing to find something else to do, then they obviously don’t have “convictions” and they aren’t trusting God to provide either. I just don’t think the mandates should be there because they aren’t Constitutional.

            Sorry if I came across a little abrasive. I’ve had two other discussions today with folks who just wanted to be jerks and one of them wound up with me being banned from Facebook for 30dys for calling him a “persistent troll who self-admittingly only comes to FB to harass Christians”. I get banned and his venomous, vile, vitriolic, and vulgar comments not only stand but persist on a continual basis.

            I don’t mind honest debate either. Thanks for letting me know that. You have a pleasant evening too and God bless….

          • james blue

            How does it sound like an anarchist? My whole original was based upon the need for compromise depending on situation – if there is a local alternative they shouldn’t have to stock it, if they have a monopoly then there is a public need in a controlled industry.

            My rights end where yours begin. Take gay marriage. I see no compelling reason to deny it be it at federal or state level. My rights are not altered one jot by gay marriage. I do not champion gay marriage, I champion freedom. I believe that a wedding photographer shouldn’t have to cater gay weddings, but the risk of falling foul of big government anti discrimination and public accommodation laws doesn’t justify limiting the freedom of gays.

            A self employed person should be able to do or refuse to do business with whoever they wish for whatever reason they wish. That self employed Christian photographer should be able to refuse to do gay weddings and a non Christian should be able to refuse goods, services, employment etc to Christians.

            On the other hand if that christian photographer is employed by a company that does cater gay weddings, he should do the gig or seek employment elsewhere. Employers should not be forced by law to make accommodations for our faith. It’s nice that employers do make accommodations, but they should be forced to by law.

            It is up to us to make the sacrifices in life in order to live by our faith, not have others make accommodations for us. If this means certain jobs are not suited to us, so be it.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            You said and I quoted before, “I’m not for limiting freedom at any level of government.” I then went on to explain how that sounds anarchist. All laws “limit freedom”. Just as any “compromise” does,.

            Wrt to SSM (there’s nothing ‘gay’ or ‘marriage’ about it), I disagree with your assessment of “My rights are not altered one jot by gay marriage. We could probably debate that ad nauseum and this is not the place to do so. So I’ll just say that when anything is redefined, it ceases to be what it was. And, as I stated before, the solution to the problem was for the Feds to STOP recognizing Marriage for anything. Get it outta the tax code and stop giving special benefits to those who are, and the problem is solved.

            Wrt the rest of your comments, I agree. The problem is SCOTUS has decided that employers must make “exceptions” and “allowances”. And now that “Religion” is being redefined just like Marriage, God only knows what that will lead to.

          • james blue

            Heterosexual marriage is not redefined or changed in any way by gay marriage anymore than golf is changed by mini golf

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for proving my point. If it wasn’t changed you wouldn’t have had to add the words “Heterosexual” or “mini”. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Anything else is NOT “Marriage”.

          • james blue

            As far as the state is concerned it is a contract, always has been. I could have said traditional marriage instead of heterosexual, the point being you have lost nothing and nothing has changed for you. Christianity isn’t changed by the invention of the Jedi religion is it?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I couldn’t careless about what the state says. I believe in and follow the Truth.

            And my point still stands. If it’s not changed there’s no need to add any definitive statements to it. And THAT is exactly why the LGBTQABCXYZ Community and their supporters fought so hard to get it. It wasn’t enough to have everything that a real Marriage provided they had to have the name too.

            Well, SCOTUS gave it to them but unfortunately for them it still hasn’t changed the fact they aren’t really married. No, Christianity isn’t changed but the perception of what others think Christianity is. Just look at all the apostates leading people to Hell by providing them a church to attend and calling it Christianity.

            It’s not. Never has been. Never will be.

          • james blue

            Okay please tell me what is different about your marriage (I’m assuming, I apologies if you are not married) today compared to how it was before gay marriage came along.

            Has the process changed? Can you no longer get married?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I’m not married but if I were the marriage would’ve been degraded by Obergefell because it is no longer recognized for what Marriage is.

            It’s just like an Unbeliever walking around. On the outside he may look like he’s alive and just like everyone else but the REALITY is he’s spiritually-dead, a son of disobedience, a child of wrath, and walks according to the course of this world and to the prince of the power of the air. Contrast that with the Believer who is a child of the Most High God, Blood-bought Saint, Slave of the Lord Jesus Christ, Highly Favored, Born Again and freed from the slavery of Sin, Co-heir with Jesus Christ.

            True Marriage between a Man and a Woman is a reflection of the Marriage between Christ and His BRIDE. SSM perverts that image and is a perverted reflection.

            Put another way, it’s like this: Take a glass and fill it with 100% pure water. Then take an eye dropper full of arsenic and squirt it in the water. On the outside it may still look like a glass of water but drink that and it’ll kill you.

            Those who buy into SSM being the same as true Marriage are killing themselves. And that is the danger. Life is not all about “YOU”. One must look at the Big Picture and realize that one needs to think about others too.

            Anytime the Truth is changed – no matter how small that change may be – it NO longer remains the Truth and becomes a lie. And that is a VERY dangerous thing. And the lie degrades the Truth.

            I’m sure if you will actually stop and think about it, you can think of examples in your life that you can relate to. There is just NO way that one can say something that has changed is the same thing that it was. That’s illogical. It is different by the very definition of “change”. Whether that be Marriage, the BSA, the Military, etc.

            Take the BSA & Military. The uniform has remained the same. It may look the same on the outside but, as one who has worn the uniform of both, I can tell you without any reservation that NEITHER of them is what they once were nor what they claim to be.

          • james blue

            How is traditional marriage no longer recognized? has the tax code changed? Do we no longer get spousal benefits? Power of attorney etc? If you feel traditional marriage is no longer traditional marriage because some gays are also married that’s your problem. Anything in life only means what you make of it. If traditional marriage loses it’s meaning it will be because of attitudes like yours, not because gays can also get married. A man and wife will always be a man and wife regardless of if there are also husband and husband or wife and wife.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            You’re obviously not reading what I wrote or just unable to understand and see the obvious. Which is understandable.

            “The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1st Cor. 2:14)

            If you feel traditional marriage is the same traditional marriage because some gays are also married that’s your problem.

            “Anything in life only means what you make of it.” NOPE!! “Anything in life” means what it is supposed to mean and NOT what you or anyone else makes of it. Truth is truth. Whether you choose to believe it or not. That doesn’t change and it never will. One day you’ll realize that.

            I sure hope you don’t have kids and teach them the garbage your spewing. It’s “attitudes like yours” that get passed on and the “to each their own” becomes the norm which results in there being no Right, no Wrong, and everybody does what is right in their own eyes. Which btw, was what occurred before God destroyed the World the first time and He says is exactly what will happen when He comes again.

            Adios. Over and out.

          • james blue

            I I read and understand what you wrote, I’m disagreeing with it.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    He is right. People have human rights not to help killing of babies and committing of Sodomy. Today’s Sodomic Western culture bars morality in the basic level and it is the grave problem. Atheism and godless humanism only kill and corrupt. The West needs the Judeo-Christian value for life; without it, there is no human rights or freedom or civility in the fundamental level on Planet Earth. American Christians must battle on for the sake of all mankind. It’s ridiculous to be persecuted for opposing the killing children or the commiting of immorality on the soil of the former Christendom.

    The West must never persecute the Christians; such conduct equals denying the truth and killing off one’s own conscience. Secular nations have too many worthless-minded animal-like humans who only live for selfishness and pleasures and money. Man must live for God’s glory and seek His truth to be truly human. Anyone can be a filthy merchant and corrupt. USA should listen to Christians and stay a good guy. US soldiers should not risk life to preserve an evil nation.

    • http://www.gofundme.com/moving-closer-to-family Terri Geer

      The west should never persecute anyone, christian or not.

      Until birth a fetus is just that – a fetus. It is not yet a viable child.

      Sodom was destroyed because of in-hospitality, for no other reason.

      And neither you or anyone else has the right to decide what happens in private between consenting adults. Period.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        The West was made civilized and superior only by Christianity, and the West must not do something that harms those who taught the good. It’s repaying the good with evil and the whole thing is utterly evil on the level of killing one’s own parents. Parent-killers have no future. Fetus is a human being and killing a fetus is murder. Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality; read the entire text of the Holy Bible. Homosexuality causes pedophilia, and God destroys every Sodom. ( Leviticus chapter 18-20, Romans chapter 1-8, II Peter chapter 3, Jude chapter 1 ) Sodomic USA will be gone because it orders people to endorse homosexuality and to fund the Holocaust of unborn children, but the Word of God is forever. ( Isaiah chapter 40)

        • johndoe

          Still trolling and insulting.

        • RbtRgus

          The Bible is a Bronze Age fairytale.

          • honeymonster

            And yet no one comes even close to replicating its profound message in this modern era. They must have been much smarter than us in the bronze age.

          • RbtRgus

            Profound? Like killing apostates, gay people and unruly children? And committing war crimes commanded by god? That god is an a$$hole.

          • honeymonster

            Well of course some measure of intelligence is needed, perhaps soap operas are more your level, they even use similar vocabulary to you.

          • RbtRgus

            The Bible is a book of moral horrors based on an evidently fictional monster god.

        • TrueChristian

          No Sodom was destroyed because it was acting like Republicans:

          the Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin regarding the sins of Sodom:
          They said: Since there come forth bread out of [our] earth, and it has the dust of gold, why should we suffer wayfarers, who come to us only to deplete our wealth. Come, let us abolish the practice of travelling in our land,

          Eventually innocents that helped poor immigrants were killed because of it – that’s what caused God to judge these lands.

          The parallels between them and now are incredible and detailed.

      • Chris Nash

        but the individual pharmacist also has the right to not be forced into doing something that makes him/her feel uncomfortable.

        Your lack of knowledge regarding the destruction of Sodom is highly amusing, you may be interested to research the etymology of sodomy or buggery.

        I do agree with your first statement that the west (or any other nation or individual for that matter) should never persecute anyone!

        as for a fetus not being a viable child, that is only your opinion and whether there is a God or not, those that believe that there is are going to hold his view point as the creator of life in a much higher regard than yours.

        • zeddicuskotor

          So a business owner should be free to do whatever he wants?

          • Chris Nash

            Within the boundaries of law, absolutely, it is his/her business after all, If they consider themselves under Gods law then their individual conscience may play a part in their decision making process.

          • zeddicuskotor

            So secular law does supercede religious faith. Thanks for agreeing that these bakers were wrong to deny service and thus break the law.

          • Chris Nash

            If that’s what you read, then great for you, for the benefit of the more mature minded, IF you consider yourself as under Gods law, then Gods law clearly states that you must obey secular authorities except where their Laws encourage you to contravene Gods own law which will always supersede the latter, as everyone is aware every individual has their own will to choose for themselves whom they will obey, if that happens to be the law of the land then that also is fine, where a religious person would be wrong to ask you to turn away from secular law, likewise it is wrong for a non religious person to ask a religious person to turn away from theocratic law.

          • zeddicuskotor

            That’s a lot of gibberish. In America the law applies to everyone equally.

          • Chris Nash

            I already appreciate you have difficulty in reading, however
            American Law states: Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed. The pharmacist in question has a legal right not to have his conscience infringed!!

          • zeddicuskotor

            No law establishing religion. You want to establish religious law over secular law. That’s unconstitutional. You don’t get to ignore secular law by claiming religion.

            America is and never will be a theocracy.

          • Chris Nash

            Again your reading is appalling, i never claimed america (which developed from Britain btw) was ever a theocracy,
            nor did i say i wanted to establish religious law over any law, I merely pointed out what is already written within your law,
            finally i did not say anyone should ignore secular law either.
            please if u want a debate, at least try to keep up with what is being said

          • zeddicuskotor

            Try to keep up. You want to establish religion over secular law. That’s unconstitutional. Bakers, regardless of their religion, must follow all applicable laws that govern businesses. They don’t get to pick and choose.

          • Chris Nash

            if you say so

          • zeddicuskotor

            The Constitution says so.

          • Chris Nash

            care to reference where?

          • zeddicuskotor

            You already did that for me.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So you’re good with people who went to jail years ago for hiding slaves? ‘Cause that was the law and stuff. They don’t get to pick and choose according to you.

          • Stan Osburn

            well, actually they do. They get to choose what business their in and what lines they want to carry and what they want to offer to the public. If they don’t carry abortion drugs they don’t have to. If they don’t make a wedding cake with 2 guys or 2 gals on the top, they don’t have to. If they don’t want to cater to an event that goes against their religious convictions that don’t have to. Why would you want them to anyway. Wouldn’t it be just awful if your wedding cake was full of salt (because that’s how a the baker bakes his cakes for a gay wedding) or if the flowers offered for gay weddings were only marigolds and daisies. How about this, the caterer could have his servers all wear jackets that have the scripture on the back that say “And for this reason a man should leave his father and mother and cling to his wife” or other comparable scripture. Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it.

          • zeddicuskotor

            Well, actually, that would be against the law and/or fraudulent. Public accommodation laws are quite clear. If you offer cake decoration to the public, you must offer it to all the public. You don’t get to discriminate.

            What they could have had done is refuse to offer cake decorations to everyone. That’s not discriminatory because it’s applying to everyone.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s incorrect. You have no idea how the law works. Stick to engineering.

          • zeddicuskotor

            That’s correct. Read any public accommodation laws on the books. They exist to protect the public.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You mean like laws that declared black men as sub-human? Or the ones that said slavery was legal?

          • zeddicuskotor

            I mean The 1964 Civil Rights Act.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You want to talk laws, you got laws. The Civil Rights Act has nothing at all to do with homosexual practices or forcing how a business defines the product it serves.

          • zeddicuskotor

            The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does have to do with public accommodation laws. How did you not know this?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It has nothing at all to do with homosexuality or with telling a business owner what sorts of products he/she must produce. How did you not know this?

          • zeddicuskotor

            Never said the CRA had to do with homosexuality. Try reading comprehension.

            What the CRA has to with is public accommodation laws. Of which there are more than just the CRA, and some of which relate to homosexuals.

            Try to keep up.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re using it to defend homosexuality as a Civil Rights issue when it is not.

            You shouldn’t attempt condescension since you’re the one who had to be schooled about terms you misused last night. Looks like you’re going to get an education on the Civil Rights Act if you keep it up.

          • zeddicuskotor

            Also didn’t say that. Try reading comprehension.

            Public accommodation laws exist. Some of which cover gays. Try to keep up. The reason why public accommodation laws exist is due to the 1964 CRA.

            This is very obvious American history and legal theory.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re incorrect again. These business owners do serve homosexual clientele and have in the past. What they don’t do is offer same sex union products and will not sell them to heterosexual or homosexual patrons. They will sell wedding cakes to heterosexual or homosexual patrons though.

          • zeddicuskotor

            You’re incorrect again. Past experience doesn’t excuse current law breaking. This is basic personal responsibility.

            If you offer cake decoration or wedding decorations, then you must offer it too all customers. So say the law.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, you need an education. 🙂 Only Christians are being forced to sell products they don’t offer or to go out of business. It’s like trying to force a kosher deli to make a ham sandwich and say, “If you’re going to offer a sandwich to some customers you must offer it to all”.

          • zeddicuskotor

            Dude, you need a education. The public accommodation laws apply to everyone. If a few extremist christians object to a law that applies to everyone, that is their problem, not the states.

            ” It’s like trying to force a kosher deli to make a ham sandwich”

            Further proof that you don’t know how to read. I already covered this. You can deny service to all customers or serve all customers. There is no middle ground for extremist religion to supersede secular law. Such a deli can simply refuse to serve ham to everyone, and wouldn’t violate the law.

            You would have to be intentionally illiterate to not understand this.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You didn’t cover anything. You just keep making ad hominem attacks. You need to stick to facts.

            The Civil Rights Act does not apply to homosexual behavior nor does it apply to homosexuals demanding a business make a special product just for them.

            Only Christians are being targeted so it looks like Christians are the ones being persecuted.

          • zeddicuskotor

            I did, you weren’t paying attention.

            Until you get caught up there is no point in trying to educate someone that is willfully illiterate.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, you are as wrong about this as you were about the terminology you were throwing around last night. 🙂

          • zeddicuskotor

            You still haven’t caught up? Wow, you are slow.

            “What they could have had done is refuse to offer cake decorations to
            everyone. That’s not discriminatory because it’s applying to everyone.” – Me.

            Let me know when you’ve caught up.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No they have not. They will sell wedding cakes to anyone, straight or homosexual, and they will not sell same sex union cakes to anyone, straight or homosexual.

          • zeddicuskotor

            That’s breaking the law, they are violating public accommodation by refusing to sell wedding cakes to gays.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            They’re refusing to sell homosexual same sex union cakes because it’s a product they don’t make. Wedding cakes are for heterosexual couples.

          • zeddicuskotor

            They’re refusing to sell wedding cakes to gays. That’s illegal. If you make a product you don’t get to discriminate on who can buy that product. That’s public accomodation.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No they’re not. They do not offer same sex union cakes and, as a result, neither heterosexual nor homosexual patrons can buy them. They do offer wedding cakes and anyone, either homosexual or heterosexual, can buy them. They serve homosexual clientele all the time.

        • TrueChristian

          An individual pharmacist could make an RFRA request, but this is about the pharmacy business, not any particular person.

          And you can belief what you want about Sodom, I’ll go with the people who were much closer to the time. And the idea that a made up word that never appeared in the Torah somehow justifies an erroneous interpretation of the Torah is more than a bit amusing.

          But again, I don’t really care what you belief, either the Spirit will find you or it won’t, not everyone is ripe for the harvest.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for proving yourself to be an apostate now. It removes any and all doubt that may have been there from your earlier post. I discerned early on that your handle was such because you had the need to try and prove something that wasn’t. “True Christians” don’t need to qualify it because their fruit, light, and salt do so.

            I KNOW the Spirit has found you AND you’ve rejected Him because God has said so. Romans 1 makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR that God has made the Truth PLAINLY KNOWN to you and you have rejected it out of a choice to worship yourself than Him. So does John 3:`19-20.

            Hopefully you haven’t been turned over to a reprobate mind yet and God will call your to Jesus again. If and when He does, I hope and pray you will turn loose of your sin and self-worship, confess, repent, and beg Christ to allow you to be His slave so that you can serve and glorify Him with what is left of your life and the new creation He makes you to be.

          • TrueChristian

            and the same to you, may His love someday fill you and fill that void you obviously have that do separates you from Him and His creation.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Sorry, but your faux omniscience fails you again. His love has already filled me. It is YOU who is separated from Him by your own admission.

            You can deny it and you can continue to delude yourself (James 1:22) but on that day when you hear the word of Jesus (Matt. 7:21-23) the denial, delusion, and rejection will stop.

          • TrueChristian

            My God someday find you.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I understand you’re spiritually-dead and therefore cannot discern spiritual truths (1st Cor. 2:14) but I would think you could at least read simple English. But I see that’s a problem for you too.

            I understand though. You are your own god and therefore the god you’ve created in your own image is so small that he or she can’t find folks.

            Not only has my God found me, He has saved me, and He actually indwells me.

            But hey, thanks for showing everyone AGAIN how lost you are. Always appreciate when you folks discredit yourselves for all to see.

          • TrueChristian

            That you are blind and numb to God and His love is confirmed with your every word. I wonder how many you have driven from Him with your bile and venom?

            But since you refuse to discuss the topic of this thread there is no point in further discussion.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            That you are spiritually-dead and an enemy of God and His love is confirmed with every word so your faux omniscience means absolutely NOTHING.

            Now to answer your question…NONE!! If you knew God and His Word you would have known that. Unlike you being your own god that has no power, God does and the Holy Spirit cannot be overpowered by any man. But hey, thank you for proving once again you’re spiritually-dead and now for proving your Biblically ignorant.

            As for the “bile and venom” nonsense, I know the Truth hurts so your effeminate attempts to get me, and hopefully anyone else, to feel sorry for you doesn’t work. Anyone with eyes can go back and see where the ad hominem started and the discussion on the subject left off.

            So, buh bye!

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality: “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding townsgave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings.” ( Jude chapter 1) Read this with Romans chapter 1.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            You’re like a broken record. Told ya once, told ya twice, told ya 3x or more, God found me a long time ago. But thankfully, I finally found Him when He called and I stopped rejecting Him and answered His call.

            May God have mercy on you and call you again.

          • TrueChristian

            God goes and may He find you someday.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Boy howdy you are a dense one, aren’t you? I’ve told you several times that God found me a long time ago. As He did you. If you weren’t so Biblically ignorant you would know that He knew you before He formed you in the womb. And He personally called you to surrender as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ.

            But you have chosen to create a god in your own image instead. Thanks for pointing that out again.

          • Stan Osburn

            Shall I remind you Royce at this point that God also does not want you to throw your pearls to swine. You’ve planted your seed, move on. Those that reject his word are not worthy of your time to try to force it down their throat (with all due respect)

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Agreed. Though I wasn’t trying to “force it down their throat” as you say. However, I did spend far too much time and effort on replying to him. It’s obvious that “TrueChristian” isn’t even close to being such nor does he have any desire to be. Not sure what happened to all his posts but they’re gone now anyways.

          • TrueChristian

            Those without love don’t know God. Someday when love finds you’ll understand.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Exactly. Thanks for finally admitting you don’t know God. When you decide to confess and repent from your lusts, surrender as a slave to Christ, and determine to serve Him for His glory, you’ll begin your journey toward knowing what Love is and who God is.

    • johndoe

      Again with your ridiculous accusations against anyone who doesn’t believe as you do. Your trolling and insults arent warranted

    • RbtRgus

      Christians are not being persecuted. They are losing some of their privilege, which is natural as we become less religious overall.

      • jmstalk

        That is complete rubbish. Constitutional rights are not privileges, they are rights endowed by God, not by the state, and the state has NO power to take them away. Think…put on your thinking cap.

        • RbtRgus

          Any evidence that your god is real? If you live in a country with a bad or no constitution, you have no rights. And there is no mention of a god in our constitution. Also, the Bible and god belief are by definition authoritarian and undemocratic — a far cry from our enlightened liberal democracy.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thanks for revealing yourself as a spiritually-dead God-hater. It saved me the time and effort of trying to explain that “Persecution” comes in many forms. So I’ll just say this from the Dictionary:

            Persecution: 1) hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs. 2) persistent annoyance or harassment.

            So, you just and you showed your blatant bias. We understand. You can’t help it as you can only do what you do outta the Flesh, the World, and the Forces of Darkness from your father Satan.

            And btw, you’re not “less religious” and the world isn’t becoming “less religious overall”. You and they are just changing the way you’ve always practiced your religion.

            Oh, and you also lied about there being no mention of a god in our Constitution. Might wanna actually take the time to read it.

    • Royce E. Van Blaricome

      HI Grace. Is this the same “Grace” that used to be on the Christian Post site when they allowed commenting? If so, it’s nice to see ya again!!

      Sadly, Christian Post has gone to Facebook now and the God-hating trolls have taken over. Not only has CP’s stories gone way downhill but FB allows the atheists and LGBTQABCXYZ trolls to say all kinds of venomous, vile, vitriolic and vulgar stuff while banning Christians for nothing. Happens all the time.

      I’m guessing you’re one in the same by your mentioning of “the West”. It’s good to see you again Sister and I hope all is well.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Hello. Yes, good to see you again! Yes, Christian Post’s comment section was suddenly gone and now I post comments here often. I want Americans to respect Christianity again because it’s the only way to protect the children. I will see you around. The Lord bless you!!

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          Good to see you again Sister! Just keep letting your light shine! God bless you too!!

  • michael louwe

    There is US Law(= Caesar) n there is God’s Law. … “And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.””

    So, a Christian-owned pharmacy should obey US Law n not try to impose God’s Law on others, eg banning morning-after pills or contraceptive-pills, unless obeying US Law causes them to lose their salvation, eg forced by the US govt to receive the “mark of the beast” = credit cards, debit cards n ATM cards being replaced by cptr chip implants for the buying n selling of goods n services.?(REV.13:11-18).
    ……. Christians r to obey God’s Law for themselves or personally.(wrt ACTS.15:24-29 also)
    .
    If the above pharmacy law was otherwise, there is nothing to stop a group of Christian-owned pharmacies from making the morning-after pills unavailable to everyone in a region or county or city or state in USA.
    .

    • Chris Nash

      to render Caesars things to Caesar as accorded by Jesus’ words, was in reference to paying Tax, paying Tax although not required by God, was not forbidden by him either.

      Acts 5:29 we must obey God as ruler rather than men

      • michael louwe

        We must remember that during the time of Jesus Christ, the Jews n Israel/Judah were under Roman rule n Roman Law, n not under Moses Law.
        ……. There were many conflicts between Moses/God’s Law n Roman Law, eg under Roman Law, it was not unlawful for the Jews to commit adultery, fornication, incest(see 1COR.5:1-13), homosexuality, idolatry, blasphemy, non-tithing, non-Sabbath keeping, etc; but unlawful not to pay Roman tax, commit treason, robbery(= death sentence), murder, etc.
        .
        So, the Lord/God Jesus Christ was telling His fellow Jews to “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
        ……. Similarly, there r many conflicts between US Law n God’s/Moses Law.

  • FoundersSon

    I find it interesting that a dress designer can refuse to design outfits for Melania Trump because she (the designer) objects to the Trump administration. That’s passed over, while in Washington and Oregon, people are being heavily fined and put out of business because they don’t want to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage or provide floral arrangements for one on religious grounds. And pharmacists can lose their licenses. Far left ideology is trying to strip the legal protections for religious freedom from the Constitution. Now that Trump will nominate a new Supreme Court justice, there is hope that the next time the SCOTUS is asked to hear the case it will. But this is rank liberal hypocrisy and unconstitutional. If a dress maker can refuse make dresses on ideological grounds—not a constitutional mandate—those objecting to abortofacients, making weddings cakes for gay wedding, etc. on religious grounds—which is a constitutional mandate—lose, some their livelihoods. Hopefully the Trump administration will reverse this abjectly illegal behavior and provide a united front against what is nothing but religious bigotry on the left.

    • TrueChristian

      I don’t understand what you don’t understand – political affiliation isn’t a civil right, look at the McCarthy tribunals to see that. But religion IS a universal civil right. The dress maker couldn’t refuse Melania for her religion, they can for her political affiliation or just because she is Melania.

      All the cases in Washington and Oregon the business owners have been proud of the fact they were refusing the customers because they were doing things consistent with their beliefs but not the business owners – religious discrimination as a point of pride, freely admitted to.

      The religious freedom of the Constitution protects everyone’s religious freedom, including those that believe in marriage regardless of the sexes of the couple. The solution that protects everyone’s rights is for a business to not make an offer to the public if they have no intention of respecting the customer’s own right to religious freedom.

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        “All the cases in Washington and Oregon the business owners have been proud of the fact they were refusing the customers because they were doing things consistent with their beliefs but not the business owners – religious discrimination as a point of pride, freely admitted to.”:

        That’s a lie. The business owners refused to participate in an “activity” that violated their “religious convictions” and “conscience”. THAT has NOTHING to do with the “customers” – as evidenced by the fact they served those same customers for other things than catering to a SSM ceremony – nor “pride”.

        To your last point, that is correct and those customers have every right to take their business elsewhere. NOT force someone to violate their religion convictions and lose their Constitutional right to their religious freedom.

        If you make it a habit of lying and bearing false witness against the children of God, I suggest you change your handle. See 1st Jn. 3. Doing so places you with those standing in the Matt. 7:21-23 line.

        • TrueChristian

          Not a lie, the business owner’s knew they couldn’t religiously discriminate against customers from before they opened their business e.g. every customer responding to that public offer has a right to be a Lutheran and to use their purchases for Lutheran-related things, including a wedding where the happy couple is the same sex.

          And the requirement for respecting a customer’s civil rights is “full enjoyment of all services”, not ‘some’, not ‘most’.

          The business owner’s knew that and if they were ethical they wouldn’t be offering things to the public they wouldn’t sell legally. That’s what private clubs and targeted non-profits. If you can only respect some people’s rights find the ‘right’ people first, and then make the invitation to just them.

          No case of a business owner’s claim of a religious prejudice preventing their business from fulfilling their obligation to the customer in spite of their civil rights has been successful federally. This one won’t either, these attacks on the first amendment won’t succeed.

          And that you think truth is lie doesn’t surprise me at all.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Yes it is and you just told another lie. The business owners knew no such thing. Your faux omniscience has failed you again and you really should see someone about that god-complex.

            As for how “ethical” they are, I would submit the fact they’re willing to undergo the persecution they have and stand by their convictions speak to how ethical they are more than those who are willing to capitulate to the whims and fancy of folks like you. Ultimately though God will be the one to decide how ethical they are. I have NO doubt they’ll fare far better than you on Judgment Day. They are standing with God and on God’s Word. You are standing in opposition to God and have perverted His Word.

            There is NOTHING in the Constitution that states a business owner must give up their religious freedom and “convictions” just because they choose to have a business that is open to the public. SCOTUS has stated that VERY clearly in the Hobby Lobby case.

            Moreover, for a customer to have “”full enjoyment of all services” does NOT mean they get full enjoyment of everything they ask for, all products, or all services for anything. The FACT is that both the Washington and Oregon folks DID provide “”full enjoyment of all services”. On numerous occasions.Barronnelle was happy to sell them flowers. THAT is the service!! The Oregon couple was happy to make them a cake. THAT is the service!! The business owners are NOT required to service any or all weddings. THAT is a CHOICE of the business owners!!

            So, IYO, it is now the job of the Gov’t to force people to serve others. SMH. Have you no clue at all what this country was founded on and why there was a Revolution?

            Thanks for showing all the Black Business Owners that you think they should be required to make a cake for the KKK that shows a cross being burnt in front of their house while a black woman is being lynched from a tree in the yard. Or a Mexican having to make a poster that shows a Mexican swimming across a river with “Wetbacks” written in big letters on it. Or a homosexual bakery owner having to make a cake that says, “God hates fags!”

            Get the picture? I’m sure your fellow homosexuals and/or friends will appreciate you supporting those folks! Why would you or anyone support such a thing?!

            I sure don’t!!!

          • TrueChristian

            Wow, quite the rant. Yes, every business owner knows that every customer has a right to not share their beliefs and still buy every offered product for use consistent with their own.

            But you don’t know much about this case or Hobby Lobby which was decided because of the federal RFRA and only went the way it did because the employees still got their full medical benefits. If they had had to go without the RFRA wouldn’t have applied. Sorry there is no religious prejudice ‘right’ to ignore a customer’s civil rights.

            None of these cases have been about the qualities of what was ordered, the customers wanted what was made for other customers before. But I’m sure you know that.

            And again with your inability to tell truth from lie I’m not too concerned that you have a handle on what God wants. Until you start dealing with the actual facts you’re just undermining yourself.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Typical Liberal response. Anything y’all don’t agree with is a “rant” and you resort to name-calling and ad hominem.

            Your faux omniscience fails you again. I know enough about the Hobby Lobby case to know that SCOTUS specifically stated that an employer does NOT give up their religious freedoms just because they own a business. Which is exactly what I said before.

            Moreover, you’re being double-minded (no surprise – James 1:8 & 4:8) because according to your logic they were not given their “full” medical benefits. If you were at least consistent you would be arguing that Hobby Lobby denies abortifacients in the same way that Barronelle and the Oregon couple denied to cater a wedding.

            Sorry, but you can’t force your preferences onto a business owner. Beyond that, before the abominable Obergefell ruling, having a SSM was not a “civil right”. Practicing a sexually immoral lifestyle is not a “right”. It’s a choice and it has NEVER been a part of the 1964 CRA. Hopefully Trump will have an opportunity to put replace several of the Liberal judges with Scalia-type godly justices and we’ll see Obergefell overturned just like Plessy was.

            I’ll let my words and arguments speak for themselves and am not too concerned whether a spiritually-dead man can understand them. And until you are Born Again and get new heart, in the words of Jack Nicholson…”You can’t handle the Truth!”

          • TrueChristian

            And at the end you finally stated the truth – if the business owners can’t cater weddings legally then they just shouldn’t offer wedding services to the public, same decision a Jewish Deli owner does about serving pork.

            Again, that you can’t tell the truth just identifies you as someone still searching for the Spirit, may it someday find you.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I’ve stated nothing but the truth. You’re failure to recognize it doesn’t change it from being Truth.

            Just like your faith to recognize Marriage doesn’t change it from what it is. The business owners to cater to weddings. They just don’t cater to what anyone under the sun what’s to call one.

            And it’s not the same as a Jewish owner not serving pork. Jews are prohibited from EATING pork according to their beliefs. Not serving it to someone else who wants to.

            And again, your faux omniscience and god-complex fails you. The Holy Spirit (though I confess you’re probably referring to some other “spirit”) has not only found me but indwells me. I’ve been Born Again. Regenerated and brought from being spiritually-dead to Everlasting Life.

            You should try it sometime. Listen for the next time God the Father draws you to Christ and don’t reject Him anymore. For you do not know when the last time He’ll call will be. In is a VERY dangerous thing and should be a terribly fearful thing to reject Almighty God. Once He turns you over to a reprobate mind, you’re doomed. Heed His call.

          • TrueChristian

            Playing the fool doesn’t help your case or make it seem you have any relationship with the Spirit.

            The Deli owner doesn’t sell pork because he can’t sell it to those he knows are Jewish and he can’t religiously discriminate against his customer’s civil rights, so he doesn’t sell it at all. The same obvious solution for any business owner that won’t sell something legally.

            Yes, it is obvious you hate religious freedom for anyone that doesn’t agree with you. Fortunately I’m more than happy to let God be the arbitrator of my fate, I’ll pray that He forgives you your trespasses even though you have failed in your bargain to do the same for others.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Once again you resort to the same typical Liberal rhetoric. Denying what God has said is the one you provides the evidence you have no relationship with the Spirit.

            Your Deli owner analogy is completely false. Not only that but it’s nonsensical and it contradicts your very argument. For the Deli owner not to sell pork because some Jew might be offended would be to violate the so called “civil rights” (that YOU define them as) of all the other customers. By your standards a Deli Owner would either have to sell anything and everything under the sun or not be in business at all. LOL

            And your faux omniscience not only fails you again but shows you to be the clear fool this time and an infantile cretin that can’t put forth an intellectual argument so must resort to suppositions without any merit.

            Let it be known to anyone reading this, I served this country for 20 years and fully support religious freedom – including those that don’t agree with me.

            Thanks for completely discrediting yourself and showing your true colors. Always appreciated when you do that.

            God is not going to be your Arbitrator but your Judge. The condemnation has already taken place. And you can pray all you want. God’s Word is clear about that too. Even your prayers are an abomination. (Prov. 28:9)

            Be “happy” while you can. The Day is coming when that will cease FOREVER. Then only torment will remain. On that Day you will wish you had chosen to be Holy rather than Happy.

          • TrueChristian

            Ignoring all the hateful rhetoric the only substantial thing you said just demonstrates you don’t understand the issue. There is no ‘civil right’ to buy pork at a deli that doesn’t offer it for sale. Civil rights are about discriminatory treatment, letting one customer buy something but refusing to sell it to another. Something that is or isn’t available to all isn’t discrimination.

            Your hate poisons you in this life, and will condemn you in the next. I have only pity for you.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I guess you are too stubborn to see anyone about that god-complex and faux omniscience but rather continue to practice it. No real surprise. It’s understandable given that you are a son of disobedience and child of wrath who can only follow your own Flesh, Satan, and the course of this world.

            It’s also no great surprise to see you call Truth “hateful”. It’s a typical effeminate tactic and another pitiful, pathetic attempt to get folks to feel sorry for you. Sorry Bud, don’t work with me and it’s been seen so much that it’s not working for many others now either.

            You have NO clue what a “civil right” is but rather just like the English language you and your ilk wanna redefine them. Just like the word “gay” has been hijacked and the word “Homosexual” has become a disparaging pejorative instead of a self-defining Truth, you and your ilk have taken the words “civil rights” and redefined them with some success instead of having them defined by the 1964 CRA.

            As for “discrimination”, people are discriminating all the time. It’s not necessarily a bad thing. Only a moron wouldn’t discriminate. But, once again, just like I said above:

            Thanks for showing all the Black Business Owners that you think they should be required to make a cake for the KKK that shows a cross being burnt in front of their house while a black woman is being lynched from a tree in the yard. Or a Mexican having to make a poster that shows a Mexican swimming across a river with “Wetbacks” written in big letters on it. Or a homosexual bakery owner having to make a cake that says, “God hates fags!”

            Get the picture? I’m sure your fellow homosexuals and/or friends will appreciate you supporting those folks! Why would you or anyone support such a thing?!

            I sure don’t!!!”

            And I might add that I’m sure folks will be glad to see that you think a Baker should have to make a cake for a parent that wants to marry their son, or some dude who wants to marry his German Shepherd, or a Brother/Sister, or some dude who wants to marry 2 or more women at the same time, etc. etc. etc.

            After all, we sure can’t discriminate!! LOL

            I’m not the least bit concerned about your predictions and prophesy. Nor am I the least bit concerned about how a spiritually-dead man characterized me or the Truth. Though it is no surprise to see you do it or to hear you define Truth as hate. You and your ilk have been doing that for a long time too.

            The only one with any poison is YOU. You should worry a whole lot more about the fact that you are already condemned.

            “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.”

            So keep right on continuing to cling to your sin while you can. Stay in the Dark. Get all the temporal enjoyment outta it while you can because the day is coming when that will all come to a screeching halt. Then, on that Day, Eternal Torment will be added to your Darkness and you will have full realization of the Truth and just how fleeting and short your infatuation with lust and enjoying your sin was.

            Meanwhile, I’ll be in Heaven with my Lord and I can’t even describe the splendor of that. Besides, you wouldn’t understand even if I could.

          • TrueChristian

            Wow. You don’t read the replies and then just go off on more deceit and foolishness with a big dose of hate.

            You should know none of the cases involve anything like your examples.

            You should know that the 1964 CRA was federally challenged in 1967 by a business owner who said their religious prejudice should let them ignore civil rights, lost and SCOTUS rejected appeal 8-0 in 1968.

            As far as your rejection of God’s love I can only advise you change your path. Twisting Scriptures doesn’t help, many search them because they think they will find eternal life, but those without God’s love need to start closer to their own heart.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Wow! Your faux omniscience fails you again. I’ve read everyone of your replies. And you so go off on more deceit and foolishness with a big dose of calling Truth “hate” again.

            You should know all those cases are just like my examples.

            You should know that the last case settled by SCOTUS trumps previous cases. Duh! Not only that but your point contradicts your supposition and proves mine. The 1964 CRA says NOTHING about “sexual orientation” or sexual behavioral perverted practices being protected.

            Trust me, YOU are the last person I’d be taking advice from. No thanks. I’ll continue to take the advice from the Holy Spirit who’s counsel is never wrong.

            No twisting of Scriptures. I quoted them directly and they hold true. YOU are the one who has rejected God’s love and you will suffer the consequences. Your problem is that you have stayed close to your own heart. And God describes that very well in Jeremiah 17:9.

          • Stan Osburn

            In reading both of your arguments I can only say this. You Royce are judgemental and if you truly know the scriptures you know that there is only one person with the power to judge……..Jesus Christ. You are right about scripture and that it does condemn sexual impurity of any kind. TrueChristian, you are definitely doing as Royce has pointed out, redefining words and changing words to fit you own agenda. I noted this in a blog many years ago when the first case appeared in the media regarding the wedding cake in Oregon. When you read the CVA it does not give any reference to Sexual Preference. As Royce pointed out, homosexuality (or gay as not to defend you) is not a gender, it is a personal choice of sexual behavior. Even the Civil Rights Act does not protect you for that reason from discrimination, and the reason for it is simply there is no reason to. When it comes to sexual preference or religion you have freedom of choice protected by the constitution, but nowhere does the Constitution or the CVA demand that you have no right to be discriminatory or to refuse to do anything that does nothing to harm anyone else but lets you remain true to your religious beliefs.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you. I appreciate you pointing out that I’m obedient to the COMMAND of Christ to judge AND that you have acted as a false prophet who has NO clue what the Bible actually says. AND that you obviously have NO fear of God since you preach a message that leads others astray into sin and stands in opposition to Christ.

            Which is a bit perplexing since you go on to say that I am right about what Scripture has to say regarding sexual immorality and SSM.

            As to the rest of your comments, while they are accurate, they sure are awful judgmental!!

            So I suggest before you go telling anyone else “if you truly know the scriptures” that you actually study and learn the Scriptures so you know them yourself. THAT and your judgmental statements are what Jesus would call a Giant Sequoia Tree sticking outta your eye socket!

            Once you actually know Scripture you’ll find that Christ has COMMANDED His followers TO judge (Jn. 7:24) and that the oh so often misquoted and misrepresented/twisted Matt. 7:1 is part of the contextual passage that is the instruction on HOW to judge in order to obey John 7:24. Don’t miss the “AND THEN” in Verse 5.

          • Stan Osburn

            simple argument to your constant use of the word “offer”. The Pharmacist never did and never will “offer” abortion meds. Until this came to light by someone asking if they did and finding they didn’t did this matter ever become a public issue. Simple resolution would be to live and let live, just as gays wish for the public to let them be gay, they should give the same courtesy to Christians the right to be Christians.

          • Daniel Brofford

            You’re crazy. When most of those people opened their businesses they had no idea that the Supreme Court would allow fags to marry each other so to say when they opened they knew they had to provide services to everyone. I can only tell you this is they are lucky that I don’t own a flower shop or a bakery because their lawsuit would not turn out for them the way they would hope lol.

      • FoundersSon

        Interesting argument, but there are still parallels. Granted the designer is no Christian, but here’s the point. What it all boils down to is whether or not people can be forced to provide services they don’t wish to. They don’t have to have a reason, they just choose not to do business with people. But once religion is pumped into it, that ability to not serve those they don’t wish to serve dissolves. Google the fines people have had to pay in Washington and Oregon for not wanting to bake cakes or provide flowers at a gay wedding. Some are being forced out of business. They have every bit as much of a right to say, “Thanks, but no thanks” to any customer for any reason, right? That’s the point. When Christians do it, they get fined. When others do it (whether they are asked to do business or or not) nothing happens. It makes the news then disappears.

        • TrueChristian

          What it all boils down to is whether or not people can be forced to provide services they don’t wish to.

          I don’t think anyone is being forced to go into the wedding services business. Every business owner that does knows they can’t do business and violate the customer’s civil rights, i.e. can’t require the customer’s wedding to conform to a belief system they don’t share.

          They don’t have to have a reason, they just choose not to do business with people.

          And if these businesses had not proudly come out ‘all puffed up’ declaring they were discriminating against these customers because of religious prejudice they might have been able to do so. Its like a jaywalker seeking out a policeman and telling them they just broke the law. These people made it clear they were breaking the law to anyone who’d listen and got the expected results.

          Google the fines people have had to pay in Washington and Oregon for not wanting to bake cakes or provide flowers at a gay wedding.

          In Washington the business was asked to promise to obey the law which includes doing what the business did – stop selling custom wedding floral arrangements. So no fine at all, and even after going through the court it was $1,001. Hardly terrible by any standard. Its the business owner’s pride that prevents them from just promising to continue doing what they are already doing.

          In Oregon they give big fines. In 2013 a Christian religiously discriminated against by a business owner was awarded over $350,000, which pales in comparison to the mere $135,000 fine that the couple who was also religiously discriminated against n their purchase of a wedding cake was awarded.

          And even then the business closed its storefront before the state even released the preliminary ruling – they closed down because not enough people want a wedding cake from a religious bigot in suburban Portland Oregon – that isn’t surprising.

          The solution is simple – if someone’s religious beliefs won’t let them respect other people’s right to their own beliefs then don’t offer to sell the offending things to the public in the first place.

          And this isn’t new – back after the federal Civil Rights Act was passed a case was presented by a business owner that his religious prejudice should allow him to not respect the customer’s civil rights. Federal Court said he did, appeals worked up the a SCOTUS review – the full court refused to review the verdict against him.

          Religious belief doesn’t justify not respecting the customer’s own right to belief in the public arena. The business owners in all these cases knew that when inviting the public people of every creed might respond – far too late when they do to apply a religious test they must past to actually buy the advertised product. The business owner’s beliefs won’t let them marry someone of the same sex has nothing to do with a customer who’s beliefs allow them to do that very thing.

        • TrueChristian

          What it all boils down to is whether or not people can be forced to provide services they don’t wish to.

          I don’t think anyone is being forced to go into the wedding services business. Every business owner that does knows they can’t do business and violate the customer’s civil rights, i.e. can’t require the customer’s wedding to conform to a belief system they don’t share.

          They don’t have to have a reason, they just choose not to do business with people.

          And if these businesses had not proudly come out ‘all puffed up’ declaring they were discriminating against these customers because of religious prejudice they might have been able to do so. Its like a jaywalker seeking out a policeman and telling them they just broke the law. These people made it clear they were breaking the law to the customers and got the expected results.

          Google the fines people have had to pay in Washington and Oregon for not wanting to bake cakes or provide flowers at a gay wedding.

          In Washington the business was asked to promise to obey the law which includes doing what the business did – stop selling custom wedding floral arrangements. So no fine at all, and even after going through the court it was $1,001. Hardly terrible by any standard. Its the business owner’s pride that prevents them from just promising to continue doing what they are already doing.

          In Oregon they give big fines. In 2013 a Christian religiously discriminated against by a business owner was awarded over $350,000, which pales in comparison to the mere $135,000 fine that the couple who was also religiously discriminated against in their purchase of a wedding cake was awarded.

          And even then the business closed its storefront before the state released the preliminary ruling – they closed down because not enough people want a wedding cake from a religious bigot in suburban Portland Oregon – that isn’t surprising.

          And this isn’t new – back after the federal Civil Rights Act was passed a case was presented by a business owner that his religious prejudice should allow him to not respect the customer’s civil rights. Federal Court said he did, appeals worked up to a SCOTUS review – the full court unanimously refused to review the verdict against him.

          The solution is simple – if someone’s religious beliefs won’t let them respect other people’s right to their own beliefs then don’t offer to sell the offending things to the public in the first place.

          Religious belief doesn’t justify not respecting the customer’s own right to belief in the public arena. The business owners in all these cases knew that when inviting the public people of every creed might respond – far too late when they do to apply a religious test they must past to actually buy the advertised product. The business owner’s beliefs won’t let them marry someone of the same-sex has nothing to do with a customer who’s beliefs allow them to do that very thing.

        • helensatmary

          Would we not call that discrimination against the 1st amendment! ??? And is that not illegal???

          • FoundersSon

            You bet. Washington state and Oregon are almost as liberal as California, so it’s not surprising that they cast huge fines on Christians who do not wish to contribute to gay weddings.

          • helensatmary

            If people like Hillary or Obama ever get into the White House again we
            can just forget what America ever stood for. It would become a Nazi
            state for sure. They were well on their way of turning it into Hitler’s Germany this last 8 years.

          • FoundersSon

            Absolutely correct. Had Hillary won, the country that we know and love would be finished. All of the values we hold dear would be twisted by far-left policies. We now have a shot at shutting down, PC and think-group mentalities. It’s nice to be able to breathe a sigh of relief.

  • NoCaliphate

    This is the real reason that a Trump victory is a Godsend since he not Hillary will pick Scalia’s replacement.

  • NoCaliphate

    Folks this man is speaking the truth about religious freedom. In all these cases involving Christians, they were polite, offered to direct them to other sources for the service/product yet the lefty liberal Nazis chose to attack and destroy these people’s lives. It is now to the point that they are attacking TV hosts not for saying anything on their show but because of what church they attend We are on a very slippery slope

  • http://maxfurr.com HobbesianWorld

    Alito, a Roman Catholic, lamented that “Washington would rather have no pharmacy than one that doesn’t toe the line on abortifacient emergency contraceptives.”

    “This case is an ominous sign. 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,”

    It would be a far more dangerous precedent if every business was allowed to operate according to the owner’s religion, trumping our secular commerce system.

    Suppose it is a small town with only one pharmacy (they do exist). Should it be allowed to deny any kind of drug it feels is against its religion?

    Who pays for the support of the government agency that licenses the pharmacies and inspects them to ensure that the public is getting the correct pharmaceuticals prescribed by their doctors? All taxpayers! And all taxpayers have a right to purchase any legal item in businesses that are open to the public and have a government licence which they support with their taxes, and a pharmacy has no right to deny specific customers a legal drug.

    Bottom line is that we do not live in a theocracy. We live in a secular nation. We have a constitution that forbids discrimination, based on religion, by any government or government licenced enterprises dealing in commerce.

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

    “Freedom of religion is in greater danger,” Alito cautioned.

    If only it were so! It’s precisely the opposite. While Christian Liberty languishes, Religious Freedom is in its glory days.

    The battle for Religious Freedom was won (for now) when the 18th-century founding fathers replaced the First Commandment (found intact in some of the 17th-century Colonial governments of, by, and for God) with the polytheism-enabling First Amendment.

    Time for Christians to figure out that Religious Freedom and Christian Liberty are NOT the same thing. They are, in fact, hostile to each other. The former is born of the First Amendment. The latter is born of the First Commandment. In 1789, the First Commandment and Christian Liberty were formally sacrificed on the altar of the First Amendment and Religious Freedom.

    It’s one thing to allow for individual freedom of conscience and private choice of gods, something impossible to legislate for or against. It’s another matter altogether for government to enable any and all religions to proliferate through the land and evangelize our posterity to false gods. This is what the First Amendment legitimizes. It is an unequivocal violation of the First Commandment and the polar opposite of the following First Commandment statute:

    “[Y]e shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves. For thou shall worship no other god: for Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou … go a whoring after their gods….’ (Exodus 34:13-15)

    For more, see online Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my picture, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 11.

    Then find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.