Tag: American Civil Liberties Union

The Radical Left’s Appetite for Power is never Satisfied

Donald Douglas looks at the case of the Mt. Soledad Cross and the Atheist whiners who hate it

At Michelle Malkin’s, “Cruciphobia at Mt. Soledad“:

Consider this: Taylor Swift wasn’t even born yet when the fight over the Mount Soledad cross began. How much longer will it drag on? Disgruntled atheists first filed suit over the memorial at a veterans park in San Diego in the summer of 1989. The fringe grievance-mongers have clung bitterly to their litigious activities for nearly a quarter-century. It’s time to let go and bring peace to the city.

The historic 43-foot cross (29 feet tall on a 14-foot base) has stood atop Mount Soledad on public land since 1954. The Mount Soledad Memorial Association erected the monument to commemorate the sacrifice of American soldiers who died in the Korean War, World War I and World War II. The cross has long carried meaning for the city’s residents far beyond religious symbolism. “It’s a symbol of coming of age and of remembrance,” Pastor Mark Slomka of the Mount Soledad Presbyterian Church said years ago when the case erupted. The San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board explained that the cross is “much like the Mission San Diego de Alcala and the cross at Presidio Park, both of which also are rooted in Christianity but have come to signify the birth of San Diego.” I first started covering the case as an editorial writer at the Los Angeles Daily News in the early 1990s. A federal judge initially ruled that the landmark cross’s presence violated the California constitution’s church-state separation principles. The city of San Diego put the issue before voters, who overwhelmingly approved a practical solution in 2005: Sell the cross and the park to the veterans group for use in a national war memorial.

A pragmatic, tolerant resolution with 76 percent of voters’ support? Heavens, no! The extreme secularists couldn’t have that. They sued and sued and sued and sued. By 2007, the state Supreme Court — affirmed by a state appellate court — had rejected the atheists’ campaign. The courts affirmed the constitutionality of the San Diego referendum (Proposition A) and the sale of the cross to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association. The American Civil Liberties Union intervened to suppress and “de-publish” the ruling as a way to prevent its use in future litigation. They lost.

Lawyers for the Thomas More Law Center, which represented filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the memorial association, were relieved: “This decision protects the will of the people and their desire to preserve a historical veterans memorial for future generations.” They’ve fought hard to remind America that the Founding Fathers fought for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. [Correction: The memorial association is represented by the Liberty Institute. More info here.]

But still the cross-hunters press on. Fast-forward to Christmas week 2013. U.S. District Court Judge Larry Burns, who earlier had ruled in support of the cross, was forced to rule that it must come down in 90 days in the wake of a liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision overturning his prior decision. In anticipation of new appeals, Burns stayed the order. All eyes are on the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case last summer…

Pathetic! The fact that these intolerant bastards were not sated when the land was sold to a private owner exposes their true agenda. That agenda is to erase every last vestige of Christianity from public view. This is not about “church and  state”, it is about a hatred for everything that is part of traditional American culture. If there was ever a story that proves my belief that we can never appease the far-left this is it. The Leftists are absolutely committed to their crusade to eradicate everything that defines America.We must be equally committed to stopping their campaign of cultural genocide.

Lots of folks ask why radical atheists are so hateful and intolerant towards Christianity. Well, the narcissism of the left plays into it, as does their need to control but, to me the answer is this. America recognizes the right not to be religious. You hold a right here not to believe in God. Atheists ought to be fine with that. But, a hatred burns in them for any mention of God, Christmas, Santa Claus, anything even remotely Christian, why? Well imagine being an Atheist in a country where you are free to believe your way. Now imagine that you know, where that right comes from. No, not from our Constitution. That document protects that right, but recognizes that such a right already exists. And the source for that right? Well, according to our Founders, that right is a natural right, and where do natural rights come from? Yes, from our Creator. So, imagine being a radical atheist who knows that their right NOT to be religious comes from the one thing they most despise, God.

 

Since when did supporting Gay marriage amount to bullying private businesses?

I have said before I have no real issue with Gay marriage, it should be left to the states. But, I recognize that many of those pushing for Gay marriage do not want “equality”. They want to force their lifestyle, and more specifically complete acceptance of that lifestyle down everyone else’s throats. That includes bullying businesses that choose not to provide services to Gay weddings or receptions.

A Colorado judge says a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs, a ruling that a civil rights group hailed as a victory for gay rights.

Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled Friday that Jack Phillips, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, will face fines if he continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy wedding cakes.

“The undisputed facts show that Respondents (Phillips) discriminated against Complainants because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage,” Spencer wrote.

Last year, David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited the Masterpiece Cakeshop to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. The couple had planned to marry in Massachusetts and hold a reception in Colorado.

Phillips told the men that he could not bake their cake because of his religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage. He offered to make them any other baked item, but not a wedding cake. The couple immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division.

“Being denied service by Masterpiece Cakeshop was offensive and dehumanizing especially in the midst of arranging what should be a joyful family celebration,” Mullins said in a statement. “No one should fear being turned away from a public business because of who they are.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado hailed the ruling and said it serves as a warning.

“While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” ACLU staff attorney Amanda Goad said in a statement. “No one is asking Masterpiece’s owners to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple.”

The very notion that a business cannot deny service to “prospective” costumers is asinine. This is the problem with so-called civil rights laws many times. The intention is noble, but Leftist activists and Statists use these laws to trample the rights of business owners. 

 

Screw the ACLU and Radical Atheists

That is what a Montana school choir has said, although in far nicer terms

A Montana school choir is set to perform at a church despite calls from the American Civil Liberties Union and an atheist group to cancel the show, arguing that it violates the separation of church and state.

Kate Orozco, superintendent of the Whitefish school district, said Wednesday that it’s up to the dozen members of the high school’s choir to decide whether or not they want to perform at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Kalispell. But she added that the show, which is scheduled to take place Thursday night, would not be canceled.

“We would certainly not prohibit our kids from performing. We think the performance itself is a great experience for all of our kids and its volunteers,” she told KTMF.

A letter the ACLU of Montana sent to the district said the show “poses serious constitutional concerns and demonstrates a lack of respect.” Letters from other groups, including the Freedom From Religion Foundation, also called for the district to cancel the show.

Lack of respect they say? Perhaps they ought to tolerate to respect other people’s choices and liberties! The ACLU and the thugs at Freedom From Religion are bullies, and would be Statists.

 

The Left continues to bastardize the meaning of rights

Rights, as defined by our Founders came from our Creator, or were natural rights, that is rights that are inherent to us all. Those rights included the right to property, freedom of speech, association, the freedom to practice your own religion, or to practice no religion at all, and the right to keep and bear arms among others. You might have noted that among the rights I listed, a right to not be offended was not present. Nor was a right to force a business to sell a product to you. The Left, it seems, is intent on creating such God-given rights. Such rights cannot exist in a nation that honors liberty. A “right” not to have your feelings hurt infringes upon the right of everyone else to freely express their opinions. Likewise any effort to create a “right” that forces a business to sell or provide a service to anyone would naturally place an undue burden upon that business owner.

Take a case from Colorado described in The Blaze

Should bakers and other vendors be allowed to refuse service to gays and lesbians, specifically when it comes to marital ceremonies? “No,” argues one gay couple who have filed a discrimination complaint against a Colorado baker who refused to provide them with a wedding cake.

Masterpiece Cakeshop, owned by Jack Phillips and based near Denver, Colorado, is at the center of the dispute after David Mullins and Charlie Craig attempted to order the baked good from the business last summer.

Phillips, declining to provide service after learning of the couple’s sexuality, cited his Christian beliefs. But Mullins and Craig aren’t accepting Biblical arguments as a viable basis for the refusal.

“We were all very upset, but I was angry and I felt dehumanized and mortified,” Mullins said in an interview with the Associated Press.

What was then posted by the couple on Facebook, as Gawker notes, spread like wildfire and is now making national headlines. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is also involved, having found two other couples were Phillips declined to make cakes for in the past as well. The legal group is not researching next steps in the contentious case.

Last week, the Colorado Attorney General’s office also filed a formal complaint. If the baker loses and continues to refuse service to gays and lesbians, he could be fined $500 per instance — and given up to a year in jail, his attorney claims. Phillips will stand in front of the state’s Civil Rights Commission in September.

As a person who has worked in the restaurant business for over 20 years, I am well aware that every restaurant reserves a right to refuse service to anyone. Over the years I have refused service to a small number of people who were too drunk, or disturbing other patrons. That is, and should be the right of every business owner. I have never refused anyone because of their sexuality, nor would I, frankly. And, if I ran a bakery, or a catering business, or a restaurant that hosted wedding receptions, I would not hesitate to do business with a Lesbian or Gay couple. And, to be honest, I think this bakery owner is being a bit hateful, but, that is his right.

I cannot grasp why a Gay couple would want to do business with that bakery. My attitude would be  to say “screw you, I will get a cake somewhere else”. I also do not understand where these two men get the notion that it is OK to force something upon the bakery owner. But, somewhere along the way, this Gay couple have convinced themselves that they have a right not to have their feelings hurt. They, feel they were discriminated against, and that sucks, but guess what, people on both sides of the business costumer relationship discriminate every day. That is just reality. Using the force of courts or government to force businesses to serve costumers they do not wish to serve is something we ought not to encourage. Call me crazy, but I prefer liberty.

Dear Harry Reid, when the ACLU is against your gun bill…………

Via the Daily Caller

1.) The ACLU has a surprise for Harry Reid– Even the liberal-leaning organization doesn’t support his gun bill. TheDC’s Vince Coglianese reports:

“As Senate Democrats struggle to build support for new gun control legislation, the American Civil Liberties Union now says it’s among those who have ‘serious concerns’ about the bill. Those concerns have the capacity to prove a major setback to Sen. Harry Reid’s current gun bill, which includes language from earlier bills introduced by Sens. Chuck Schumer and Barbara Boxer. In an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller, a top lobbyist for the ACLU announced that the group thinks Reid’s current gun bill could threaten both privacy rights and civil liberties. …  ’However, we also believe those checks have to be conducted in a way that protects privacy and civil liberties. So, in that regard, we think the current legislation, the current proposal on universal background checks raises two significant concerns,’ he went on.”

When you have lost the ACLU……….

 

A question for radical atheists. Why does something you do not believe in piss you off so much?

This kind of BS is getting so old. 

Anti-ACLU
Anti-ACLU (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

MIDDLEBORO (CBS) — A statue that has stood in the same spot for 53 years is now at the center of a Constitutional debate.

In 1959, Middleboro Kiwanis Club erected a 12-foot brick cross bearing the word “worship” on a traffic island on Route 28.

Recently, the statue caught the eye of a Boston attorney who has since filed multiple complaints with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. The state declined to release the name of that attorney.

The cross sits mostly on town land. The state owns a small fraction of the traffic island where it is located, and thus, the ACLU says, the cross violates church and state separation laws.

A number of locals who spoke to WBZ-TV defended the statue, including Bob Kinney of the Middleboro Kiwanis Club. They argue that the statue is a local landmark.

“For someone to go by it one time and complain, I think that’s sad,” he said.

But the state and the ACLU want to see the structure come down.

No more comments from me, lest I break my “no F-Word rule”

Liberals really do not get the First Amendment

But, as a public service, we here at The Daley Gator are going to set them straight, with help from Silverfiddle

In the Church-State debate sidebars that have broken out on the fringes of the 2012 culture wars, a common liberal argument recurs:

“You can’t have it both ways. You can’t demand government stay out of religion, and then attempt to insert your religion into debates about government. The Wall of Separation between Church and State applies to church as well as state.”


That is wrong for a couple of reasons. First, there is no such thing as “a wall of separation” in the constitution. Here is what the First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, contrary to progressive arguments, it is legitimate and constitutional to bring one’s religious values to the public square. You can even bring them to the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Presidency,  secure in the knowledge that you are a good American acting in accord with the US Constitution.

The second error in this statement is related to the first. The Constitution prohibits the federal government from establishing or prohibiting religion. It places no such strictures on citizens, so it doesn’t go both ways.

Consequently, We the People can have it both ways, freely exercising our religious rights in all public arenas while demanding government stay out of our business.

See, it is really VERY simple. The Founders deliberately gave us a constitution that is not too tough to figure out. And, frankly, let me add my two cents worth here. Those on the Left who argue that a Nativity scene on a courthouse lawn, or a student mentioning God at graduation violates the Constitution need to read the first amendment. It very clearly states that CONGRESS shall make no law…….. A high school student is not Congress. A town that has Santa in their Christmas parade is not Congress either. Sorry Liberals but the ACLU is wrong when they sue over a picture of Jesus in a school, or over a church using a school building for church services. And any judge that sides with the ACLU on such matters is wrong as well.

Again, the First Amendment is very clear.

First they came for tobacco…………. UPDATED!

Then they came for evil sugar! And An ‘Old Broad is fighting mad!

Sugar under attack in obesity fight

Three California obesity researchers struck a nerve in Tennessee’s sweet tooth last month when they proposed regulating sugar in the same way government regulates tobacco and alcohol.

In the journal Nature , they pegged a litany of chronic illnesses to excess sugar consumption — diabetes, hypertension, fatty liver disease and others. Their article proposed taxing foods with added sugar, restricting purchases to ages 17 and over, and limiting convenience stores in poor neighborhoods.

There is no doubt in my mind….California really IS a granola state….fruits, nuts, and flakes!  First off, ya don’t tax people even more, second, ya don’t tell people what they can and cannot eat or drink, and third….it’s called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!  The whole thing sounds like discrimination against the poor folks to me!

Days before the Nature article published, U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais made a proposal on the other side of the political spectrum: a bill that would bar federal dollars from being used to publicly criticize foods already approved by the Food and Drug Administration. He’d learned federal stimulus funds financed healthy living campaigns that, in part, discouraged drinking sugary soda.

This is, of course, simply the natural evolution of the Nanny State. We did not stop them at their power grab over tobacco, and this is our reward. And these Neo-Marxists will not stop at sugar either. So, what will be next? Or maybe it will be an activity deemed “too dangerous” by our would-be overlords? Or maybe our Facebook password?

At Telegraph UK, “12-year-old US girl suing school over Facebook comments row“:

A 12-year-old girl is suing her school in Minnesota after being forced to hand over her Facebook password and punished for posts she made on the social networking site.

The case has been brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and comes amid growing concern in the United States about individuals’ ability to keep their email and other online accounts secret from their school, employer and government authorities.

A number of prospective employees have complained that they were forced to hand over their passwords to Facebook and Twitter when applying for jobs.

In the Minnesota case, the 12-year-old girl, known only as RS, is said to have been punished by teachers at Minnewaska Area Middle School for things she wrote on Facebook while at home, and using her own computer.

The ACLU is arguing that her First and Fourth Amendment rights, which protect freedom of speech and freedom from illegal searches respectively, were violated.

She is said to have been punished with detention after using Facebook to criticise a school hall monitor, and again after a fellow student told teachers that she had discussed sex online.

The Nanny State is like a cancer, it will not stop until it rots away every last liberty we have


Yep, political correctness kills

This story is so disturbing. In the name of not “profiling” or not daring to possibly offend someone…………

Let’s think back a few months before September 11, 2001. What do you suppose would have been the reaction had Massachusetts State Police and/or the FBI had posted photos of suspicious-looking Muslim men at airports nationwide?

Why, the ACLU and the other usual suspects would have screamed about racial profiling. Which is probably why his mugshot never was posted.Months before the horrific 9/11 attacks, lackadaisical state troopers specially assigned to protect Logan International Airport failed to act on tips that Middle Eastern men were casing security checkpoints armed with cameras, explosive new court documents allege.

One of the suspected terrorists whom troopers could have cornered was later identified as al-Qaeda 9/11 leader Mohammed Atta, according to lawyers for a Boston woman who is suing over the loss of her son. The lawyers took depositions from an airline employee and other witnesses.

Troopers were told the Middle Eastern men were “acting suspiciously” and videotaping airport security in May 2001, according to the filing in a New York court.

“When Mohammad Atta went through the security checkpoint after being reported to F Troop that he was photographing, videotaping and surveilling the checkpoints, Massport F Troop did nothing,” the documents state.

How many deaths might have been stopped? Could the attacks on 9/11 have been thwarted? Will we EVER get back to reality in America and start taking threats to our people more seriously than we take possibly offending someone??