Abortion and Marriage -- Supreme Court Asked to Take First Amendment Case on Conscience Rights

From Breitbart's Big Government:

Today top religious-liberty scholars and lawyers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that a state law requiring a person of faith to engage in actions that violate his religious conscience violates the First Amendment, in a case with profound implications for the hot-button issues of abortion and same-sex marriage.

In response to a 2007 request by pro-abortion Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire, Washington state officials issued regulations forbidding pro-life pharmacists from declining to provide abortion-causing drugs. Previously, pharmacists who conscientiously objected to abortion could refer customers seeking such drugs to another pharmacy.

The second clause of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment provides that the government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Stormans is a small family-owned pharmacy that, along with two pro-life pharmacists, challenged the law on the grounds that it violates this Free Exercise Clause.

Stormans filed suit in federal district court. After five years of litigation and a twelve-day trial, a federal judge ruled that Washington’s regulations violated the First Amendment as applied to people who object to abortion. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, splitting with several other federal appeals courts in the process.
.....................

This case has profound implications. If the High Court sides with the pharmacists, the ruling would also be a basis for Christian bakers, photographers, and florists to decline to participate in same-sex weddings that violate their conscience.

I hope SCOTUS takes the case and find for the plaintiffs. Big Government is intruding in our lives too much.

If Bernie Sanders didn’t have to fight in Vietnam because of his beliefs, why do business owners have to participate in gay weddings in spite of theirs?

From The Federalist via H/T at Instapundit:

As early as the American Revolution, citizens whose religious beliefs reject violence in all cases have been granted accommodations and have not been forced to fight. The guarantees of religious freedom in the First Amendment solidified the right to refuse combat service owing to deeply held moral beliefs. In the 1965 Seeger decision, the Supreme Court extended conscientious objector status to pacifists whose beliefs were not based on any orthodox religion.

All of this leads to an intriguing question: if Sanders didn’t have to fight in Vietnam because of his beliefs, why do business owners have to participate in gay weddings in spite of theirs?

Because the Constitution only gives you rights to avoid things lefties disapprove of. Duh.

True that!

Office Depot CEO apologizes for discriminating against pro-life customer

From Rick Moran at The American Thinker Blog:

The CEO of Office Depot apparently saw the stupidity in his employee's position and issued an apology:

The CEO has the brains to realize this was and will be a PR nightmare.

Colorado’s ‘Hurt Feelings’ Exemption from the First Amendment

From National Review:

Yet instead of exhibiting a basic level of tolerance (or dignity), two priggish bullies decided to call the authorities when Phillips refused to bake them a cake. And the cultural commissars at the Colorado Civil Rights Commission soon ruled that he had discriminated against the couple.

The shop was not only ordered to alter store policy and start baking cakes for gay weddings — or else face debilitating fines, a consequence often reported on by the media — but also forced to provide comprehensive staff training, ensure compliance, and then file quarterly obedience reports with the government for two years. In these reports, Phillips has to describe exactly which remedial measures the shop has taken to conform and document the reasons any other patrons were denied service.

So, you know, I’m sure this is exactly how Thomas Jefferson imagined America would turn out when he was writing the Declaration of Independence.

So much for being tolerant of other's differing opinions. But this is not about tolerance. It's about forced acceptance.

Rush - Businesses Forced to Support SSM Should Cite Fear of Offending Muslims

From Breitbart:

Talk radio host Rush Limbaugh suggested that businesses who are sued for not providing services for same-sex marriage should say that they cannot do so because of fear of offending and provoking Muslims on Monday.

Brilliant ! ! ! !

Instead of businesses trying the defend themselves on the basis of the Constitution, use fear to justify their position.  The way the Drive-By Media has reacted to the attack in Garland, Texas ...... It would put them in a bind.