Click Button in Toolbar to Toggle Playlist.

We Win They Lose archive
Category : News: Legal & Courts

Supreme Court Votes to End Affirmative Action at Universities!

A state’s voters are free to outlaw the use of race as a factor in college admissions, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a blow to affirmative action that also laid bare tensions among the justices about a continuing need for programs that address racial inequality in America.

The 6-2 decision upheld a voter-approved change to the Michigan Constitution that forbids the state’s public colleges to take race into account. That change was indeed up to the voters, the ruling said, over one justice’s impassioned dissent that accused the court of simply wanting to wish away inequality.

The ruling bolsters similar voter-approved initiatives banning affirmative action in education in California and Washington state. A few other states have adopted laws or issued executive orders to bar race-conscious admissions policies.

Read More…

California courts move to blacklist Boy Scouts (Proposal would ban judges from being affiliated with organization)

A move is under way in the California court system to ban judges from belonging to the Boys Scouts of America because the youth organization discriminates against homosexuals.

A proposed rule change by the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on The Code of Judicial Ethics would make the BSA no longer “excepted from the category of organizations that practice ‘invidious discrimination’ on the basis of sexual orientation.”

Last May, the BSA’s National Council voted to allow acknowledged homosexuals to be in the program but not in leadership. It’s the ban on “gay” leaders that has prompted the California courts’ action.

In a public comment on the proposal, the Life Legal Defense Foundation said the committee is ignoring the fact “that the change also encompasses other youth organizations whose membership is limited on the basis of gender, e.g., the Girl Scouts, as well as the military, which continues to practice ‘discrimination’ on the bases of gender.”

Read More…

Is it Clarence Thomas’s court?

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: April 4, 2014

Justice Clarence Thomas’s influence was on full display in the Supreme Court’s landmark decision to strike down a crucial campaign finance restriction.

And it’s just one in a string of cases in which Thomas could be dragging the court toward his way of thinking.

Chief Justice John Roberts penned Wednesday’s plurality decision, which eliminates the limit on the total dollar amount an individual may give to political candidates and committees.

But Thomas, seen by many as the court’s most conservative justice, wrote a concurring opinion that both represented the decisive vote in the 5-4 decision and beckoned the justices to go further.

Thomas used his opinion to argue in favor of scrapping individual contribution caps altogether by reversing the court’s post-Watergate decision known as Buckley v. Valeo, which held that limits are justified as a measure to stave off corruption.

“This case represents yet another missed opportunity to right the course of our campaign finance jurisprudence by restoring a standard that is faithful to the First Amendment,” Thomas wrote. “Until we undertake that reexamination, we remain in a ‘halfway house’ of our own design.”

Religious Right in Arizona Cheers Bill Allowing Businesses to Refuse to Serve Gays

In New Mexico, a photographer declined to take pictures of a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony. In Washington State, a florist would not provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. And in Colorado, a baker refused to make a cake for a party celebrating the wedding of two men.

The business owners cited religious beliefs in declining to provide services celebrating same-sex relationships. And in each case, they were sued.

Now, as states around the nation weigh how to balance the rights of same-sex couples with those of conservative religious business owners, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona must decide whether to sign legislation that would allow business owners to cite religious beliefs as a legal justification for denying service to same-sex couples.

The legislation, approved by lawmakers on Thursday, immediately attracted national attention, with conservative religious groups welcoming it as a necessary form of protection for objectors to same-sex marriage, and gay rights groups denouncing it as a license for discrimination. The measure comes at a time when the courts are grappling with how to define the religious rights of private businesses: The Supreme Court is to hear two cases next month in which businesses are seeking exemptions from providing insurance coverage for contraception to their employees, citing the religious beliefs of the companies’ owners.

Read More…

Does the Constitution Force Bakers to Bake for homosexuals?

Several recent court cases have resulted in small business owners, who create the wares and services that they sell, being ordered by a judge to sell their custom-made products (e.g., wedding cakes and floral arrangements) or services (e.g., wedding photography) to gay couples despite the small business owners’ refusal to do so based on their religious principles.

If the business in question sold standard, mass-produced items, such as rings, then denying gay couples the right to purchase such things would be clearly discriminatory in the same way that a realtor would be discriminating if they refused to show a house that was for sale to any and all interested potential buyers. The sexual orientation of the buyers should not be an issue in that sort of transaction.

However, the sensitivities of gay couples who claim to feel slighted is not the real issue. The plaintiff in a recent wedding cake related suit, one David Mullins, is reported to have said:

Being denied service by Masterpiece Cakeshop [the defendant] was offensive and dehumanizing especially in the midst of arranging what should be a joyful family celebration.

While vigorously defending the plaintiffs’ claims that they have a right not to be offended, the judge, the ACLU, and others in the LGBT community seem to be ignoring (in this particular case) the rights of the baker who chose not to fulfill the plaintiffs’ request. Most people would immediately think of the 1st Amendment’s protection of freedom of religion, but in truth that is not the most relevant part of the Constitution here. It is the 13th Amendment, Section 1, which should be the controlling part of the legal debate in this situation.

CA Schools brace for transgender law (Referendum seeks vote to repeal)

SAN FRANCISCO — With a law that spells out the rights of transgender students in grades K-12 set to take effect in California, school districts are reviewing locker room layouts, scheduling sensitivity training for coaches, assessing who will sleep where during overnight field trips and reconsidering senior portrait dress codes.

But administrators, counselors, teachers and school board members also are watching and waiting. The law, the nation’s first requiring public schools to let children use sex-segregated facilities and participate in the gender-specific

Read More…

Conservatives Say Utah Polygamy Ruling Confirms Their Worst Fears

Fueling debates over marriage and religious freedom, a federal judge declared on Dec. 13 Utah laws criminalizing polygamy are unconstitutional, ruling on a case involving the Brown family from TLC’s reality series “Sister Wives.”

Social conservatives who have argued for marriage solely between one man and one woman have long warned that allowing gay marriage would ultimately lead to allowing polygamy — an argument that’s both feared and rejected by gay marriage proponents.

Perhaps not surprisingly, groups advocating for legalizing gay marriage were quiet in response, saying that legalizing polygamy is not part of their mandate.

At the same time, proponents of traditional marriage did a victory lap of sorts, saying their worst fears are starting to come true.

“Same-sex marriage advocates have told us that people ought to be able to ‘marry who they love’ but have also always downplayed the idea that this would lead to legalized polygamy, a practice that very often victimizes women and children,” said Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, in a statement on Monday (Dec. 16).

“But if love and mutual consent become the definition of what the boundaries of marriage are, can we as a society any longer even define marriage coherently?”

Read More…

Lesbian boss ‘fired me for being straight’ Says NY Gym Teacher

Lesbian boss ‘fired me for being straight’

A married, heterosexual gym teacher at a tony Upper West Side private school was fired because his lesbian supervisor disapproved of his “traditional family status,” the canned teacher claims in a new Manhattan lawsuit.

Gregory Kenney, 50, taught gym at the Trinity School on W. 91st St. for 16 years before he was let go in June 2012.

Kenney, who lives with his wife and three young children in LI, says he was a well-liked employee at the elite institution that counts Truman Capote, Ivanka Trump and Eric Schneiderman as alumni, until a gay athletic director named Pat Krieger took over in 2009.

Krieger allegedly forced him to coach three sports, even though his contract only required him to join two teams, according to his reverse discrimination suit.

When he complained that the extra responsibilities interfered with his family obligations Krieger allegedly told him, “We all make choices,” the suit says.

Read More…

Catholic Groups Win First Amendment Victory Over ObamaCare!

In yet another legal blow to the president’s signature law, a federal judge rules that its contraceptive mandate does not trump Catholic groups’ right to exercise their religious liberty and conscience.

Religious liberty advocates and First Amendment defenders are cheering the stunning decision by U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan in New York that promises to speed up the unraveling of ObamaCare. Cogan not only found that the Health and Human Services (HHS) regulation that requires health insurance to include contraceptive coverage was constitutionally questionable, he actually forbade HHS from enforcing it.

As the New York Post details, in ruling on the lawsuit, Cogan decided that the plaintiffs “demonstrated that the mandate, despite accommodation, compels them to perform acts that are contrary to their religion. And there can be no doubt that the coercive pressure here is substantial.”

Most prior lawsuits have focused on the law’s constitutionality. Cogan’s ruling deals with its regulatory enforcement based on the phrase “the secretary shall determine” that appears in the Affordable Care Act no fewer than 1,005 times. This ruling essentially says that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius cannot enforce a mandate that Congress did not approve and that she cannot unilaterally decide what the First Amendment means or whether it is rendered irrelevant by her edicts.

In other words, regulations do not trump the Constitution.

Judge Cites Same-Sex Marriage in Declaring Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional (Here It Comes!)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: December 14, 2013

In a game-changer for the legal fight over same-sex marriage that gives credence to opponents’ “slippery slope” arguments, a federal judge has now ruled that the legal reasoning for same-sex marriage means that laws against polygamy are likewise unconstitutional.

In his 91-page opinion in Brown v. Buhman, on Dec. 13, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups struck down Utah’s law making polygamy a crime. In so doing, he may have opened Pandora’s Box.

As a condition for becoming a state in 1896, Congress required Utah to outlaw polygamy, which is marriage between three or more persons. This case involved a family of fundamentalist offshoots of nineteenth-century Mormonism. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints disavowed polygamy in 1890, and again in 1904, but some splinter groups continue the practice.

Waddoups’ opinion would not only cover such groups, however, but also Muslims or anyone else who claims a right—religious or otherwise—to have multiple-person marriages. He notes that the Supreme Court ruled against polygamy in its 1878 case Reynolds v. U.S., but said he cannot simply rest upon that decision “without seriously addressing the much developed constitutional jurisprudence that now protects individuals from the criminal consequences intended by legislatures to apply to certain personal choices.”

In its 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case, the Supreme Court overruled previous sexuality precedents by declaring unconstitutional laws that made homosexual sodomy a crime, holding that although the Constitution says nothing about sex or marriage, there is nonetheless a right to consensual sexual activity between adults that government cannot regulate. This was over the vigorous dissent of conservative justices, who said that the Constitution commits such questions of marriage and morality to the states and the democratic process, and that therefore federal courts have no power to impose their own moral judgments.

Read More…

It’s official. If Australia gets same-sex marriage, polygamy is next (Gay Agenda Hates Morality)

December 13, 2013 (MercatorNet) – There were tears of indignation outside of Australia’s High Court yesterday, but it was the result that everyone expected: a law passed on December 3 authorising same-sex marriage in the Australian Capital Territory was unconstitutional. The marriages of the 30 or so gay and lesbian couples who had exchanged vows under the law have now been annulled.

“This is devastating for those couples who married this week and for their families,” said the spokesman for Australian Marriage Equality, Rodney Croome. “However, this is just a temporary defeat. What is far more important is that the ACT’s law facilitated the first same-sex marriage on Australian soil and showed the nation the love and commitment of same-sex couples. The marriages in the ACT prove that this reform is not about politics, but about love, commitment, and fairness.”

It had always been clear that under the Australian Constitution, the regulation of marriage is exclusively a Federal responsibility. The law passed by the ACT Legislative Assembly for Canberra and the surrounding suburbs was essentially a test case to rally the troops. The High Court judges were unequivocal: “Under the Constitution and federal law as it now stands, whether same sex marriage should be provided for by law…is a matter for the federal Parliament.” And according to the present law, marriage is only between a man and a woman.

However, the news for defenders of traditional marriage is far from good as a result of the decision. The High Court has bulldozed a primrose path through the thickets of jurisprudence for advocates of “marriage equality”.

Read More…

Australian court halts gay marriage

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: December 12, 2013

Australia’s highest court has struck down a landmark law allowing the country’s first gay marriages, shattering the dreams of more than two dozen same-sex newlyweds whose marriages will now be annulled less than a week after their weddings.

The federal government had challenged the validity of the Australian Capital Territory‘s law that had allowed gay marriages in the nation’s capital and its surrounding area, starting last Saturday.

The federal government’s lawyer argued that having different marriage laws in various Australian states and territories would create confusion. The ACT, which passed the law in October, said it should stand because it governs couples outside the federal definition of marriage as being between members of the opposite sex.

The High Court unanimously ruled that the ACT’s law could not operate concurrently with the federal Marriage Act, which was amended in 2004 to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Read More…

Baker says he’d rather go to jail after judge orders him to bake cakes for gay ‘weddings’

A Denver cake baker who was ordered by a judge last week to service same-sex “weddings” or face punishing fines has told Fox News that he would rather shut down his business and serve jail time than violate his beliefs and play a role in facilitating gay nuptials.

In an interview with Fox’s Elisabeth Hasselbeck, cake maker Jack Phillips said, “You know, [I’ll serve jail time if] that’s what it takes. It’s not like I have chosen this team or that team. This is who I am, it’s what I believe.”

“Does becoming a business owner mean you have to check your convictions at the door?” Hasselbeck asked. “Why is it important for you to have a business and not have to abandon personal religious beliefs just to make a buck?”

“I don’t plan on giving up my religious beliefs … I don’t feel that I should participate in their wedding, and when I do a cake, I feel like I’m participating in the ceremony or the event or the celebration that the cake is for,” Phillips said. “My priorities would be towards my faith rather than towards my safety or security.”

Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, has been under fire since July 2012, when David Mullins and Charlie Craig filed a discrimination complaint after Phillips refused to sell them a wedding cake.

While Colorado’s constitution states, “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in this state,” Mullins and Craig had nonetheless planned to “marry” in Massachusetts, where a court order made same-sex “marriage” legal in 2004. Afterward, they planned to hold a reception in Colorado. When they visited Phillips’ cake shop to ask him to provide a wedding cake for the event, he declined, explaining that his religious beliefs prevented him from participating in same-sex “weddings.” Phillips said he would be happy to sell them brownies or

Read More…

Indian Court Reinstates Law Banning Gay Sex (Jai!)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: December 11, 2013
India’s Supreme Court Wednesday overturned a lower court’s ruling that had decriminalized gay sex, a disappointing surprise setback for the gay-rights movement in this largely conservative country.In 2009, the Delhi High Court ruled that a 19th-century provision in the country’s penal code that effectively banned gay sex should not apply to consensual acts.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court rejected that decision, saying the old law was still constitutionally valid and could only be changed or erased by Parliament, not the courts.

Rights groups say the law—known as Section 377 for its place in a 150-year-old Indian penal code—had been used for decades to harass homosexuals.

“We hold that Section 377 IPC does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality and the declaration made by the Division Bench of the High court is legally unsustainable,” the two supreme-court judges who presided over the case said in their 98-page judgment, released late Wednesday.

Read More…

Sylvia Thompson: A prediction for activist homosexuals (you will be squashed)

http://www.renewamerica.com/images/columnists/lg/sthompson.jpg

The most galling of the lies for me, a black person, is the equally ridiculous notion that homosexuality is comparable to being genetically black. Activists envision that their push to force their behavior upon society is no different from the civil rights movement for American blacks. I cannot begin to describe the disgust that this position engenders in me, and many other blacks, because being black is not a behavior. Blacks who oppose this lie know that it is simply one of the Left’s many political agendas aimed at the destruction of civil society.

So, this is my prediction. As homosexual activists ignore the individual rights of a majority of Americans (never mind the bogus poll numbers to the contrary) and move steadily to outlaw Judeo-Christianity as the primary impediment to their unbridled hedonism, resentment against them will rise. What they seem not to comprehend or simply choose not to (that underlying ignorance mentioned earlier), is that at some point, the resentment will erupt into action. More likely violent action against them, because they foment hatred. Just as race mongering engenders hatred of blacks where such hatred otherwise would not occur.

Further, as they nullify law in their attempts to bring America to heel, eventually law will mean nothing. And lawlessness against a miniscule segment of society will not be pretty (one to, at best, three percent, contrary to the equally bogus research that says ten percent). All the exaggerated claims of homosexual persecution (recall the Matthew Shepard scam) will pale in comparison to the actual physical assaults likely to occur. If homosexual bullying (aided and abetted by the Left and the corrupt administration that bolsters the movement) continues at its current pace, such an eventuality is not at all out of the question.

Read More…

Translate

Shop And Support Us!
Join The Fight!
Twitter Feed
Welcome , today is Thursday, April 24, 2014