January 9, 2018

This must be a very disheartening week for “progressives,” who assume that when Americans reject their attempts to “transform” society at the ballot box, they can always shop around for an unelected activist judge to force them onto everyone. Lately, judges who are willing to replace the Constitution with their own personal views have become harder to find, which is toxic to “progressivism.”

Today’s headlines bring two examples of that. First, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Baltimore law that forced a pro-life pregnancy center to post disclaimers saying they won’t refer women for abortions. The panel ruled that just as the First Amendment protects abortion providers from compelled speech they disagree with, this law violates the right of a politically and religiously motivated group not to be forced by the government to “convey a message fundamentally at odds with its core belief and mission.”


The ruling on Baltimore’s law is the latest in a series of court wins affirming the First Amendment rights of pro-life centers facing attempts to force them to parrot pro-abortion views, as you can see at this link. And it could bode well for an upcoming Supreme Court decision on a case challenging a similar statewide law in California.


Meanwhile, the US Supreme Court rejected appeals of two lawsuits aimed at striking down a Mississippi law that protects religious business owners from being forced to service same-sex weddings. The law’s proponents say that people shouldn’t have to live in fear of losing their careers or businesses just because they hold traditional religious beliefs about marriage.

Some people are trying to use this to predict how the SCOTUS will rule in the case of a baker nearly forced out of business for declining a same-sex wedding job, but that might be a reach. The SCOTUS declined to hear these cases without comment, allowing the lower court ruling in favor of the law to stand. That ruling merely found that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue because they hadn’t suffered any personal injury from the law. So this is really more of a punt, although one that somehow resulted in the First Amendment winning the game.

The time is coming soon, though, when the Supreme Court will have to reckon with the damage they unleashed on First Amendment religious freedom protections when they invented a right to same-sex marriage by a 5-4 vote. The minority warned of what would happen, but the majority discounted the consequences, brushing off the possibility of a legal assault on religious believers as cavalierly as they upended thousands of years of religious and societal views on marriage. Like the religious bakers, florists and others in the wedding industry who have been targeted for destruction for refusing to renounce their sacred beliefs, the SCOTUS will soon be forced to deal with the consequences of their same-sex marriage decision. Let’s hope that this time, they remember why the Founders who listed our God-given rights put religious liberty first.



Leave a Comment

Note: Fields marked with an * are required.

Your Information
Your Comment
BBML accepted!

Comments 1-8 of 8

  • Ed

    01/15/2018 05:20 PM

    Sense a lot of our trees have been destroyed by fire I am not to sure we have to be concerned about spotted owls any more. However: It is a concern to those who like to wander in what forests we have left because of illegal pot growers. just sayen.

  • Patrick Hetland

    01/15/2018 04:01 PM

    I read your newsletter pretty regularly and for the most part i enjoy it even if i dont always share your views but the bit in this article where it says "The time is coming soon, though, when the Supreme Court will have to reckon with the damage they unleashed on First Amendment religious freedom protections when they invented a right to same-sex marriage by a 5-4 vote." Sounds ridiculous, there has been no damage done by granting homosexual people the same rights as everyone else, now not to say that the lawsuits against religious proprietors are anything but equally ridiculous but religious freedom does not equate to the right to deny anyone else the same freedoms. In short. Religious people should certainly be able to deny service to anyone if they feel that they are violating there beliefs, but granting equality to people will never be damaging to our wonderful country

  • Jim Evart

    01/13/2018 02:08 AM

    Foolish people are often wise in their own eyes. Prov 26: 5

  • R. Gerald freeman

    01/11/2018 12:55 PM

    Governor, thank you for your service to our great nation and continuing to support our constitution. I value your news and comentary of events which keep us informed of national and world events and look forward to your daily emails.

  • Gretchen Smith

    01/11/2018 09:56 AM

    I read your info daily. So tired of the liberals trying to force their progressive lives on us. What do our grandchildren have ahead of them, scares me. Love your show.

  • Paul E Dulin

    01/10/2018 09:37 AM

    This is another example of the Trump Effect. This would have been highly unlikely one year ago. I am so thankful that we are finally turning the corner and heading in the right direction. Thank you for all you do to keep us informed.

  • V Fiore

    01/10/2018 08:44 AM

    Does this mean that all Christian, or believers, should put up notice on their window that they do not cater or serve GLBTQ persons? I am all for it if a SIGN will dissuade them from these scam/baited lawsuits. The looser MUST pay all the attorney fees of BOTH parties. Hey, they need to do their homework and find a priest/baker/florist etc, that shares their...whatever...and go there. Surely THEIR community has a GLBTQ reference guide of businesses.

  • Amelia Little

    01/09/2018 08:29 PM

    "plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue because they hadn’t suffered any personal injury from the law." I can't tell if this means the plaintiffs were the same-sex couple (and ACLU, LBGT) who hadn't suffered any personal injury, or if the plaintiffs were the people who wouldn't participate in same-sex wedding activities. If it's the latter--someone doesn't understand that losing one's business is a personal injury.