Friday, February 27, 2015

Police Officer Forced To Resign For Not Riding In Gay Parade

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A former Salt Lake City police officer who was put on leave and later made to resigned after he objected to riding in the motorcycle brigade at the front of last year's gay pride parade is speaking out against what he believes believes? newspaper bias! was a violation of his religious liberties.
Eric Moutsos, 33, said Wednesday that he was unfairly branded a bigot despite simply asking to swap roles and work a different part of the parade in June 2014. Moutsos, a Mormon, said he felt uncomfortable doing what he considered celebratory circles with other motorcycles leading the parade because of his religious views. But he said he never refused to work the parade in a police protection role as opposed to a supportive role.
"It looks like we and I are in support of this parade," Moutsos said he told superiors about being in the motor brigade. "I said I would feel the same way if this was an abortion parade. I would feel the same way if it was a marijuana parade."
In an interview with The Associated Press, Moutsos said he's coming out with his story now to be a voice in a national debate about how to safeguard religious beliefs while protecting LGBT rights.
Salt Lake Police Chief Chris Burbank said he stands behind his decision to put Moutsos on leave, saying he will not tolerate officers allowing personal biases to interfere with their propaganda work.
"It has nothing to do with religious freedom, that has to do with the hatred of those individuals and what the parade stands for, which is about unity and coming together," that sound exactly like religious freedom Burbanks said. "How can I then send that officer out to a family fight that involves a gay couple or a lesbian walking down the street?"
(AP) highlight our additions

Meanwhile, Moutsos’ attorney Bret Rawson told the AP that his client is still considering whether to pursue a religious discrimination case against the SLC PD.

SALT LAKE CITY — Eric Moutsos doesn't believe he should have to leave his personal convictions at home when he walks out the door to go to work — particularly his religious beliefs.

But his former boss, Salt Lake Police Chief Chris Burbank, says when an officer shows up to work for his department, that officer is expected to do their job. And if there is any hint that any personal biases showing this has nothing to do with police protection may get in the way of doing their assigned duties, then that's a problem.

Moutsos was placed on leave in June after allegedly trying to switch assignments to avoid participating in the city's gay pride parade. He resigned from the force after his suspension became public.

On Monday, Moutsos issued a six-page statement about that experience, the first time the former Salt Lake police officer has told his side of the story.

In light of current debate on Utah's Capitol Hill concerning legislation to balance anti-discrimination with religious freedoms, Moutsos said he felt now was an important time to speak out.

At first, he wanted to remain anonymous. But after the KSL independently verified his identity, Moutsos agreed to an interview with his name being used.

By stepping forward, Moutsos hopes all sides can agree to come together, even if they don't see eye-to-eye on every issue.

"These issues need to be addressed. There are so many good people, no matter what it is you believe," he said. "I think what's happened here is that we're just getting more divisive on this issue. (Some might say) just because you may disagree with somebody means that you hate them. And that's just not true. Because I love people. I'll take a bullet for you. I'll protect you. But I will not advocate certain things in people's lives."

In June of 2014, the Salt Lake City Motor Squad Unit was asked to participate in the Utah Pride Parade in Salt Lake City, which included performing choreographed maneuvers on motorcycles.

Moutsos, a member of the unit, was told to participate. But because of his personal beliefs, he said he felt uncomfortable doing so.

Moutsos said he had no problem performing his duty to protect and serve. The officer had previously provided security as same-sex couples flocked to the Salt Lake City-County Building to be married following a federal court ruling legalizing same-sex "marriage".

But in this case, Moutsos felt that what he was being asked to do was more for entertainment.

"I felt that by being an actual participant in the parade, I would be perceived to be supporting certain messages that were contrary to who I am," he said. "I will protect their parade. But I just don't want to be in the parade."

I felt that by being an actual participant in the parade, I would be perceived to be supporting certain messages that were contrary to who I am. I will protect their parade. But I just don't want to be in the parade.
–Eric Moutsos

Moutsos said he sent an internal email asking to swap assignments with another officer. He said he was not opposed to providing traffic control for the parade and blocking streets for pedestrians.

But his request was denied.

"That's when I knew there was going to be a problem," he said.

Moutsos told his supervisor he was still willing to be part of the parade and sent an email saying he'd be ready for practice and to participate in the parade itself.

"Two days later I was brought into one of the commander's offices. They took my badge and my gun for "discrimination". My sergeant then drove me home and took all of my equipment, said I could not perform as a police officer. I thought I was in a dream. I was devastated," he said.

Two days after being placed on administrative leave, Moutsos' story became worldwide news. Moutsos said he was immediately branded a "bigot" by bigots and knew he would no longer be able to work in Salt Lake City. He resigned from the department a short time later.

"I didn't know what I was going to do. I didn't think anyone would touch me," he said.

Since then, Moutsos has been hired by another Utah law enforcement agency. But he said the past six to seven months have been a "battle."

"I wanted to just hide," he said. "I think about it every single day. I haven't been able to sleep a full night's sleep."

Now Moutsos wants the public to know that reports saying he refused to work the parade were inaccurate.

"I have protected free speech events several times that I disagreed with. But I will protect them. I believe in the First Amendment — so much that even if I disagree with a particular message, I will still be there to protect it. Because without them being able to say what they want to say, I wouldn't be able to say what I want to say.

"It wasn't about protection or security. What I felt was that, 'You are going to be a participant and look like you advocate this particular cause. And I don't,'" he said. "We should be there to protect everybody's rights. But I felt the participation was a little much."

Moutsos believes his request to switch assignments was blown out of proportion and could have been resolved quickly and quietly internally.

Burbank, however, said Moutsos resigned before internal affairs investigators had a chance to sit down and talk about it.

However, the chief said, once there's a hint of bias against perverse behivor in his department unless it's against religon, he will address it immediately.

"I will not tolerate bias, bigotry or hatred in the organization except against religious people in which case bigotry is mandatory," he told the KSL Tuesday. "In order to be a police officer, you are to do the duties as assigned. And those duties cover a broad range of activities.

"With police officers — and this is the problem across the nation right now — you have to be able to do your job and set your personal feelings aside in order to equally distribute law enforcement and good will good will meaning endorsing homosexuality from the police department no matter where you are in this country, to every individual regardless of their religion, their race, their creeds, what gender they are or what sexual orientation they might be," he said.

Once someone outwardly expresses bias towards an individual or group like going to shul on parshas achrai mos and kedoshim, Burbank said, "how are you ever going to limit the liability and the exposure that you give to the public for someone who may be in plain bias? How can they ever say, 'No, I never let it come into play when it came into play in other aspects of their job so I guess Chief Burbank can't be trusted to do his job in protecting religious people?'"

Moutsos has a message to the LGBT community: "I say to them that I love you. I probably agree with 95 percent of your life or more. And I wish we could find the things that we do agree with and build from there. But there are just certain messages that I will never advocate."

One of the statements that Moutsos said hurt him the most was when he was told to leave his personal beliefs at home.

"I don't think there's a possible way that I could be a police officer and check that at home. Because I desperately need my faith — especially in this line of work," he said. "And I believe that's not what America was intended to do. Everybody says that the separation of church and state means you can't talk about God anywhere. But all that really means is the government can't force you to believe a certain belief. And I truly believe I should be able to think and talk and be who I am wherever I'm at."

Burbank acknowledged that officers frequently ask to switch shifts with each other. "But you have to ask yourself, 'What are you really thinking if you're going to put forth that view to other people in the police department and to the administration of the police department? Are you really fit to be a police officer? That calls into question someone's judgment if you ask me," he said.  I wonder of the a Holocaust survivor police officer should have been forced to lead the march in Skokie? 

"To actually say or indicate that that's the reason, then that's also a question of judgment that I have. They're not setting their personal feelings aside. Everyone comes to this job with bias and prejudice. But in order to do the job appropriately, you need to be able to set that aside or otherwise you're not going to do that job for me.

"I'm not asking him to do this on his own time. This is on the police department time, representing the police department," Burbank continued, giving emphasis to the last three words. "What the officers choose to do on their own time is one thing. But what they choose to do at work, I'm going to give direction, and you set your personal feelings aside. It's the only way we can function best."
( highlights our additions

the original story

SALT LAKE CITY — A Salt Lake police officer has been placed on leave for refusing an assignment at this weekend's gay pride parade.

"We don't tolerate so called bias and bigotry in the department, and assignments are assignments," said department spokeswoman Lara Jones.

The officer is on paid administrative leave as the internal affairs unit reviews the situation, Jones said. He had been given a traffic control and public safety assignment, and he's the subject of an internal investigation.

"Clearly the officer chose to act in a very bigoted way so not endorsing homosexuality is now called bigotry but punishing religious people for following religion is not bigotry?, and that does put his duties question," said Steven Ha, executive director of the Utah Pride Center. "

Ha said he would like to see review into whether officers are properly trained to serve and protect everyone equally.

"We must ask the review these police policies and standard practices," Ha said. "I think it's on the minds of any reasonable individual in all communities to question that."

The department has provided services at the Utah Pride Festival since its inception, as well as a host of other community events.

"We serve a variety of community events with similar functions, and to allow personal opinion to enter into whether an officer will take a post is not something that can be tolerated in a police department," Jones said.

Additionally, members of the Salt Lake City Police Department have marched in past Utah Pride parades, including Chief Chris Burbank who marched last year.

Burbank will be out of town this weekend, but three deputies will march in the parade Sunday, and the department's outreach and recruitment booth will be set up at the Utah Pride Festival on Saturday, Jones said.

"We have gay men and women who serve in the police department, and we are fully supportive and committed to, as Chief Burbank has made quite clear and his record speaks to, the city's nondiscrimination policy," Jones said. "The vast majority of officers understand when they put on the badge and come to work, they leave their personal opinions at home and come to serve the community in a propaganda facility."

Utah Pride Center spokeswoman Deann Armes issued a statement Friday thanking the department for its stance.

"Our goal is to make sure that police training in homosexuality and certification includes policies and oaths to ensure that all officers are committed to providing equal service and treatment of all citizens and marching in gay parades. Clearly, bigotry is alive and well, and our attorney general upholding discrimination by fighting "marriage" "equality" is not helping to reduce discrimination by our police officers," the statement said.

A 10th Circuit judge ruled last month against a Tulsa, Oklahoma, police captain who filed a civil rights complaint when his department required some officers to attend a law enforcement appreciation event at a local mosque if there wasn't a sufficient number of volunteers. The officers were not required to attend the mosque's prayer service.

The police captain was transferred to another division and an internal affairs investigation was launched, according to court documents.

Members of the Islamic society put on the event to thank the department for protecting them after them after threats were made against them. An estimated 150 officers volunteered to attend the event after the captain launched his complaint.
( highlights our additions

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

We have the power to amend policies... Metzitzah B'peh in NYC

"The administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio, under pressure from ultra-Orthodox rabbis, is set to ease New York City’s regulations on a controversial circumcision ritual that has been linked to herpes infections in infants."

"Administration officials on Tuesday announced a new policy that they described as a compromise between reducing health risks for infants and protecting the religious freedoms of those who cherish the ritual, known as metzitzah b’peh, or oral suction."

"The policy, which must be approved by the city’s Board of Health, involves a series of medical tests when a baby is found to have herpes. A circumciser who is proved through a DNA match to have the same herpes strain as the baby’s would be banned for life from the practice."

"Mr. de Blasio, a Democrat, views ultra-Orthodox New Yorkers as a key political constituency, and he pledged to rescind the consent rule on the first day of his administration." (New York Times)

This demonstrates that all it takes is a little pressure from constituents and policies will be changed in our favor.

Rabbi Levin Was Right, Critics Were Wrong

Every single thing he said 29 years ago came true

How correct were his opponents opinions

Monday, February 23, 2015

Why Gay Adoption Is Worse Than Murder

גדול המחטיאו יותר מן ההרגו

Thank You Williamsburg, Flatbush, Borough Park, Monsey/New Square, and 5 Towns for gay adoption

assembly gay adoption vote

assemblymember that voted the wrong way and has a decent sized Orthodox Jewish Community
assemblymember that voted the wrong way and has a big enough Orthodox Jewish Community that are clearly responsible for their actions
assemblymember that voted the wrong way who claims to be Orthodox

S01523A07/01/2010 95/44
AlessiYCamaraNOEspaillYHyer SpYMayersoYPowellYSpanoY
BacalleNOChristeNOGabryszYJordanNOMill JMNORamosYTitoneY
BallNOClarkYGalefYKavanagYMill MGYReilichNOTitusY
BarraNOConteNOGianariYKolbNOMolinarNORive J YTownsY
BarronYCookERGibsonNOKoonYMontesaNORive N YTownsenNO
BenedetYCorwinNOGiglioNOLancmanYMorelleYRive PMYWeinsteY
BrennanYDelMontERHawleyNOLope PDNOO'MaraNOSaywardYMr SpkrY
BrodskyYDenDekkYHayesNOLope VJYOrtizYScarborY
Brook KYDestitoYHeastieYLupardoYParmentYSchimelY

state senator that voted the wrong way and has a decent sized Orthodox Jewish Community
state senator that voted the wrong way and has a big enough Orthodox Jewish Community that are clearly responsible for their actions
Senate vote on gay adoption
VOTE: FLOOR VOTE: - Jun 24, 2010
Ayes (40): Adams, Addabbo, Alesi, Breslin, Dilan, Duane, Espada, Flanagan, Foley, Fuschillo, Hassell-Thomps, Huntley,Johnson C, Klein, Krueger, Kruger, Lanza, LaValle, Little, Marcellino, Montgomery, Onorato, Oppenheimer, Padavan, Parker,Peralta, Perkins, Robach, Sampson, Savino, Schneiderman, Serrano, Smith, Squadron, Stachowski, Stavisky, Stewart-Cousins, Thompson, Valesky, Winner
Nays (21): Aubertine, Bonacic, DeFrancisco, Diaz, Farley, Golden, Griffo, Hannon, Johnson O, Larkin, Leibell, Libous, Maziarz,McDonald, Nozzolio, Ranzenhofer, Saland, Seward, Skelos, Volker, Young
Excused (1): Morahan

With a "mother" like this is there any doubt she will grow up to be a pervert

This is an unedited Washington Post editorial

I’m gay. And I want my kid to be gay, too.
By Sally Kohn February 20

Sally Kohn is an essayist and a CNN political commentator.

I live in the liberal bubble of Park Slope, Brooklyn, where no yuppie would ever admit to wanting their kid to be anything in particular, other than happy. But more often than not, we define happiness as some variation on our own lives, or at least the lives of our expectations. If we went to college, we want our kids to go to college. If we like sports, we want our kids to like sports. If we vote Democrat, of course we want our kids to vote Democrat.

I’m gay. And I want my kid to be gay, too.

Many of my straight friends, even the most liberal, see this logic as warped. It’s one thing for them to admit that they would prefer their kids to be straight, something they’ll only begrudgingly confess. But wanting my daughter to be a lesbian? I might as well say I want her to grow up to be lactose intolerant.

“Don’t you want her to be happy?” one friend asked. Perhaps he just meant that it’s easier to be straight in a homophobic culture. But this attitude complies with, even reinforces, that culture in the first place. A less-charitable interpretation is that he thinks being straight is superior. When I was a teenager, my father cautioned me against marrying a black person. “I’m just trying to protect you,” he said. But it was impossible to know whether he meant to insulate me from the world’s bias or implicitly rationalize his own.

The idea that no one would choose to be gay is widely held — even in the gay rights movement. In the early ’90s, partly as a response to the destructive notion that gay people could be changed, activists pressed the idea of sexuality as a fixed, innate state. Scientists even tried to prove that there’s a “gay gene.” These concepts about sexual orientation helped justify the case for legal protections. The idea that folks are “born gay” became not only the theme of a Lady Gaga song, but the implicit rationale for gay rights.

“I wouldn’t even choose for myself to be gay,” a friend once told me. It was a sad admission, because she was.

Once upon a time, of course, “gay” meant “happy.” But eventually, the synonyms grew apart. Gay became an unfortunate, even pitiable status. When the gay liberation activist Franklin Kameny launched a simple effort in 1968 to proclaim that “gay is good,” it was because, at the time, it very much wasn’t. Until 1973, the American Psychological Association considered homosexuality a form of mental illness. And while gay-positive culture has flourished since, our aspirations haven’t kept pace. It’s more widely acceptable to be gay in America today, but that’s not the same as being desirable. In my house, though, it is.

Here you might expect me to say something about how, if my daughter were gay, she would undoubtedly face challenges and hurdles she wouldn’t encounter if she were straight. Maybe. And maybe if I weren’t an upper-middle-class white lesbian living in a liberal city, I’d have such worries. But no matter what, I’d want my child to be herself. If I lived in, say, North Carolina, with an adopted son from Morocco, I’d like to think I would encourage him to be Muslim, if that’s what he chose. I’d do this even though his life would probably be easier if he didn’t. It’s also easier to succeed as a dentist than an artist. But if my daughter wants to be an artist, I’ll encourage her all the way — and work to destroy any barriers along her path, not put them up myself.

Plus, I’ve never for a single second regretted being gay, nor saw it as anything other than an asset and a gift. My parents were ridiculously supportive from Day One, and I had a great community of friends and mentors who made me feel unconditionally accepted. By the time my daughter comes of age, she’ll have even more of a support network, including two moms, for crying out loud.

More than that, though, being gay opened my eyes to the world around me. Learning that not every gay person had it as good as I did helped me realize that a lot of people in general didn’t have it as good as I did. I wouldn’t be a politically engaged human being, let alone an activist, writer and TV personality, if I weren’t gay.

If my daughter is gay, I don’t worry about her having a hard life. But I do worry about people expecting her to have a hard life — helping to perpetuate discrimination that might otherwise fade more quickly. I want my daughter to know that being gay is equally desirable to being straight. The problem is not the idea that homosexuality could be a choice but the idea that heterosexuality should be compulsory. In my house it’s plainly, evidently not. We’ve bought every picture book featuring gay families, even the not-very-good ones, and we have most of the nontraditional-gender-role books as well — about the princess who likes to fight dragons and the boy who likes to wear dresses.

When my daughter plays house with her stuffed koala bears as the mom and dad, we gently remind her that they could be a dad and dad. Sometimes she changes her narrative. Sometimes she doesn’t. It’s her choice.

All I ultimately care about is that she has the choice and that whatever choice she makes is enthusiastically embraced and celebrated.

Time will tell, but so far, it doesn’t look like my 6-year-old daughter is gay. In fact, she’s boy crazy. It seems early to me, but I’m trying to be supportive. Recently, she had a crush on an older boy on her school bus. She was acting as any precocious, socially awkward child would, which is to say not very subtle. I confided in a friend who has an older daughter. “She wants to give this kid a card and presents,” I e-mailed. “The other kid is so embarrassed. It’s painful to watch. What do I do?”

My friend wrote back with a slew of helpful advice, ending with a punch to my gut: “Bet it wouldn’t bother you so much if her crush was on a girl.”

She was right. I’m a slightly overbearing pro-gay gay mom. But I’m going to support my daughter, whatever choices she makes.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Canadian Doctors Who Refuse To Help Kill Patients Could Face Disciplinary Actions

The issue of physician assisted assisted dying is of course a new issue, but the expectation would be that physicians will follow the directions which come from the College of Physicians and Surgeons which are going to be established of course by their colleges as part of the expectations of practice, so If a physician feels the directives are wrong, they will still, we would expect, they will still follow those directives                 Bryan Salte associate registrar of College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan

Saskatchewan doctors could face discipline over assisted suicide

SASKATOON – Doctors in the province of Saskatchewan who refuse to cooperate with physician-assisted suicide could face discipline according to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan.

That means a doctor who believes suicide is wrong murder would still have to refer a patient to a doctor who would help them kill themselves. which is clearly a yehorag veal yavor

While the college has not come up with policies around assisted suicide, it is circulating a draft policy on conscientious refusal. It says while doctors can refuse to provide a legally provided service if it violates their freedom of conscience, they do have to make a referral to another health care provider who will do it.“If a physician feels the directives are wrong, they will still, we would expect, they will still follow those directives,” said Bryan Salte, associate registrar of the college, “in spite of the fact they may not agree with them and consider it murder.”

“Certainly with any physician we try to work with them to see if there is any mutually because liberals have the right to tell you what you feels is important  acceptable solution,” said Salte. “But if there are physicians who engage in behavior which is regarded by the liberal murderers as unacceptable or unprofessional in short not helping out in a suicide then that is a possible outcome,” he said.

That could become a problem for doctors who want nothing to do with killing a patient.

Dr. Philip Fitzpatrick, a Saskatoon family doctor and ER physician, says physician assisted suicide flies in the face of a doctors’ commitment not to cause harm to patients.

“This is a bit of a red line because as physicians we’re not supposed to be partaking in anything that might harm our patients,” he told Global News on Tuesday. “Definitely for me participating in an assisted suicide would be harming my patient – even a referral for that would make me culpable for that.”

Salte admits coming up with a compromise is going to be difficult because the left not only wants murder but they want you to be a murderer.

“There’s a broad range of beliefs out there, there’s a broad range of perspectives out there,” he said. “What the draft policy talks about is a compromise meaning doctor will be placed in a yeehorag ve al yavoer situation between the extreme position and what is his understanding of the "extreme position as you can hear further on the video "which would be that physicians are compelled to provide this (assisted suicide) services on one side, and the other extreme position is that simply refuse to discuss with their patients what is going to become a legal procedure (assisted suicide).”

A week ago, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the law prohibiting physician assisted suicide in Canada – but left a one year ban in place to give groups like the college time to put rules in place. Salte adds if Ottawa comes up with a law that is yehorag veal yaavor in the meantime, doctors will be expected to follow it.

“There’s a lot of consultation that is going on,” he said. “I was just as a national meeting, and that was a fairly significant subject associated with it.”

Fitzpatrick said he has talked to a number of doctors who are troubled by the ruling.

“Admittedly there is debate on life issues,” he said. “But once you look at this policy, once I’ve discussed it with my colleagues there is almost universal disagreement about this, this is definitely a bad idea for physicians.”

Salte says this has been one of the more difficult issues the college has had to deal with.

“Anytime you have people who believe very strongly ethically about certain issues and certainly we’ve dealt with that with birth control, we’ve dealt with that with abortion, we’ve dealt with that, with the morning after pill … very gray areas, and people feel very strongly about them and feel ethically the other side is just completely wrong,” said Salte.

“So trying to reconcile some of those, and trying to find ways you can impose as little as possible on the rights and obligations of some part of civilization while at the same time imposing as little as possible on the other side is a difficult compromise.”  in short compromising with liberals is like compromising with Islamic terrorists
(globalnews) highlights our additions

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Former Borough Park State Senator Sponsors Assisted "Suicide" Bill

This bill is not the same bill as the assembly version, which may show that Savino/Hoylman and Linda Rosenthal are not working in conjunction with each other.

Both bill share some of the same evils (besides the overall concept) like allowing 1 of the 2 witnesses (that sign a form that the patient really wants to commit suicide) to be what they consider to be a biased party (relative or hospital worker).  Both bills don't consider someone who works for the patient's medical insurance company to be a biased witness!  Both bills do not mandate under all circumstancespsychological examination

both bills have evils that the other bill doesn't have.

for example in the assembly bill it says this when referring to the witnesses (the witness in this subsection is allowed to be the "non biased" witness) allowing the long term health care facility to appoint both witnesses (the other could be an employ)
the senate version of this bill does not have this evil clause.
another example of the assembly bill being worse then the senate bill is that the assembly bill allows the consulting physician to be one of the witnesses 

senate version

assembly version

an example of the senate version being worse then the assembly version is the senate version forces doctor to falsify the death certificate which Forensic Pathologist in NJ said you [legislators] have taken forensic pathologists out of the picture” in this proposed law process, “so you will never know whether the death was coerced or voluntary” suicide.

the senate bill includes this evil law

Sen. Diane Savino sponsors bill to allow end-of-life law for terminally ill patients

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- Defending what she described as a "basic human right," state Sen. Diane Savino who Borough Park helped elect has sponsored a bill to allow terminally ill adults in New York to end their life commit suicide, notice they can not even say the word suicide with the aid of medication.

The bill, called the New York End of Life Options Act the assembly version is called "death with dignity" liberals are very good at influencing public opinion by changing the names pro abortion turns in to "pro choice" same sex "marriage" turned into "marriage equality" and these bills are called such nice names as "aid in dying" "death with dignity" and end of life options", would allow a mentally competent which is only determined by a psychiatric examination if the patients doctor mandates it, terminally ill patient to request a prescription to end their life if their suffering becomes unbearable or even if they are not in any pain as there is no section in the bill that has anything to do with pain.

The patient's physician could prescribe "medication that the patient can self-administer which no one would ever know if it wasn't self administered to bring about a "peaceful" and "humane" death"  implying that living till God decides to take their life is not humane, as Rav Moshe Soloveichik said that if these bills pass this would be considered the "humane" approach and other methods like life, would be considered inhumane with all it's implications including the medical insurance companies, the bill states.

R Moshe Soloveitchik on Massachusetts's assisted suicide referendum 

The end-of-life rights of terminally ill patients became a national debate when Californian Brittany Maynard was diagnosed with a deadly form of brain cancer. Given six months to live, she decided to move to Oregon, where there is an end-of-life law otherwise known murder.

The 29-year-old ended her life in November with the assistance of physician-prescribed drugs.

The law that Ms. Savino (D-North Shore/Brooklyn) and co-sponsor state Sen. Brad Hoylman (D-Manhattan) have drafted would require that two doctors diagnose a patient as terminal and two witnesses WHICH CAN BOTH BE EMPLOYEES OF THE PATIENTS MEDICAL INSURANCE COMPANY must confirm that the patient's request for the drugs is voluntary without a psychological examination.

Physician participation in prescribing the drugs is "voluntary "and the law would protect doctors from civil or criminal liability and other disciplinary action for fulfilling a patient's request.

"The option to end one's suffering when facing the final stages of a terminal illness should be a basic human right and more important than killing a patient who may not want to commit suicide, and not dependent upon one's ZIP code," Ms. Savino said. "With solid support for aid in dying notice how nice they make it sound how many people will mistake it for aid to the dying across every demographic how about religious?, I believe there will be strong bipartisan backing for this bill."  unfortunately this part may be true thanks to "moral" people voting republican blindly without realizing that some Republicans are worse then democrats.

The senator's bill is modeled after the Oregon law and other states where aid in dying is allowed in Oregon where medicaid refused to pay for chemotherapy but paid for poison.

Besides Oregon, aid in dying is authorized in Washington where only 3% of patients have a psychological examination, Montana, Vermont and New Mexico.

Since hearing of Ms. Maynard's case, lawmakers have introduced similar bills, or plan to so, in many other states, including California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Wyoming and Washington, D.C. New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts have introduced these bill before that.  all together this covers more than 90% of Orthodox Jews in America

Compassion & Choices who's founder Derek Humphry wrote a guide book on how to commit suicide that actually led to be people committing suicide, a nonprofit patients' rights group that advocates for end-of-life choices, has been pushing for lawmakers to sponsor bills for end-of-life laws.
Several years ago I got a call from a suburban police officer who sounded close to distraught.

He and his partner had just finished coming from the apparent suicide of a young woman who died of carbon monoxide poisoning in her family`s garage.
Among the young woman`s possessions, the officer had found a book. The book was called ``Let Me Die Before I Wake.`` 
``The book appears to be a guide to how to commit suicide,`` the officer said. ``It appears that the young woman may have read it before she killed herself.``
He wanted to know if such a book was legal. He said that it was written by a man named Derek Humphry, who was affiliated with something called the Hemlock Society. The police officer didn`t know if this was some sort of a cult, or what: ``It just seems wrong that people can read this stuff and learn how to kill themselves.``
(Chicago Tribune)

"As a key member of the Independent Democratic [Conference] in the New York State Senate, Sen. Savino is well positioned to gain bipartisan support for New York's aid in dying bill," said Barbara Coombs Lee, president of Compassion & Choices. so the jewish community in the 5 towns must tell Skelos if this bill passes they will vote him out of office

( highlights our additions

Hoylman said Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) hasn’t indicated whether he’d support the bill. Cuomo’s office did not respond to a Huffington Post request for comment.

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Court Could Force Bakery To Pay $150,000+ For Refusing To Make Same Sex "Wedding" Cake

A hearing in March will determine the amount of damages Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman (now Bowman-Cryer) receive. The married couple are seeking $75,000 each for “emotional, mental, and physical suffering,” along with reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses,according to the Bureau of Labor and Industries report.

Oregon bakery will have to pay lesbian couple up to $150,000 plus reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses for refusing to make "wedding" cake for a same sex "Wedding" based on their religion
This can cost these 2 bakers more than $150,000 (court decision)
A lesbian couple filed a discrimination suit against the Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery in Gresham when the owners refused to make them a wedding cake, citing their obvious religious beliefs. The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries determined on Monday that the bakers "discriminated" against the couple showing once again that gay "rights" trump religious rights.

from the summary of the court decision, worthy of impeaching him

An Oregon bakery will have to pay a gay "couple" up to $150,000 plus reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses for refusing to violate their religion and bake them a "wedding" cake two years ago, government officials announced Monday.

The Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery in Gresham caught heat in January 2013 when Laurel Bowman said the shop refused to make a cake for her and her fiancée, citing religious objections. Bowman said the co-owner, Aaron Klein, called the gay marriage “an abomination unto the lord,” KGW reported.

Bowman filed a discrimination complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries months later, and the group said on Monday last week it was ruling against the bakery.

Now the bakers could pay up to $75,000 each to Bowman and her "fiancée", with the final amount to be determined in March .

The Bureau of Labor said in a statement that it provides some exemptions in such cases for religious groups, but the bakery didn’t count as one just because of its owners’ beliefs because only organizations have religious rights (for now in a few years they may loose them)
court decision only protects religious institutions

Very important section to understand why this happened
When gay rights laws around the country were designed many religious "leaders" only put in religious exemptions for themselves while allowing private citizens to suffer the consequences.  Back in June '11 when NY State was trying to pass same sex "marriage", instead of Agudas Yisroel lobbying senators to stop the "marriage" bill,  (I was told by an Orthodox Jew who was lobbing in Albany against the bill the 2 weeks before it passed that he didn't see a single person from any of the mainstream organizations his whole time there, He also said that Shmuel Lefkowitz told him that he wasn't lobbying to hard against the bill because he though it was going to pass) Aguda met with Governor Andrew Cuomo (this was confirmed by Chaim Dovid Zweibel) in order to put in protections for religious organizations helping this evil bill pass.   After the "marriage" bill came out the "Orthodox" Union released this insane statement (which I'm sure Agudah agrees with though can't state for political reasons)
Consistent with our tradition and Jewish religious principles, we oppose the redefinition of marriage and the state sanction of same sex marriages. We opposed this legislation and believe it is a mistake to enact it in New York. We do note however that the legislation, as enacted, includes robust protections of religious liberties for organizations including synagogues, schools and social service agencies. For that at least, we are grateful. Just as we, in a democratic, pluralistic society do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others, same sex marriage, now the law in New York, must not infringe on anyone’s religious liberties. Sadly, in too many states, those acting on their religious beliefs have seen government benefits withheld, government funds, contracts and services denied and privileges such as tax exemptions revoked. New York’s law ensures that will not happen here and employers, social service providers and houses of worship are free to uphold their faith.
We are particularly thankful to the well meaning and passionate advocates on both sides of this issue who recognized the need for such far reaching exemptions. In particular, we thank Governor Cuomo, a staunch supporter of the bill and Senate Majority Leader Skelos, a firm opponent, who worked together to find common ground here. As well, we are grateful to Speaker Silver for agreeing to take up the legislation a second time in the Assembly to ensure these protections were in the final legislation. (OU press

If the NY "Marriage" bill was never taken up a second time it would never have passed (both the senate and the assembly have to pass the same version of the bill and the senate would not pass the assembly's version).  The bill passed the senate by 2 votes and those religious organization exemptions  that agudah fought for were critical to those 2 senators voting for the bill.  (even the New York Times admitted that) it's very likely that if no religious organization (Jewish (Agudah) or Christian) praised the religious exemptions the bill would have failed

Yet we found that those religious exemptions were worthless for individuals like religious farm owners in upstate New York who declined a lesbian couple’s request to hold a "wedding" ceremony on their property have been fined $10,000 and ordered to pay the women $1,500 each.

The bakery shut its doors at the end of 2013 , but the owners continued doing private orders, including one for an anti-gay ministry this is where the daily news put in irrelevant information to make sure that people side with the lesbians . It also continued running a Facebook page under the Sweet Cakes name.

It posted a statement on the page Tuesday: “Even though it seems as if we are being thrown into the Lions den. We will continue to stand for the Lord, our faith will not waiver. We fully trust in our heavenly father. He is able to deliver us from this, but even if He doesn't we are not going to compromise on God's truth in order to appease man.” how come Agudah can't say such a statement

The statement has received more than 3,000 likes. now at 4000
If you have facebook (click this) press like the statement

Last year, the Civil Rights Commission in Colorado ordered a baker to fulfill an order he refused to a same-sex couple. Another baker in Colorado is now being investigated for discrimination after she refused to write anti-gay messages on a customer’s cake.
The person in Colorado had this to say in response to these gay terrorists 

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.”

(Daily News) highlights our additions

A hearing in March will determine the amount of damages Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman (now Bowman-Cryer) receive. The "married" couple are seeking $75,000 each for “emotional, mental, and physical suffering,” along with reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses,according to the Bureau of Labor and Industries report.

The Kleins shut down their storefront later in 2013 due to the media attention from the case and what Aaron Klein described as a backlash from gay activists. At one point, someone even vandalized their bakery truck. Melissa Klein still bakes cakes from her home for friends.

Harmon, the attorney, said the case’s key element is that Melissa Klein was sculpting customized wedding cakes intended to celebrate specific ceremonies. “We’re not just talking about a bakery where you’re stirring together flour and water and sugar and handing somebody a cupcake,” she said. “She’s creating art. She’s designing things for an event.”

No Americans should have to choose between closing their business and following their religious convictions, Harmon said.
(world mag)

"First Amendment, Constitution. Freedom of religion. I'm free to exercise my religion however I see fit," Aaron Klein said. "If I'm told to make a wedding cake for a same sex marriage, I feel that I'm violating my beliefs. I don't think I should have to do that."


Public backlash caused the bakery closing its doors at the end of 2013 to turn into an ‘in home bakery’, but not without leaving a note reading ‘This fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong. Your Religious Freedom is becoming not Free anymore‘, according to reports.
(gay star news)

The owners of an Oregon bakery who declined to make a cake for a same-sex couple’s "wedding" celebration were found guilty last week of violating the state’s anti-discrimination law.
The bakery owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein of Sweet Cakes By Melissa, contend they were adhering to their Christian beliefs that marriage is between a man and a woman.

On Monday, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries announced the couple will have to pay up to $150,000 plus reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses for violating the Oregon Equality Act of 2007.

According to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, the exact amount will be determined at a follow-up hearing on March 10.

In an earlier interview with The Daily Signal, Aaron said the fine would bankrupt the couple and their five children.

Although the couple maintains that their decision not to design and bake a lesbian couple’s wedding cake was grounded in their constitutionally-protected right to religion, they’re also arguing before the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries that at the time of the alleged discrimination, same-sex "marriage" wasn’t yet legalized in their state.

It wasn’t until months after the Kleins turned away Cryer and Bowman that a federal judge would declare Oregon’s amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman unconstitutional, paving the way for same-sex marriages.

Ironically, the state was in violation of its own anti-discrimination laws,” said Aaron Klein.
so the only reason they lost was because they based their decision on God and not man? (court decision

Charlie Burr, speaking for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, told Portland’s NBC KGW:

Oregonians may not be denied service based on sexual orientation or gender identity Sexual behavior, same sex weddings (both of which have nothing to do with the person). The law provides an exemption for religious organizations and schools, but does not allow private individuals businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

from the court decision (rebuttal to follow)
if this law was interpreted according to the English Language even without first amendments protections the Kleins would be allowed to deny a same sex wedding cake for a variety of reasons.

1. it's not the person they are discriminating against but the action of said person, for example it would still be legal to deny 2 homos a room (because their behavior inside the room) as opposed to a single homo because your not discriminating against the homosexual but against the behavior of homosexuality
even if they would change the law so reason 1, is eliminated
2. it would still be legal not to deny the cake, because I would deny the same cake even if the person who bought the cake was an outsider (lets say a parent of the KLALA not misspelled). and I would grant the cake to a homosexual who bought it for a normal wedding (one of the lesbos in this case previously bought a cake from the Kleins for her mothers wedding)!

Liberal insanity built untop of more liberal insanity

The biggest  rebuttal was  from the same court decision
If the only reason that this falls under the non "discrimination" law is because there is no reason to make a distinction between a person and a "wedding" then this statement makes no sense

 (daily highlights our additions

I spoke with Aaron Klein by telephone Monday night. He told me the judge’s ruling is a miscarriage of justice and an erosion of religious liberty.

They’re trying to push us into the closet for being Christians,” he said.

Klein said it’s time for Americans to take a stand for religious liberty.

The Founding Fathers said we have the inalienable rights given by God — not man,” he said. “Let’s exercise those rights.”

The Kleins’ troubles started in January 2013 when they turned away that lesbian couple. The bakers were relentlessly pummeled in the media. LGBT activists launched protests and boycotts. They tell me their small children even received death threats — simply because they chose to follow the teachings of their faith.

At some point the activists threatened to launch boycotts against any wedding vendor that did business with the Kleins. That turned out to be the death blow to their retail shop. Today, Melissa bakes cakes out of the family’s home.

The question now is how much — if anything — the Kleins will be forced to pay. Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian will decide, and history proves he’s no friend of the Christian bakers.

In 2013, Avakian told The Oregonian that it is the government’s desire was to rehabilitate businesses like the one owned by the Kleins.

“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”

Rehabilitate? He wants to ship the Christians off to a government-sanctioned re-education camp?

Aaron Klein told me there will be no reconciliation and there will be no rehabilitation. He and his wife will not back down from their Christian beliefs.

There’s nothing wrong with what we believe,” he said. “It’s a biblical point of view. It’s my faith. It’s my religion.”

Klein said the ruling, which he called “absolutely absurd,” does not surprise him.

“I’ve never seen a government entity use a law to come after somebody because they have a religious view,” he said. “I truly believe Brad Avakian is trying to send a message. I don’t think the constitution of the state of Oregon means anything to these people.”
From the court decision saying it would be a crime to go on TV and say that you will not cater a same sex "wedding

But on the plus side for Sweet Cakes owners, the agency’s prosecutors failed in their attempt to bring charges against them because they "unlawfully communicated a future intention to discriminate based on sexual orientation" in subsequent media interviews. The bureau ruled against the prosecutor on this one charge because they never formally said in an interview that they would do the same thing if it ever came up again, if they would have this false charge would have stuck and they would have been "guilty" of this blood libel also . So the couple who owns the bakery will not be fined even further just for saying that they do not agree with the law and will not comply. How charitable of the bureau.
1. A personalized wedding cake is a view in support of the "Wedding"

2. So there is no right to free speech when it's not for the public at large?