Ami Magazine Responds, Trying To Stop Same Sex "Marriage" Is Hisgaros B’umos, And One Of The Harshest Sins!

After getting a Email protesting their editorial, Ami magazine sent out this email.

Know that Ai is clearly feeling the heat (as is evidenced by their infinite number of responses on our last piece), and with a bit more push back they will succumb.  Recently someone even refused to grant them an interview (on a completely different topic) and they refused due to Ami Magazine recent editorial.

All advertisers and potential advertisers for Ami magazine, please let them know that you are now searching for alternative places to advertise, as you do not feel comfortable advertising in a magazine that  promotes homosexuality.  You are more powerful then anyone else!

If you have a subscription to Ami magazine, cancel it at subscriptions@amimagazine.org and make sure to let them know why, if not email them at info@amimagazine.org, or editorial@amimagazine.org and let them know you will no longer buy their magazine because they support apikorsus!

Ami Magazine "Paskens" It's Assur To Oppose Same Sex "Marriage"

If you have a subscription to Ami magazine, cancel it at subscriptions@amimagazine.org and make sure to let them know why, if not email them at info@amimagazine.org, or editorial@amimagazine.org and let them know you will no longer buy their magazine because they support apikorsus!

By "Rabbi" Yitzchok Frankfurter of Ami Magazine? (with our editorial in highlights)



The recent ruling of the United States Supreme Court, which not only legitimizes abominable behavior but also impinges upon freedom of conscience and religion, has triggered much foreboding among devout people.

So this is a evil decision and one that can put Jews in danger of being persecuted against for following the Torah!

In the Orthodox Jewish community, it left the commentators either mute or uncharacteristically explicit in their analyses and condemnation. While some have mostly chosen to ignore the topic, others have been far from quiet. Time-honored traditions such as employing lashon nekiyah (clean speech) to avoid indelicate formulations (see Pesachim 3b), especially in front of impressionable children, 

The gemara in psachim is very clear that sometime you are required to not use a lashon nekiyah, especially if someone may make a mistake in halacha based on using less clear language, kal vechomer in our case where not talking about it leads one to do millions of averahs   

as well as respect for our host country, were set aside and replaced by unusually shrill denunciations of the Court for the immorality and irrationality of the justices’ reasoning.

Our country was founded upon the Constitution the allegiance of Americans (after God of course) must always be first and foremost to the Constitution, not the President, Supreme Court, or Congress.  To not accept the 10th amendment which gives marriage exclusively to the states, is to spit in the face of our host country.  It's bad enough that we had 3 Jewish judges on the court who rebeled against America by interpreting the Constitution against all it's framers, but we as loyal American Jews should not join the rebellion of against America (and worse God) !

It's important to stress that not a single person (of the 1000's) who wrote and voted on the 14th amendment, would agree with the court's interpretation of the 14th amendment!


Paradoxically, the United States Constitution, which is the first“G-dless” constitution in history, having made no mention of G-d or any dominant religion, is what has enabled G-dliness to flourish in
this country.

But the founding document of this nation the Declaration of Independence does, and using a term that clearly goes against the very concept of same sex "marriage".

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation

Declaration of Independence

Furthermore one of the main influences of the Constitution, President John Adams makes it very clear that he believes that the Constitution can only function in a religious environment!

While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. 

Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.  

Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken, and so solemnly repeated on that venerable ground, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government.

• Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, 11 October 1798, in Revolutionary Services and Civil Life of General William Hull (New York, 1848)

Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies.

• Letter to Zabdiel Adams (21 June 1776)

That the Constitution has also made it permissible to engage in idol worship as well as almost every deviant behavior under the sun is one of its unfortunate fallouts.

The Constitution allows states to ban homosexual behavior, which is why all states banned homosexual behavior for much of this nation's history.  The supreme court ruled less then 15 years ago that homosexual behavior is a "constitutional right", in another decsion that goes against the Constitution 

Still, Orthodox Jews have always thanked G-d for the strict wall of separation between church and state the Constitution erected—and with valid reason.

Would you say that regarding for $$$$ for Yeshivas?

because that  interpretation at least has some Constitutional basis.  Furthermore there are purely secular reasons to be against homosexuality, which is why even the atheistic USSR still was against homosexuality.

a few secular reason to be against homosexuality 

1. In 2013, 75% of the reported P&S syphilis cases were among men who have sex with men 
2. In 2013, in the United States, gay and bisexual men accounted for 81% (30,689) of the 37,887 estimated HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 years and older.
3. Since sheshes yimai birashis 0.00000000etc% of same sex couples had a child together

It is widely held that there is no halachic obligation to dissuade a non-Jew from transgressing any one of the seven commandments that are binding on Noahides.

The Tosfos YT strongly thinks there is based on the words of the Rambam 

תוספות יום טוב מסכת אבות פרק ג משנה יד

חביב אדם שנברא בצלם חבה יתירה וכו' שנאמר בצלם אלהים עשה את האדם - פירש"י 

חביב אדם שנברא בצלם. לכן מוטל עליו לעשות רצון קונו. ע"כ. ובכל אדם אמר 

ר"ע. וכמו שהוא הראיה שממנו הביא שהוא נאמר לבני נח לא לבני ישראל לבדם 

ורצה ר"ע לזכות את כל אדם אף לבני נח. ומאמר מלא אמר הרמב"ם בפ"ח מהלכות 

מלכים [הלכה י']. וז"ל צוה משה רבינו ע"ה מפי הגבורה לכוף את כל באי העולם 

לקבל מצות שנצטוו בני נח. וכל מי שלא יקבל יהרג והמקבל אותם הוא הנקרא גר 

תושב בכ"מ וכו' כל המקבל שבע מצות ונזהר לעשותן. הרי זה מחסידי אומות העולם 

ויש לו חלק לעוה"ב. והוא שיקבל אותן ויעשה אותן. מפני שצוה בהן הקדוש ברוך 

הוא בתורה. והודיענו ע"י מרע"ה שבני נח מקודם נצטוו בהן. אבל אם עשאן מפני 

הכרע הדעת אין זה גר תושב ואינו מחסידי אומות העולם. ולא [צ"ל אלא] 

מחכמיהם. עכ"ל. ומעתה אני תמה למה זה רחקה הדרך מן המפרשים ולא רצו ללכת בה 

לפרש דברי ר"ע שאמר מאמרו כלפי כל אדם כי אם לישראל בלבד. ונסמכו במאמרם 

ז"ל אתם קרויים אדם וכו' והרי זה דרש על דרש. ובזה נכנסו בדוחק ענין הצלם. 

ובפי' הכתוב שהביא לראיה. אבל בעיני זו הדרך דרך סלולה ומרווחת כי בא ר"ע 

להיישיר לכל באי עולם כאשר נצטוינו מפי מרע"ה כדברי הרמב"ם. ואם בכפיית חרב 

הרג ואבדן נצטוינו כ"ש בכפיית דברים. להמשיך לבם אל רצון קונם וחפץ צורם. 

יזכרם לטובה. ושהם חביבים שנבראו בצלם להורות נתן בלבם. כי זאת תורת האדם 

לעשות חוקי אלהים ומשפטיו מצד אשר הוא צוה כדברי הרמב"ם דהואיל שחבבו לבראו 

בצלמו. לכן מוטל עליו לעשות רצון קונו כפירש"י. והשתא אתי שפיר דנקט להך 

קרא. אף על פי שיש כמה מקראות הקודמים אליו שנאמר נעשה אדם בצלמנו. אבל זה 

המקרא הוא שנאמר גבי המצות שנצטוו בהם. לכך הביא לזה הכתוב שכן אמרו הש"י 

בטעם המצוה אשר צוה אותם כי בצלם אלהים עשה את האדם ולבני נח נאמר הכתוב. 

ולבני נח אמר ר"ע דבריו הללו. ואתי נמי שפיר שאמר שנברא בצלם. וחסר הנסמך 

שהוא אלהים הנאמר בכתוב. ואילו גבי בנים אמר שנקראו בנים למקום. והיינו 

טעמא שזו ג"כ מדברי התוכחה להוכיחם ולומר שהם נבראו בצלם ובאיזה צלם נבראו 

בצלם אלהים כאומר שהבריאה היתה בצלם אלהים אבל הואיל ואינם מקיימים מצותיו 

ואף על פי שאם מקיימים אינם מקיימים מפני אשר צוה אותם אלהים. הנה הם חסרים 

באמת מידיעת אלהים והכתוב שאומר בצלם אלהים עשה לומר שכן נבראו כלומר שהיא 

היתה כונת הבריאה באדם שיהא לו השגה שכלית מגעת לידיעת אלהים. אבל לפי 

שבאמת לא ידעו ולא יבינו ובחשיכה יתהלכו ולא יצאה הכונה אל הפועל מן הראוי 

שיאמר שנבראו בצלם. ולא בצלם אלהים אחרי שהכונה שהיא השגת אלהים לא נשלמה. 

ואין בהם אלא הכנה בלבד. ואותה ראוי להקרא צלם בלתי הנסמך שהוא אלהים. זה 

נראה לי בפי' מאמר ר"ע. ולפי זה מדוקדק יפה המשנה שאחר זו הכל צפוי וכו' 

כמו שאבאר שם בס"ד. ועוד שגם בזה יש ג"כ חבה יתירה נודעת בישראל שאע"פ שכבר 

חבבם כמו לכל אדם בצלם אלהים אשר עשהו בו. אעפ"כ לא זז מחבבן עוד ביתר שאת 

ויתר עז שנקראו בנים למקום. וזה שאת ומעלה יתירה. ובכלי חמדה היא התורה אשר 

נתן להם. וזהו עוז. כענין שנאמר (תהלים כ"ט) ה' עוז לעמו יתן. [שדרשוהו ז"ל 

בפרק פרת חטאת [בזבחים דף קט"ז] על התורה]:

שנאמר בנים אתם לה' אלהיכם - ולא הביא מקרא (שמות ד') בני בכורי ישראל שהוא 

קודם. לפי שאותו מקרא אפשר לפרשו על אותו הדור בלבד שרצה להוציאם ממצרים הם 

שחבבם להוציאם ממצרים וקראם בני. ומנלן לדורות הבאים. לכך הביא זה המקרא. 

שנאמר אצל מצות שנצטוינו בה לדורי דורות עד עולם חוק ולא יעבור לא תתגודדו 

וגו' שהם חובות הגוף הנוהגים בכל מקום ובכל דור ודור. וקראם בנים. כך נ"ל. 

ובמדרש שמואל פי' בשם החסיד ז"ל שלכך הביא זה המקרא לפי שבו הודיע לישראל 

בעצמם שהם בנים. כמ"ש בנים אתם וגו'. וכן לעיל בצלם אלהים עשה את האדם 

הודיע לבני האדם בעצמם. וכן לקמן בלקח טוב נתתי לכם ע"כ. וזה יצדק לפי' 

הרמב"ם בחבה יתירה נודעת. אבל לפי' הר"ב דלא דייק נודעת להם. אלא נודעת 

כלומר גלויה לכל. אין הראיה מצד שנאמר להם אלא שנגלה ומפורסם לכל באי עולם 

יצדק יותר מה שפירשתי:

None of the commandments designed to deter a Jew from sinning (except for the prohibition of “lifnei iveir,” where one assists a Noahide to violate a Noahide law) is generally thought to apply to Noahides.

Voting for candidates that support breaking the sheva mitzvos is lifnay iver.  Furthermore many if not most poskim hold there is lifnei dilinfay for Benay Noach, meaning that voting for these candidates have a tremendous number of averas in 1 second.  Believe it or not many Jews live America and are going to sin based on these laws (including those who consider themselves Orthodox).  As a side note if God decides to punish America because of these laws, we will also be punished (oy lirasha, oy lishchana).

The beis hamikdash was destroyed because we did not go lifnim mishuras hadin.  Based on many chazals it's clear that Jews are judged based on the behaviors of goyim when we can have influence.  In fact as the Radak writes in Yeshaya the reason we are called a Ohr Ligoyim is precisely because we should try and get the whole world to follow the 7 mitzvos and act in a proper matter. 

We must always remember the reason that God Choose Avraham is precisely because he stood up to the entire world and fought for God's Law, against all odds! If he was living today he would have said (and acted on such) that Jews should have been the leading advocates against homosexuality in general and especially "marriage".

Even Noach who was held accountable for not fighting against the world, would have never written anything as bad as this article (if he did so he would never even been called tzadik).

We know from Vayikra Rabbah (Achrai Mos) that gay and lesbian "Weddings" are what caused the mabul. (This is why the rainbow flag is so apropos)

Noach was punished because he didn't try to change his generation, Avraham was rewarded because he tried and did change his.

According to the psak of the Rambam (his definition of the mitzva of Din) every single Ben Noach in America is supposed to vote against pro LGBT politicians.

If that is the basic standard for non jews, the Jewish community must go way above and beyond that.

The fact that the Jewish community is not seen by the entire world, as the leading opponents of this movement, is in itself an unfortunate statement of how low we have fallen in our galus.

We are supposed to be Benay Avraham, Even the Orthodox Community is failing the responsibilities to act in a way that would be proper for a Benay Noach

Thus there is no obligation of tochachah (rebuke) with regard to a non-Jew who sins, no notion of areivus that compels collective responsibility.

But there is still a notion, The fact that 2 out of 12 of the trey asar nevim were "exclusively" for non jews should be proof enough!

And most certainly, when there is no prospect of that person, even a Jew, accepting the rebuke, halachah considers it counterproductive to chastise him.

This is only true in limited cases, Furthermore there is a difference between giving rebuke and trying to change laws

This does not mean that the framers of the Constitution were secular-minded people. Benjamin Franklin, a prominent leader at the Constitutional Convention, stated that he had “so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence that [he could] hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent and beneficent Ruler, in whom all inferior spirits live and move and have their being.”

Yet ironically, that “omnipotent, omnipresent and beneficent Ruler” conceived the Constitution without ever openly revealing Himself in it—and we should be grateful to Him for that. Other wise, any religious worship aside from Christianity might eventually have been outlawed or curtailed.

Only in your imagination!

The animated responses of a number of Orthodox commentators to the Supreme Court ruling reveal that the contemporary exilic consciousness in America, which does not share features of the old paradigm such as persecution, exclusion and alienation, is slowly starting to fade even among the devout. This repudiation of the exile mentality permeates the ferocious verbal attacks against our host country.

The attacks were not against our host country but the 5 members of the Supreme Court of which majority of them were Jewish.  Those justices overruled millions of voters throughout the country, who chose to follow God's laws as opposed to the so called "rabbi".  

Viewing the Constitution that affords them the freedom to be Jews almost as if it were a Jewish document, they are highly disturbed when the Supreme Court justices dare to interpret the Constitution from a different perspective, i.e., as if it were religiously neutral.

For the 1st hundred years no one, including the writers ever dreamt that the 14th amendment meant "that 2 men have the right to "marry" each other. The only way to get that "law" into the constitution would be to make a drasha, in fact the following dissent reads very well about this decision if you change Due Process to Equality.

A Talmudic maxim instructs with respect to the Scripture: "Turn it over, and turn it over, for all is therein." The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Aboth, Ch. V, Mishnah 22 (I. Epstein ed. 1935). Divinely inspired text may contain the answers to all earthly questions, but the Due Process Clause most assuredly does not. The Court today continues its quixotic quest to right all wrongs and repair all imperfections through the Constitution. Alas, the quest cannot succeed--which is why some wrongs and imperfections have been called nonjusticiable. In the best of all possible worlds, should judges sometimes recuse even where the clear commands of our prior due process law do not require it? Undoubtedly. The relevant question, however, is whether we do more good than harm by seeking to correct this imperfection through expansion of our constitutional mandate in a manner ungoverned by any discernable rule. The answer is obvious.

•  Anthony Scalia in CAPERTON ET AL. v. A. T. MASSEY COAL CO., INC.

Many years ago Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, wrote a letter to encourage the Jewish community to participate in the democratic process and vote: “A fundamental principle of Judaism is hakams hatov, recognizing benefits afforded us and giving expression to our appreciation. Therefore, it is incumbent upon each Jewish citizen to participate in the democratic system which guards the freedom we enjoy. The most fundamental responsibility incumbent on each individual is to.. .vote. ... By this we can express our appreciation and contribute to the security of our community.”

This letter gives expression to the exilic consciousness as few others do. It is also noteworthy for what it doesn’t say. Rav Moshe, who immigrated to the United States from Russia, never promoted the idea that the Jewish community should participate in the electoral process in order to elect politicians who would seek to impose Jewish norms and values upon the citizens of the United States. In fact, few in the religious community had such hubris.

1. R Moshe wrote that letter in right before the Reagan-Mondale election, it's clear based on the context that he was referring to Reagan, he was writing this in a non partisan way but was very clear who and what he meant.  This letter has been used for every insanity under the sun.  Supporting candidates who are trying to destroy this country morally, is not a hakaras hatov to America but a fulfillment of the pasuk (Mishlei 17)

13He who repays evil for good-evil will not depart from his house. יגמֵשִׁיב רָעָה תַּחַת טוֹבָה לֹא תָמיּשׁ תָמוּשׁ רָעָה מִבֵּיתוֹ:

2. Rav Moshe Feinstein did advocate the idea that the Jewish community should participate in the politics to impose Godly norms and values upon the citizens of the United States. This can be evidenced by the letter that he wrote urging all Jews to do everything in their power to stop the gay rights bill (which would of course include voting)

Rav Moshe's letter urging everyone to fight gay rights

3. Those norms and values were here before we got to this country people like you helped change them.  In fact if not a single Jews ever came to America the sad reality is this country would not have allowed same sex "marriage!

As G-d, speaking through the Prophet Yirmiyahu, exhorted Jews who were exiled to Babylon after the destruction of the First Temple: “Seek the peace of the city to which I have exiled you, and pray to G-d for its sake” (Yirmiyahu 29:7).

That's one of the main reasons why Jews are fighting against homosexuality precisely because we are seeking peace on America.  We know that God is fuming at America right now for allowing this avlah. Every single mekor in medrish agadah about same sex "marriage" is linked with the survival of the world.  Shalom by it's very definition can never include same sex "marriage".  The zchus of all those fighting this ruling may be the only thing that is preventing America from being destroyed.  That is why the pasuk before the one the so called rabbi quotes is about real marriages (The pasuk could have said the same point in a much less robust way).  To inform us that only a society that has normal marriages can classic ways of seeking peace be called seeking peace, but when they nullify that then new methods of seeking true peace must be called into action

6Take wives and beget sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to men, and they shall bear sons and daughters, and multiply there and be not diminished.		וקְחוּ נָשִׁים וְהוֹלִידוּ בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת וּקְחוּ לִבְנֵיכֶם נָשִׁים וְאֶת בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם תְּנוּ לַאֲנָשִׁים וְתֵלַדְנָה בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת וּרְבוּ שָׁם וְאַל תִּמְעָטוּ:

It is this approach that has sustained us throughout our long exile. It would be exceedingly tragic were we to abandon that protective shield on the eve of our Redemption.

If the entire Jewish people always followed the writers way there will never be a redemption, because we know from numerous sources that redemption will only come about through teshuva!

May we all protest Ami Magazine helping to bring about the redemption bimhara biyamanu

(note I changed the title in order to accurately reflect ami's position, they misunderstood what I was trying to say so I felt I owed it to them to clarify)

What Hobby Lobby Decision Means For Religious Liberty, When In Conflict With the Gay Agenda

What Hobby Lobby decision means for the LGBT "community"

 By Jonathan Capehart June 30 at 2:07 PM

Meshuguna Protesting The Hobby Lobby Decision

 What Hobby Lobby Decision Means For Religious Liberty, When In Conflict With the GAY Agenda

Now that we know that some corporations are run by people whose sincerely held religious beliefs must be respected even in their role as the head of corporations, the next logical question is this: Is this good for religious people when dealing with the gays? The short answer is yes and no — for now.

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores click to read the decision, the question before the court was whether corporations providing health coverage to their employees could get out of the Obamacare mandate that said policies offer post-contraceptive services the ones objected to were after fertilization because doing so would violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the company’s owners. By a decision of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court said yes.

The decision is limited in scope. The “corporations are run by people, my friend” ruling only applies “closely held corporations” Internal Revenue Service defines them as a company that “has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year.” Adding to the narrowness of the ruling was what Justice Samuel Alito said his decision wasn’t in response to the dissent.

The principal dissent raises the possibility that discrimination in hiring, for example, on the basis of race notice Alito doesn't say sexual orientation, or same sex "wedding" might be cloaked implying there are certain discriminations that are clearly religious as religious practice to escape legal sanction….Our decision today provides no such shield. The government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal.

That the majority opinion specifically warned that its opinion does not shield “employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice” is a great thing. And it should be a brake on unscrupulous employers looking to use it to justify their bigotry. But this is where the gays come in. Many folks always seem notice how the Washington Post doesn't seem to think that it's based on religion to invoke their religious beliefs when talking about and expressing their opposition to issues related to abortion or the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) "community". So, it wasn’t a far leap to fear that bosses would try to apply the same rationale to thinning their ranks of gay employees. After all, sexual orientation is not a protected class or characteristic like race is under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nor was it unwise to fear that employers would try to deny LGBT workers coverage for, say, HIV medication or hormone replacement therapy for transgender men and women notice that the washington post wants an employer to pay for this too. Alito was clear on that last point when he wrote that the majority opinion “is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate.” But that’s cold comfort bcause then the goverment can still violate the first amendment to persecute religious people for not helping a same sex "wedding.

One LGBT rights advocate and strategist I spoke with on background immediately after the ruling came down called it a “mixed bag.” While Alito makes it clear what corporations can’t do, there is recognition that that won’t stop companies from overstepping their legal bounds or affected employees from taking them to court. Another was advocate was slightly more optimistic. “The judges obviously were worried about the ‘slippery slope,’ so they drew a firm line between the contraception mandate and what they called ‘illegal discrimination,” said Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, director of social policy and politics at Third Way. “Because they specifically mentioned race but not sexual orientation, I’m sure some folks will still cite this decision in their arguments in favor of "discrimination" meaning the gays are afraid that this court decision can be used to protect religious people from being sued for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex "wedding" against the LGBT community, but it’ll be a hard legal row to hoe.”

But that’s a long-term worry for Capehart, who wrote this article compared to the millions I think he's slightly exaggerating the number of women who will lose or not get post-contraceptive care through their employer now that corporations are people.
(Washington Post) highlights are our additions

Will Hobby Lobby decision affect business owners who don't want to serve gay weddings in Oregon and Elsewhere?

Monday's Supreme Court decision on contraceptive coverage and religious beliefs could reverberate in the Oregon dispute over business owners who don't want to serve same-sex "weddings".

In its decision, the court ruled in favor of two family-owned businesses, Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby craft stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. of East Earl, Pa., that objected on religious grounds to the mandated coverage for contraception contained in the new federal health care law.

Christian conservatives who have been watching the case said the decision would help in their effort to battle state actions against businesses in Oregon click to read our previous coverage of a story like this in Oregon that don't want to serve gay "weddings".

However, a spokesman for Labor Commissioner and former state senator Brad Avakian who supported Oregon's non "discrimination" law as a senator. said the decision "did not appear" to affect state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  And Jeana Frazzini, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, also argued that it wouldn't affect "discrimination" cases involving same-sex "marriages".  In short since many liberals can interpret this decision as being in line with their twisted understanding of American Law, so will the liberal justices.

The issue of whether photographers and other wedding-related businesses can refuse to participate in same-sex "nuptials" took center stage in Oregon when state labor investigators charged early this year that Sweet Cakes Bakery in Gresham violated the state's non-discrimination law by refusing to make a cake for a lesbian couple's "wedding".

The bakery case also helped spur the Oregon Family Council to file an initiative that would have allowed individuals and businesses to opt out of serving gay weddings or commitment ceremonies if it violated their religious beliefs.  The group later dropped the initiative but says it is planning a lawsuit challenging the law.

Shawn Lindsay, a former Washington County legislator and council's legal counsel, called the decision "good news for religious freedom advocates" and said it would strengthen their case.

Meanwhile, Beaverton attorney Herb Grey, who represents the owners of Sweet Cakes, said he also planned to cite the Supreme Court decision in his defense of the couple.

Currently, the case is before an administrative law judge who will make a recommendation to Avakian. Grey said he has filed a motion asking that Avakian be disqualified from decided the case, saying he had made public statements suggesting the owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein, had violated the law.

Charlie Burr, Avakian's spokesman, said in a statement that he wouldn't comment on a pending motion, but added:

"Commissioner Avakian takes his role as a quasi-judicial decision maker seriously. We "weigh" each case on its unique "merits". As you know, our agency has found no substantial evidence in the vast majority of Oregon "Equality" Act complaints filed with our agency."

Burr also said Monday's decision "does not appear to have any impact on our ability to protect people from "discrimination" on the job because of sexual "orientation" or gender "identity"."

Frazzini agreed, pointing to language in the decision saying that it does not "provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal racial discrimination as a religious practice."

Grey argued that the decision spoke directly to family-owned businesses involving owners who have sincere religious objections to taking part in a particular activity.
-- Jeff Mapes
(oregonlive) highlights our additions

• It's for that last reason that Mark Joseph Stern at Slate thinks the ruling was "surprisingly good for gays." Many had feared that a pro-Hobby Lobby ruling would allow corporations to, say, fire gay workers on religious grounds. But Justice Alito's majority opinion specifically said that the ruling could not be used to shield "discrimination in hiring notice they keep missing the based on race" as a "religious practice to escape legal sanction," and Anthony Kennedy the most powerful man in the country "clarified" in his separate opinion that this included anti-gay discrimination. this later part is why this will only be a slight stall in the Gayization of America

(newser) highlights our additions


In short I think this new decision will only be a slight stall to continuous process of destructing this once great republic

 

Orthodox Union's Statement ?Against? Yesterday's Court Ruling

“In response to the decisions announced today by the United States Supreme Court with reference to the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8, we reiterate the historical position of the Jewish faith, enunciated unequivocally in our Bible, Talmud and Codes, which forbids homosexual relationships and condemns the institutionalization of such relationships as marriages. Our religion is emphatic in defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. Our beliefs in this regard are unalterable. up to here I like At the same time, we note that Judaism teaches respect for others and we condemn discrimination against individuals. I don't remember this gemara
We are grateful that we live in a democratic society, in which all religions are free to express their opinions about social issues and to advocate vigorously for those opinions. The reason we opt to express our viewpoint in a public forum is because we believe that our Divine system of law not only dictates our beliefs and behaviors, but also represents a system of universal morality, and therefore can stake a claim in the national discourse. That morality, expressed in what has broadly been labeled Judeo-Christian ethics, has long had a place in American law and jurisprudence.

We also recognize that no religion has the right to dictate its beliefs to the entire body politic and we do not expect that secular law will always align with our viewpoint. Ultimately, decisions on social policy remain with the democratic process, and today the process has spoken and we accord the process and its result the utmost respect.and if chas veshalom the gays win in their move to ban bris Milah would you also "respect" the results?  Speaking of process, legally this easily ranks as the worst supreme court decision ever.  Over 1000 people voted on the (5th) amendment that was cited in the court decision, Yet not only would not a single person from amongst them (including it's writers) agree with the interpretation of the Supreme Court, not a single one of them would have even agreed with same gender "marriage"!
The Orthodox Union is proud to assert its beliefs and principles in the public forum, and will continue to do so in a manner that is tolerant and respectful of all of our nation’s citizens except Orthodox Jews, but which is also authentically based upon our sacred ancient texts and time-honored traditions.” at least for most of the first paragraph!
(Orthodox Union)

Agudas Yisroel's Statement ?Against? Yesterday's Court Ruling

 Agudah becomes Poets to commemorate yesterdays court decision

“Society’s mores may shift and crumble but eternal verities exist. One is marriage, the union of a man and a woman. Its sanctity may have been grievously insulted by the High Court today, but that sanctity remains untouched.” – Agudath Israel of America

Oklahoma Senate Reaffirm Marriage Between A Man And A Woman

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - A nonbinding resolution to reaffirm marriage as a union between a man and a woman and support the federal Defense of Marriage Act has been approved in the Oklahoma Senate.

The resolution sponsored by Norman Republican Sen. Rob Standridge was quickly adopted Tuesday on a voice vote. The House passed the resolution unanimously last week, but more than a dozen representatives walked out of the chamber instead of voting.
The bill does not have the force or effect of law. Its authors say it is meant to send a message to President Barack Obama and the U.S. Supreme Court, which recently heard arguments in two cases related to same-sex marriage rights.

Rick Santorum Warns Republicans That Caving On Marriage Is Suicidal

A “chastened” U.S. Supreme Court won’t make the mistake of granting same-sex "marriage" rights, former presidential candidate Rick Santorum predicted in an interview Monday.

“I think you’ll see, hopefully, a chastened Supreme Court is not going to make the same mistake in the (current) cases as they did in Roe v. Wade,” which legalized abortion, Santorum told The Des Moines Register in a telephone interview. “I’m hopeful the Supreme Court learned its lesson about trying to predict where the American public is going on issues and trying to find rights in the Constitution that sit with the fancy of the day.”
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on two major same-sex "marriage" cases last month, and rulings are expected by June.
Santorum, a religious conservative who won the 2012 GOP Iowa caucuses by 34 votes, will be in Iowa Monday to speak at the spring fundraiser for the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition, a nonprofit group that presses for Christian principles in government.
Asked about his plans to seek the GOP presidential nomination in 2016, he said: “I haven’t made any decisions.” The father of seven said the decision would depend on his personal life and the political scene in the next election cycle.
Santorum is coming to Iowa next week to say that although some Republicans here and elsewhere are now publicly backing "marriage" rights for same-sex couples, the party will never embrace that.
“One of the things I learned from the last four years is that when you go to Iowa, people pay attention to what you say,” he said. “That’s always a gift that Iowa can bring to any person in public life. We’re going to talk about the concerns I have.”
There’s obviously “an increasing mood” on supporting gay "marriage", but “it is not a well thought-out position by the American public,” Santorum said.
Asked what he thinks about the two Midwest Republican senators who have recently backed gay "marriage", Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio and Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Santorum said some Republicans splintered off in the late 1960s and early 1970s to support abortion rights when the courts “started mucking around with pro-life statutes at the state level.”
“I’m sure you could go back and read stories, oh, you know, ‘The Republican Party’s going to change. This is the future.’ Obviously that didn’t happen,” Santorum said. “I think you’re going to see the same stories written now, and it’s not going to happen. The Republican Party’s not going to change on this issue. In my opinion it would be suicidal if it did.”
It’s healthy to talk about how the party can best communicate its message, he said, but “it’s another thing to change those foundational principles. Just because some of those things happen to be popular right now doesn’t mean the Republican Party should follow suit,” he said.