Showing posts with label freedom of religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom of religion. Show all posts

Friday, December 25, 2015

Chaplain Fired For Saying The Bible Says Homosexuality Is A Sin

Chaplin Fired

Reno juvenile hall stops preaching against homosexuality Siobhan McAndrew, smcandrew@rgj.com


(Photo: Jason Bean/RGJ)

Being gay won’t be referred to as a sin anymore at the Jan Evans Juvenile Justice Center.

The Washoe County juvenile detention center said it will now offer more "tolerant" Sunday services and Bible classes after parting ways with its longtime chaplain, who shared his views against same-sex "marriage", divorce, abortion and premarital sex.

For 15 years, Marvin Neal held the formal volunteer chaplain post at the center’s Wittenberg Hall, a jail that houses up to 100 incarcerated youths between the ages of 10 and 21 at any given time. He started volunteering at the center 25 years ago as part of the Reno Christian Fellowship. He is also a pastor at A Voice in the Wilderness Church in Reno.

Neal said on Monday he received an email terminating his services.

Detention center division director Steven Calabrese said the facility is going in a different direction and looking for a chaplain with more tolerant views to lead the center’s services, for which attendance is optional. He said the decision came after reactions to recent sermons by Neal.

Neal, 62, said the split from the center happened after a girl in one of his weekly Bible study classes asked about God’s feelings on same-sex relationships.

“I did what I often did in these situations and said, ‘Let’s read what the Bible says about that,’” Neal said.

After reading several Bible passages, the girl asked if she was going to hell, Neal said.

He said the girl left the class upset.

“If she had stayed, I would have told her, as I have done with others, that it doesn’t have to be the case. If you are willing to turn from that type of lifestyle you can be forgiven.”

Neal said directors at the center approached him with concerns.

“”They asked me not to teach that anymore and hinted that they didn’t want me to say the same thing about abortion or suicide.

“I have to tell the truth in its entirety," he said. “I would not agree to not teach what the Bible says.”

He said he was surprised the detention center director asked him to go against his beliefs and said the purpose of a chaplain is to spread the word of God.

Similar situations have popped up around the country, said John Tomandl of the American Correctional Chaplain Association and a chaplain for the New York State Correctional system.

He said some states have asked chaplains to sign papers saying they don’t believe homosexuality is a sin.

“That is a violation of the First Amendment to sign something you don’t believe, but when you work for the state, you have to honor the laws of the state.”

Tomandl, who has been a chaplain for New York State for 13 years, said a chaplain’s faith is not necessarily why a chaplain is at a correctional facility.
Washoe County's Jan Evans Juvenile Justice Center is seen in Reno


“A chaplain is expected to be there for all people of the institution and offer spiritual care,” Tomandl said. He said examples including providing comfort to those incarcerated who have lost a loved one and need grief counseling.

He said that as a state employee, he has to agree to uphold the laws of the state, including that same-sex "marriage" is legal.

He said that does not mean he can’t have his own beliefs, and if asked, can share those beliefs, but he is there to help, no matter a person’s beliefs.

“The tools I use for that don’t always start or stop at religion,” Tomandl said.

Attorney Shannan Wilber of the National Center for Lesbian Rights said the purpose of a chaplain is to provide comfort.

“What is less comforting than someone telling you something is wrong with a part of yourself you can’t change?” she said.

“The facility needs to be looking for someone who is not going to harm children in their custody,” she said. “It is very well established that any response that suggests that young people can or should try to change their sexual orientation is completely ineffective and damaging.”

Wilber said public agencies have a duty to ensure the well-being of those children, especially ones in their physical custody.

She said it doesn’t matter if church services were optional. She said the center is responsible for every person who may have contact with children.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in juvenile justice systems are at a greater risk of physical, sexual and emotional abuse in secure settings, according to the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

The child welfare foundation’s mission is to help disadvantaged kids through watchdog reporting of data. Each year, it releases Kids Count, a collection of data on child and family well-being in the United States

In September, the foundation released a report on the high numbers of youth in the juvenile justice system that face "discrimination" because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth make up a greater percentage of detained youth because social stigmas, family rejections and discrimination can lead to substance abuse, homelessness and school drop outs, according to the study.

“These risks are well-documented and devastating, driving disproportionate numbers of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth into the justice system,” said Carol Abrams of the Casey Foundation.

The foundation’s research shows that 20 percent of youth in juvenile justice facilities identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, which is three times the estimated numbers in the general population.

Abrams said the juvenile justice system stands to lead the way in improving how this group is treated.

The foundation‘s report recommends that all personnel, contractors and volunteers be prohibited from using language that demeans, ridicules or condemns this group of individuals and that there should be openness and acceptance through nonverbal and environmental cues.

It also recommends that the providers and programs are prohibited from conversion or reparative therapy or any attempt to change a youth’s sexual orientation.

Calabrese said church services have not been interrupted by the change and a new chaplain is going through a background check.

(Reno Gazette-Journal)

Notice how the AP (Associated Press) changed this story to promote a much more sympathetic version
John Tomandl, a spokesman for the American Correctional Chaplain Association, said some states ask chaplains to sign statements that they do not believe being gay is a sin.
Reno Gazette-Journal which the AP article quoted from
Similar situations have popped up around the country, said John Tomandl of the American Correctional Chaplain Association and a chaplain for the New York State Correctional system.  He said some states have asked chaplains to sign papers saying they don’t believe homosexuality is a sin. 

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Catholic School Forced To Hire Someone With A Same Sex "Wedding"



Coming to a Yeshiva near you!

Judge Rules Against Catholic School in Gay-Hiring Retraction



An all-girls Catholic prep school in Massachusetts violated state anti-discrimination law by rescinding a job offer to a man in a same-sex "marriage", a judge ruled.

Matthew Barrett was offered a job as Fontbonne Academy's food services director in 2013, but the offer was withdrawn days later after he listed his husband as his emergency contact.

Barrett sued, alleging that the Milton school discriminated against him based on sexual orientation and gender. Norfolk Superior Court Judge Douglas Wilkins agreed, rejecting Fontbonne's claim that hiring Barrett would infringe on its constitutional rights because it views his marriage to a man as incompatible with its religious mission.

The judge said Barrett's duties as a food services director did not include presenting the teachings of the Catholic church.

"As an educational institution, Fontbonne retains control over its mission and message. It is not forced to allow Barrett to dilute that message, where he will not be a teacher, minister or spokesman for Fontbonne and has not engaged in public advocacy of same-sex "marriage"," Wilkins wrote in a ruling issued Wednesday.

The judge also found that a religious exemption to the state anti-discrimination law applies only if a religious organization limits admission to people of a certain religion. Fontbonne is open to students and employees of all faiths, with the exception of its administration and theology faculty.

It was not immediately clear if Fontbonne plans to appeal the ruling. In a statement, the school said it is considering its options.

Fontbonne's attorney, John Bagley, did not immediately respond to a phone message and email seeking comment.

Barrett's attorney, Ben Klein of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said the judge has found that Fontbonne is liable to pay damages to Barrett for lost wages and compensatory damages for discrimination. A hearing has not yet been scheduled.

""Marriage" "equality" has been the law of Massachusetts for over a decade and it is now the law of the land. But you can't have equality if you can get "married" on Saturday and fired on Monday," Klein said.

Since the legalization of gay "marriage", there have been cases around the country of Catholic institutions firing employees in same-sex "marriages".

In June, the director of religious education at a Catholic elementary school outside Philadelphia was fired after two parents complained about her "marriage" to another woman. Margie Winters said she had told administrators at the school about her "marriage" when she was hired in 2007. The school's principal said in a letter to parents that the school must comply with Catholic philosophy.

In August, a Catholic college preparatory school in Macon, Georgia, settled a discrimination lawsuit filed by a music teacher who said he was fired in 2014 because of his plans to marry his partner.
(abcnews)


Barrett’s lawyer, Ben Klein of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, said the decision marks the first time a judge has rejected a religious organization’s assertion that it had a constitutional right not to hire employees because they were spouses in same-sex "marriages".

Several legal experts contacted Thursday by the Globe said they believed the ruling was the first in a legal dispute involving a religious organization and an employee in a same-sex "marriage".

“It is the first reported case with regards to a religious institution,” said Brian D. Spitz, an employment lawyer in Ohio whose firm represents clients from the LGBTQ community.

In his ruling, Judge Douglas H. Wilkins rejected the three defenses the school offered.

“Fontbonne’s discrimination ‘because of’ Barrett’s same-sex "marriage" is undisputed and, as shown above, amounts to discriminatory intent as a matter of law,” Wilkins wrote.

“It is clear that, because he is male, he suffered gender discrimination when he was denied employment for "marrying" a person whom a female could have married without suffering the same consequences.”

Fontbonne, a ministry sponsored by the Congregation of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Boston, had argued it is entitled to a religious exemption under the state antidiscrimination law.

It also claimed that hiring Barrett would infringe on its constitutional rights because it views his marriage as incompatible with its religious mission.

Wilkins rejected those arguments.

“As an educational institution, Fontbonne retains control over its mission and message,” he wrote. “It is not forced to allow Barrett to dilute that message, where he will not be a teacher, minister or spokesperson for Fontbonne and has not engaged in public advocacy of same-sex "marriage".”

Wilkins said Fontbonne could claim a religious exemption to the state antidiscrimination law only if it limited “membership, enrollment, or participation” to members of one religion. The school, however, is open to students and employees of all faiths, except for members of its administration, theology faculty, and mission and ministry staff, he wrote.  so if a Yeshiva has a non Jewish janitor, it can be forced to hire someone with a same sex "wedding"

In a statement, Fontbonne said Thursday that it is considering its options.

(boston globe) highlights are our additions

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

Ex-Broadcaster Craig James Sues Fox After Being Fired For His Opposition To Same Sex "Marriage"

First They came for the CEOs and broadcasters
Soon they'll go after lawyers, accountants, and other professionals
Then they will after janitors, and secretaries
Finally they will after those who work for "Jewish" magazines


Ex-Broadcaster Craig James Sues Fox Sports Over Firing

Former college football television analyst Craig James on Monday filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against Fox Sports that contends he was fired because he had expressed opposition to gay "marriage" during a failed run for the U.S. Senate.
The former running back for Southern Methodist University and the New England Patriots is seeking at least $100,000 in damages. Fox hired him in August 2013 — months after he lost the Texas Senate primary to Ted Cruz — only to fire him days later.
James filed his suit in Dallas County, where he is seeking a jury trial to hear claims against the network that include breach of contract and violations of state law.
Fox Sports didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment Monday on the lawsuit, and a Dallas attorney for the network did not immediately return a call for comment.
James was a longtime color commentator for ESPN who quit to run for the Senate in 2012. During the campaign, James said he opposed gay "marriage" and that gay people would one day "have to answer to the Lord for their actions."
from the (plaintiffs petition)
Last year, James filed a complaint with the Texas Workforce Commission over his firing. Fox later issued a statement saying James was hired by regional executives and was not "properly vetted."
James has alleged that a national Fox Sports spokesman told The Dallas Morning News that James was terminated from Fox Sports Southwest for religious beliefs against same-sex "marriage".
James is being represented in his lawsuit by the Texas-based Liberty Institute.
Hiram Sasser, deputy chief counsel with the conservative advocacy group, said that when Fox fired James, the network publicly stated that his view on marriage was a reason. Sasser said that James was fired after Sports Illustrated magazine contacted Fox about the hiring in light of James' comment during a primary debate that he opposed gay marriage.
"It's pretty rare that a company engages in religious discrimination in the firing of an employee and then issues a statement confirming that's the reason," Sasser said.
In its statement last year, Fox called James "a polarizing figure in the college sports community" and said "the decision not to use him in our college football coverage was based on the perception that he abused a previous on-air position to further a personal agenda."(AP)

“This case is much bigger than me,” James says in a prepared statement. “It affects every person who holds religious beliefs. I will not let Fox Sports trample my religious liberty. Today, many people have lost their jobs because of their faith. Sadly, countless are afraid to let their bosses know they even have a faith. This is America, and I intend to make sure Fox Sports knows they aren’t above the law.”

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Bill de Blasio To Ban NYC Travel To Indiana

Cuomo, de Blasio ban official travel to Indiana following state's adoption of religious freedom act

(amny) highlights our additions

How can Pinny Ringel (917) 417-3283 and Avi Fink justify working for a mayor with policies such as these!

Where are our Orthodox Legislators publicly supporting Indiana's law?

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Because Indiana Protects Religious Rights, Governor Cuomo Bans State Travel There


"Today, I direct all agencies, departments, boards and commissions to immediately review all requests for state funded or state sponsored travel to the State of Indiana and to bar any such publicly funded travel that is not essential to the enforcement of state law or public health and safety. The ban on publicly funded travel shall take effect immediately.

"New York State has been, and will continue to be, a leader in ensuring that all LGBT persons enjoy full and equal civil rights. With this action, we stand by our LBGT family members, friends and colleagues to ensure that their rights are respected."
Andrew Cuomo

How can David Lobl rationalize working as a Jewish Liaison For Andrew Cuomo, who has policies such as this?


Text of bill that Cuomo loathes that only protects freedom of religion
SENATE ENROLLED ACT No. 101
AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning civil procedure.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
SECTION1.IC34-13-9 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2015]:
Chapter 9. Religious Freedom Restoration
Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all governmental entity statutes, ordinances, resolutions, executive or administrative orders, regulations, customs, and usages, including the implementation or application thereof, regardless of whether they were enacted, adopted, or initiated before, on, or after July 1, 2015.
Sec. 2. A governmental entity statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage may not be construed to be exempt from the application of this chapter unless a state statute expressly exempts the statute, ordinance, resolution, executive or administrative order, regulation, custom, or usage from the application of this chapter by citation to this chapter.
Sec. 3. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Establishment Clause" refers to the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Indiana prohibiting laws respecting the establishment of religion. (2) "Granting", used with respect to government funding, benefits, or exemptions, does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions. (b) This chapter may not be construed to affect, interpret, or in any way address the Establishment Clause. (c) Granting government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under the Establishment Clause, does not constitute a violation of this chapter.
Sec. 4. As used in this chapter, "demonstrates"means meets the burdens of going forward with the evidence and of persuasion.
Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion,whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.
Sec. 6. As used in this chapter, "governmental entity" includes the whole or any part of a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, or other individual or entity acting under color of law of any of the following: (1) State government. (2) A political subdivision (as defined in IC 36-1-2-13). (3) An instrumentality of a governmental entity described in subdivision(1) or (2), including a state educational institution, a body politic, a body corporate and politic, or any other similar entity established by law.
Sec. 7. As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes.
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person's invocation of this chapter.
Sec. 10. (a) If a court or other tribunal in which a violation of this chapter is asserted in conformity with section 9 of this chapter determines that: (1) the person's exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened; and (2) the governmental entity imposing the burden has not demonstrated that application of the burden to the person: (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest; the court or other tribunal shall allow a defense against any party and shall grant appropriate relief against the governmental entity. (b) Relief against the governmental entity may include any of the following: (1) Declaratory relief or an injunction or mandate that prevents, restrains, corrects, or abates the violation of this chapter. (2) Compensatory damages. (c) In the appropriate case,the court or other tribunal also may award all or part of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney's fees, to a person that prevails against the governmental entity under this chapter.
Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee.

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."
(KSL.com) 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.
(ksl.com) highlights our additions

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."

(CBN.com)

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 signal.com) 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?