Bakers Cause a Stir at SCOTUS
When baker Jack Phillips won his case at the U.S. Supreme Court, it was a huge victory for religious liberty — but it was just one slice of the pie.
When baker Jack Phillips won his case at the U.S. Supreme Court, it was a huge victory for religious liberty — but it was just one slice of the pie. Christians like Aaron and Melissa Klein were thrilled for Jack when the June ruling came down, but not because it meant the end of their own battle. After five long, exhausting years, they’re still fighting for the right to live out their faith — and hoping this latest appeal will finally give them that chance.
For Christians in the wedding industry, the persecution has almost become a bonding experience. “We know what it is like to be treated unfairly by a state agency and mocked, threatened, and abused by critics,” Aaron and Melissa explained when the Masterpiece Cakes decision came down. They’ve grown close to Jack, Barronelle Stutzman, and so many others who’ve lost their businesses, their reputations, and tens of thousands of dollars for making the hard choice to turn down custom orders for same-sex weddings. After the latest setback at the Oregon Supreme Court, Melissa was emotional when she talked to reporters. “I loved my shop, and losing it has been so hard for me and my family… That was a part of our life, and it was something that we thought was going to be passed down to our kids. It’s something that I miss every day still.”
For the parents of five, there’s only one place that can give them their lives back: the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s the final stop on a half-decade long legal journey. And First Liberty Institute, who’s been representing the Kleins, understands exactly how many cases are riding on it. “I think everybody thought this was going to be decided in the Jack Phillips’s case,” President Kelly Shackelford told me Monday on “Washington Watch.”
“Justice Kennedy was kind of the swing vote, and he kind of found a way out without having to decide that on all of the future cases. But now, obviously, we’ve got a different court, and we’re hoping that we can get a decision — because [for] the people who are getting persecuted around the country, this is not a theory. The Kleins have had death threats to their children. They’ve lost their business. What they’ve been going through is incredible, and this doesn’t need to be replicated across the country.”
When I asked him how similar the Kleins’ case was to Jack’s, Kelly said “very.” “It’s about whether the government can compel citizens to express things that violate their beliefs — and then if they don’t, to either crush or destroy their businesses, which, of course, is a massive violation of the First Amendment… But we don’t have a decision on that, and all these people around the country are being persecuted because of that, like Aaron and Melissa.” The goal, he explained, “is to answer this for everybody. And I think this case sets it up beautifully.”
It also sets up the perfect example of what’s at stake in next month’s election. Senate Republicans have been relentless in their push to place bona fide constitutionalists on the courts. Without a conservative majority, all of that record-breaking progress will come to an immediate halt — leaving families like the Kleins at the mercy of judges who care more about rewriting the First Amendment than upholding it. You may not have a say in nominating justices, but you sure have a say in choosing the leaders who do. Make sure the candidates you vote for on November 6 share your values on the court — and so much more.
As for the Kleins, they wait and hope that, “like Jack, one day a court will correct the religious hostility we suffered at the hands of [Oregon activists] and recognize, as Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in his concurring opinion, ‘[t]he Constitution protects not just popular religious exercises from the condemnation of civil authorities. It protects them all.’”
Originally published here.
LGBT Plays the Erase Card
The media has an interesting way of interpreting things. When Barack Obama ignored the law, he was a hero. When Donald Trump enforces it, he’s cruel. That same pattern of reporting continued Monday when pockets of LGBT activists gathered outside the White House to protest a return to the Title IX statute that the last administration unilaterally rewrote.
“We will not be erased!” was the chant from the small crowd outside the gates of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Like a lot of people, they’d read the shoddy piece of journalism in Sunday’s New York Times claiming that President Trump was trying to define transgenders out of existence. And unfortunately, they believed it or acted like they did. The real story goes something like this: As president, Barack Obama was desperate to give special treatment to men and women who want to identify as something other than their biological gender. But, like the rest of his radical agenda, he knew it was too unpopular for Congress to play along. So, he took it upon himself to change the rules for them.
He decided, back in 2014, that he would single-handedly rewrite the 50-year-old policy on “sex” discrimination. It was one in a long line of lawless acts that made a mess of school, bathroom, housing, prison, and sports policies. What Obama did was basically decree that the 1964 Civil Rights Act now applied to anyone who identified as gay or transgender.
Now, four years later and one president later, Donald Trump’s administration wants to get back to the rule of law — in this and every other area. Like other agencies, HHS wanted to correct Obama’s overreach by returning its policies back to the traditional understanding of “sex,” biologically determined at birth. Not sexual orientation. Not gender identity. Nothing HHS or the president is considering is extreme – unless you think everything before Obama was trying to “define transgenders out of existence” too.
As National Review’s David French points out, the Left’s rhetoric is completely out of control. “Transgender people did not flash into existence on April 29, 2014, when the Obama administration altered its interpretation of Title IX. They will not flash out of existence if the Trump administration returns to traditional and intended statutory definitions.” He’s absolutely right. All of the hysterical language about “erasing transgender people” is misguided. Nothing in HHS’s proposed policy prevents anyone from identifying as transgender. Nor is the administration taking away any rights that have been granted by Congress! It would simply be rolling back the illegitimate rewriting of the laws by Obama. As French points out:
“Every single American is still protected by every single provision of the Bill of Rights (and every other constitutional right). Every single American still enjoys the benefit of every other generally applicable statute. No one is being written out of the human race. Instead each and every objecting person possesses the unalienable right to raise his or her voice, and — if they persuade a sufficient number of legislators — to change the law.”
“But even if the law changes, the truth does not. The Trump administration’s proposed regulatory change conforms the law to the truth. Defending that truth isn’t dehumanizing. It’s not denying anyone’s existence. It’s standing athwart a lawless redefinition of biological reality and quite appropriately yelling stop.”
We don’t believe that “gender identity” should be a protected category comparable to race, because it isn’t inborn, immutable, or in the Constitution. We also think that transgender rights should not be promoted at the expense of the rights of others — like school children or battered women in homeless shelters. All you have to do is read the stories of little girls being attacked in restrooms to understand the legitimate harm Obama’s abuse of the law has done.
Earlier this year, Dr. Ben Carson, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, explained that his agency’s return to the law’s definition of “sex” has nothing to do with respecting persons or treating them equally. “[We] obviously believe in equal rights for everybody, including the LGBT community. But we also believe in equal rights for the women in the shelters… [W]e want to look at things that really provide for everybody and [don’t] impede the rights of one for the sake of the other… There were some women who said they were not comfortable with the idea of being in a shelter, being in a shower, and somebody who had a very different anatomy,” he explained.
Of course, the Left will complain that without giving them a privileged status, people who identify as transgender will be fired or otherwise discriminated against. But let’s remember that with such laws, other people will be punished simply for disagreeing with the radical gender ideology. When liberals argue that America should not be taking away rights from people, they need to remember that the Left wants to eliminate longstanding (and explicitly constitutional) rights to religious liberty too.
If extremists want to change the law, then they need to persuade Congress. Until then, President Trump has it right. Lawlessness — whether on our southern border or the bathrooms of our children’s schools — threatens our safety and wellbeing. When he was asked about it Monday, Trump said, “I’m protecting everybody.” That’s what our goal should be, and it’s what a return to the law ensures.
[…]
Originally published here.
Wave… Goodbye? Early Voting Bucks Dem Trends
Is it a blue wave? A purple wave? A trickle — a tsunami? In 15 days we’ll find out. But one thing we do know: Republicans are a lot more energized than people gave them credit for.
Some polls, including this FiveThirtyEight projection, still have the Democrats winning the U.S. House, but early voting trends make it clear: you can’t count conservatives out. “Republican-affiliated voters have outpaced Democratic-affiliated voters in early voting in seven-closely watched states,” according to new info from NBC News and TargetSmart. In Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Montana, Tennessee, and Texas, the data all points to “robust enthusiasm” on the conservative side — and not a moment too soon.
In key Senate races like Arizona and Florida, Republicans had anywhere from a four- to 10-point early-voting advantage. Out in Texas, where Senator Ted Cruz is in a tight race with Democrat Rep. Beto O'Rourke, people were waiting in hour-long lines that snaked around buildings for blocks. Others had camped out at the Houston locations before they even opened. By Monday, pollsters estimate, more than five million votes had already been cast either early or by absentee.
Still, though, neither side can take anything for granted. Two weeks out, an NBC/Wall Street Journal survey still gives Democrats the lead, but by an incredibly shrinking margin. Anything, we learned in 2016, is possible. Monday, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) joined me on “Washington Watch” and talked about what he’s seen in states around America. “When I tour the country, I see this new enthusiasm… After watching what’s happened with [Brett] Kavanaugh, the way they treated Justice Kavanaugh, using politics over the process — not putting people first — [there’s] a frustration out there. And I’ve seen the intensity gap close. I see some real excitement in some of these races.”
That said, McCarthy pointed out, “History is against us. History says that the Democrats should win the House because the party in power normally loses 32 seats. But I don’t see that being the case. I see a new movement going forward that hopefully we can really achieve really big things. But think about the things we’ve achieved in the last two years. This is the strongest economy we’ve [had] the last 50 years — by far.”
And no one can underestimate the effect that the Left’s mob mentality is having on conservatives around the nation, as we watch Republicans being attacked, threatened, harassed, vandalized, and even run off the road! The FRC Action PAC, the Faith, Family, and Freedom Fund, used those intimidation tactics as the focus of its latest ads, airing in some key battleground states. To watch, click the video below.
Originally published here.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.
