Petitions put Co-ed Bathroom Bill on hold for now

The Pacific Justice Institute reports that a referendum has put on hold a 37 word bill which would have opened up restrooms, locker rooms and showers in K-12 public schools to students “irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”  Known as the Co-ed Bathroom Bill, Assembly Bill 1266 originally was due to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2014.  But voters in all 58 of California’s counties have put on the brakes by submitting more than 600,000 signatures to the Secretary of State.

Under Article II, §9 of the California Constitution, the People have reserved to themselves their inherent power to review statutes enacted by lawmakers.  “The voters are essentially part of the legislative process,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute and a frequent guest on Faith on Trial.  “Through the referendum, they either approve or veto the law,” Dacus continued.  

There has been some confusion about what constitutes a referendum.  By its nature, a referendum involves a law that has been passed by the Legislature, but not gone into effect.  Because the signatures have been filed, the implementation of the law is suspended until the final signature tally.  After that, the law will continue to lie dormant until the voters render their judgment in the November 2014 election.  

 

Baptist universities win injunction against Obama's HHS Mandate

Today (December 27) a Houston federal court delivered a major blow to the controversial HHS mandate ruling in favor of East Texas Baptist University and Houston Baptist University.  In a 46-page opinion, the court ruled that the federal mandate requiring

Eric Rassbach

employers to provide employees with abortion-causing drugs and devices violates federal civil rights laws, and issued an injunction against the mandate. Religious plaintiffs have now won injunctions in 9 out of 12 such cases involving non-profit entities challenging the mandate.

“The government doesn’t have the right to decide what religious beliefs are legitimate and which ones aren’t,” said Eric Rassbach, a former guest on Faith on Trial and Deputy General Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and lead attorney for East Texas Baptist and Houston Baptist Universities. “In its careful opinion, the Court recognized that the government was trying to move across that forbidden line, and said “No further!” 

In its opinion, the federal court specifically rejected the government’s argument that it evaluate the Universities’ beliefs: “The religious organization plaintiffs have shown a sincerely held religious belief that the court cannot second-guess.”

The decision is part of a recent groundswell of cases decided against the government. In nine of the twelve cases decided thus far, federal district courts across the country have issued injunctions against the mandate. 

“The government has enforced the health care reform law very unevenly, handing out exemptions to those it sees as its allies,” stated Rassbach. “Perhaps the worst part of the government’s approach is that it seems to have decided that religious institutions are the only ones not to get an exemption.” 

Also participating as plaintiff in the case is Westminster Theological Seminary, a Reformed Protestant seminary based in Philadelphia. Westminster is represented by Kenneth Wynne of Wynne & Wynne, LLP.

To date, there are currently 89 lawsuits challenging the unconstitutional HHS mandate. Two HHS mandate cases involving for-profit plaintiffs – Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood – are set to be argued before the Supreme Court in March. 

Merry Christmas and a blessed New Year to all

Legatus wins injunction against HHS mandate; Priests for Life forced to appeal denial of a similar injunction

Legatus wins injunction

Legatus, the Nation’s largest organization of top Catholic business CEOs and professional leaders, obtained a Preliminary Injunction against the Federal Government in its case challenging the HHS Mandate.  Federal District Judge Robert H. Cleland of the Eastern District of Michigan entered the Order granting the Thomas More Law Center’s motion for a preliminary injunction on Friday afternoon, December 20, 2013.

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed the lawsuit on behalf of Legatus on May 7, 2012.  “Legatus” is the Latin word for

Erin Mersino

“ambassador”, and its members are called upon to become “ambassadors for Christ” in living and sharing their Catholic Faith in their business, professional and personal lives.  It was founded in 1987 by Catholic philanthropist Tom Monaghan, to bring together the three key areas of a Catholic business leader’s life – Faith, Family and Business.  Legatus currently has over 4,000 members in 31 states.

Erin Mersino, who has appeared as a guest on Faith on Trial several times, is the TMLC’s lead attorney handling the Legatus case.  She has been spearheading the Law Center’s challenges to the HHS Mandate in eleven cases thus far.

In granting TMLC’s motion for a Preliminary Injunction, the Court found that even with the new rules adopted by the Government concerning religious accommodations, Legatus will likely show at trial that the HHS Mandate “substantially burdens the observance of the tenets of Catholicism.”  Further, the Court found that there were many other ways to achieve the Government’s interest to increase free contraception without restricting the religious liberty of Legatus.  Accordingly, the Court found that the government has not made a convincing argument showing the HHS Mandate is advancing a compelling government interest by the least restrictive means.

Fr. Pavone, Priests for Life forced to appeal

Last Friday, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed  an emergency motion for an injunction in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, asking the court to halt the enforcement of the Obamacare contraception mandate as applied against religious organizations pending appeal of a lower court ruling.  The motion was filed on behalf of Priests forLife, a Catholic pro-life organization; Father Frank Pavone, the National Director of Priests for Life; Dr. Alveda King, the niece of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Pastoral Associate and Director of African-American Outreach for Priests for Life; and Janet Morana, the Executive Director of Priests for Life.  Absent an injunction, the mandate will apply in full force against Priests for Life on January 1st.

Robert Muise

Last Thursday, Federal Judge Emmett G. Sullivan, sitting in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, upheld the government’s enforcement of the contraception mandate as applied against Priests for Life.  Within an hour, AFLC filed an immediate appeal of the ruling to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and within 24 hours, filed an emergency motion with the appellate court totaling 125 pages. The motion asks the court to issue an order enjoining the mandate while the case proceeds through the appeal process.  Judge Sullivan had previously upheld the Obamacare contraception mandate as applied against for-profit companies, only later to be reversed by the D. C. Circuit.

Robert Muise, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC, and another Faith on Trial guest, commented: “The Supreme Court has long held that religious exercise is impermissibly burdened when government action compels religious organizations to violate a fundamental tenet of their religious beliefs.  Unless the emergency injunction is granted, on New Year’s Day the federal government will force Priests for Life to face a Hobson’s choice: it can either violate its sincerely held religious beliefs or face crippling fines of $100 per employee per day that it is not in compliance with Obama’s unconstitutional and unconscionable mandate.”

Thomas More Law Center: Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson’s view on homosexuality reflects the Catholic Church’s teachings

With all of the filth that can be seen on television and in movies these days, the mainstream media has made it increasingly clear that there is only one thing for which there is no place:  Christianity and the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality.

Phil Robertson, patriarch of the Robertson Family from A&E’s wildly popular show Duck Dynasty, is learning the hard way about the mainstream media’s sacred ground – homosexuality. Despite being a self-proclaimed “Bible-thumper” and a non-negotiable on the prominent role that faith and religion play in the Robertson Family’s life, Phil was recently “suspended indefinitely” from the show for remarks he made in a GQ Magazine profile in which he, among other things, discussed his opinions on the immorality of homosexuality.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commented:

“What Phil Robertson said about homosexuality as an Evangelical Christian in his GQ interview, reflects the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the viewpoint of a vast majority of Americans.  A & E willingly capitulated to the intimidation tactics of the militant homosexuals.  Remaining silent in this circumstance of religious intolerance merely emboldens militant homosexuals.  Christians must mobilize and respond with the same zeal and vigor as these homosexuals.”

The discussion on homosexuality begins after this line from Robertson,

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”

When asked to explain what he means the article quotes Robertson as saying:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

Then according to the article he paraphrases Corinthians by saying:

“Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

Not a bad paraphrasing as 1^st Corinthians 6:9 reads “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality.”

Some criticize Robertson for allegedly saying homosexuals are going to hell. That’s not what he said.  In fact, Robertson, in a vein similar to that of Pope Francis’ statement of “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”  states:

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven... That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’emout later, you see what I’m saying?”

Robertson, in his own backwoods way is reflecting the teachings of the Catholic Church on homosexuality.  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law . . . . Under no circumstances can they be approved.” (2357)

The Catholic Catechism’s version of Robertson’s “We just love’ em,” quote is:

“They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” (2358)

Members of the Robertson Family regularly discuss religion, abstinence, family values and traditional American heritage in interviews and on the show, which is part of the show’s appeal and a large draw for its millions of fans.

Only this time, militant homosexual groups got involved.

The homosexual agenda’s number 1 priority has been to silence Christians about homosexuality. The right to Free Speech, in their opinion, does not belong to the faithful, including Phil Robertson.

The Thomas More Law Center supports the rights of Christians to freely discuss their faith, including their faith’s stance on homosexuality. As we stood by high school student Daniel Glowacki when he was disciplined by his teacher for stating that as a Catholic he opposed homosexuality, we stand beside Phil Robertson. 

PJI files suit over bathroom bill

Thursday, attorneys from the Pacific Justice Institute filed suit against California state and county officials who refused to accept signatures for the referendum of the “School Bathroom Bill.” Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, and the Registrar of Voters for Tulare and Mono Counties, Rita Woodward and Lynda Roberts, are named in the suit.

The California Constitution gives voters a full 90 days to hand in their signatures from when legislation is passed—even if those days fall on a weekend or a holiday.  In this case, the final date for submitting the signatures was on Sunday, November 10, 2013.  For two counties—Tulare and Mono—the Secretary of State claims that the signatures were submitted too late.

Evidence filed with the Court, however, shows that the packages containing the signatures were presented at these county offices on the 88th and 89th day—a Friday afternoon and a Saturday.  In Tulare County, the county mailroom clerk simply refused to sign and accept the package from the FedEx driver.  In Mono County, the signatures were delivered but county personnel did not process the signatures until after the deadline.

In papers filed with the Court, PJI attorney Kevin Snider submitted a sworn declaration stating that he made arrangements for 18 different counties up and down the state to open on Sunday—the 90th day—in order to receive the boxes of signatures.

"Officials from these 18 counties understood their obligations under the California Constitution," said PJI president, Brad Dacus, a frequent guest on Faith on Trail.  "It is ironic that California's chief elections official does not give a second thought to disenfranchising the voters from Tulare and Mono counties," Dacus continued.  PJI and the Privacy for All Students coalition is committed to make certain that every signature is counted.

Long Island school says Christian clubs are "Illegal"

Yesterday, attorneys with Liberty Institute and McDermott Will & Emory LLP sent a demand letter to school administrators of Ward Melville High School in defense of  a student’s right to form a Christian Club on campus.

“Students of faith in New York public schools have the same freedom to form a religious club as other students who want to form a fishing club or chess club,” said Liberty Institute Jeremy Dys.  “In this case, Ward Melville High School is violating federal law by rejecting this club because it is religious.”

Liberty Institute’s client applied to form a Christian club at Ward Melville High School, but school administrators simply ignored his application for more than two months.  Only when the student’s parent asked the principal about her son’s application, did the student learn why his club had been denied.  Religious clubs, according to school administrators, are illegal in New York public schools.

“All we are asking is to exercise the same freedom to form a club that everyone else has at our school,” said John Raney, the student at Ward Melville who has applied to start Students United in Faith.  “Ward Melville has 41 different student clubs, why won’t Ward Melville tolerate our faith-based student club?”

Portland public schools terminate Pro-Life teacher

Dana Cody

On Monday the school board for the Portland (Oregon) Public School District voted to terminate the teaching contract of Bill Diss, a teacher who has been an outspoken opponent of Planned Parenthood. Mr. Diss experienced censure in his teaching career beginning in 2007 when he publically opposed the building of a new Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in downtown Portland. The current action follows Mr. Diss’ opposition to being forced to facilitate presenters from the Teen Outreach Program (TOP), a program administered by Planned Parenthood, coming into his tutorial session to recruit students.

“Bill Diss is a well qualified teacher with a track record of success,” states Dana Cody, President and Executive Director of Life Legal Defense Foundation, and a frequent guest on Faith on Trial. “As the circumstances surrounding this termination demonstrate, Mr. Diss has done nothing that would merit being fired from his job. LLDF will pursue every possible avenue in defending Mr. Diss’ rights in this matter, and hopes to see his rights ultimately protected despite PPS’ actions.”

Background: Bill Diss has taught Technology, Math, Computers and Electronics at Benson High School since 2002. He has also taught several classes at the community college level. He is highly regarded in his abilities and his success both by students themselves, by their parents, and fellow teachers. Mr. Diss is the only teacher in the state of Oregon who has been certified as qualified to teach college level computer science to high school students for dual credit. His initiative and hard work have attracted outside grants to Benson opening up even greater opportunities for Benson students. For the first five years at Benson High, Mr. Diss was rated as proficient or better, with numerous positive compliments in his reviews. Mr. Diss’ methodology and teaching style has remained substantially the same in all his years of teaching.

The positive reviews took a dramatic change for the worse, however, when Mr. Diss began to speak out in opposition to the building of a new Planned Parenthood facility in downtown Portland. Mr. Diss was involved in opposition activities on his own time, and did not bring his political or religious convictions into his instruction in the classroom. Nonetheless, he began to experience complaints about his political activities from school administrators, and his teaching came under sudden, rigorous scrutiny. Complaints, negative evaluations, letters of reprimand and formal meetings became a regular part of Mr. Diss’ life at school for as long as he engaged in outspoken, public opposition to Planned Parenthood.

Shortly after the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, presenters with the Teen Outreach Program (TOP) came to Mr. Diss’ tutorial classes to give a presentation recruiting students for the TOP program. When presenters entered the tutorial, Mr. Diss, consistent with District policy, asked for identification. He was handed a card that identified the presenters as employees of Planned Parenthood. This knowledge surprised Mr. Diss, and caused him serious emotional distress due to his well-known personal religious convictions and his years of work to oppose that organization. He expressed his dilemma to Benson Principal, Carol Campbell at the time and asked to be excused from being present for the presentation due to his religious convictions. His request was denied. He was told that he would be required to be present for the TOP presentation. Through the remainder of the school year during which he taught, Mr. Diss continued to have to deal with Planned Parenthood staff as they administered the TOP program.

Simultaneous to his request not to be involved with TOP, Mr. Diss’ teaching came under renewed censorial review. Mr. Diss accepted the input from school administration, but the year proved to be extremely stressful, including numerous classroom observations and meetings with school administration. On March 19, 2013 school administrators summarily demanded that Mr. Diss leave the school premises and not return—placing him on paid administrative leave. Mr. Diss was told to leave the school and was escorted off the premises by a police officer. This unnecessary show of force is symbolic of the animus faced by Mr. Diss throughout the year.

Federal court strikes down most of Utah’s anti-polygamy statute

A Utah federal court has ruled that most of that state’s law banning polygamy is unconstitutional. 

Plaintiffs, the polygamous family featured on the TLC reality series "Sister Wives," sued seeking a declaratory judgment that Utah's ban on plural marriage is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs are members of a religious group that believes polygamy is a core religious practice.  Federal district Judge Clark Waddoups held that the portion of the statute barring cohabitation while married to someone else is unconstitutional as a violation of free exercise rights. 

Concluding that in operation the ban is not applied neutrally, but is primarily used to target religious co-habitation, the court held that the ban is subject to strict scrutiny, and fails that test.  Judge Waddoups also concludes that the ban, under a rational basis review, violates plaintiffs' rights to be free from government interference in matters of consensual sexual privacy, and is void for vagueness. In ruling on this portion of the statute, the court said that it was not constrained by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1878 decision in Reynolds v. United States upholding the federal anti-bigamy statute because that decision dealt only with a ban on multiple marriages, not on cohabitation while married.

Read more about this on Breitbart News.

Broad support for NM photographer reflected in new briefs filed with US Supreme Court

Prominent libertarian supporters of redefining marriage are among the parties that filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court Friday in support of a New Mexico photographer who declined to use her artistic expression to communicate the story of a same-sex ceremony. Also supporting the photographer in the Alliance Defending Freedom case are 18 other professionals in her industry and attorneys general from eight states.

In August, a concurrence accompanying the New Mexico Supreme Court’s ruling against Elane Photography said that the owners, Jon and Elaine Huguenin, must abandon their freedom as “the price of citizenship.” Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys asked the U.S. Supreme Court last month to review the case.

“The First Amendment protects our freedom to speak or not speak on any issue without fear of government retaliation. All Americans should oppose unjust laws that force citizens--under threat of punishment--to express ideas against their will,” said Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. “As those who filed supportive briefs in this case understand, a government that forces any American to create a message contrary to her own convictions is a government every American should fear.”

The Cato Institute and legal scholars Dale Carpenter and Eugene Volokh filed one of the friend-of-the-court briefs. Wedding photographers from across the country and state attorneys general from the states of Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Virginia filed the other two briefs.

The petition Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 8 explains that the Huguenins “will serve anyone; they do not turn away any customers because of their protected class status. But they will decline a request, as the First Amendment guarantees them the right to do, if the context would require them to express messages that conflict with their religious beliefs.”

A July Rasmussen poll found that 85 percent of Americans believe a Christian photographer has the right to say no if asked to take pictures at a same-sex ceremony that conflicts with the photographer’s religious beliefs. The editorial boards of both The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Times have recently agreed.

In 2006, Huguenin declined Vanessa Willock’s request to photograph a commitment ceremony between Willock and another woman. Huguenin declined the request because her and her husband’s Christian beliefs conflict with the message communicated by the expressive event, which Willock asked Huguenin to help her “celebrate.”

Willock easily found another photographer for her ceremony, and for less money, but nevertheless filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission against Elane Photography. After a one-day trial, the commission ruled against the Huguenins and ordered them to pay $6,637.94 in attorneys’ fees to Willock. The case then made its way through the New Mexico state court system as Elane Photography v. Willock.

Where has “Faith on Trial” gone?

Actually, we haven’t gone anywhere!  But then, Why, then, you might ask are you not on the radio?  Very simple, all the local programming on Iowa Catholic Radio is stepping aside during the Advent and Christmas seasons to allow the broadcasting of beautiful Christmas music 24-7.  Our local programming will resume the week of January 6, 2014.  That means on Tuesday January 7 we will be back at our regular times: 9 a.m. live and rebroadcast at 9 p.m.  In the mean time we will keep you posted on the latest legal news involving our religious freedoms here and on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/FaithOnTrial where you can carry on a discussion of the issues posted.  If you have any comments, suggestions, or questions about our broadcasts you can contact us at: DeaconMike@IowaCatholicRadio.com or Gina@IowaCatholicRadio.com.  And don’t forget to “Like” us on Facebook.

Faith on Trial with Deacon Mike Manno and co-host Gina Noll is heard every Tuesday 9 and 9 on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM; 88.5 & 94.5 FM in Central Iowa and streams live on IowaCatholicRadio.com.

Becket Fund defend abbot, small church in fight against atheists’ bid to force IRS to censor church sermons

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, on behalf of an Anglican priest and his church, Holy Cross Anglican Church, moved to intervene in a lawsuit by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) seeking to force the IRS to punish houses of worship for preaching on moral issues in a way that has political implications.

The Becket Fund is intervening to defend Father Patrick Malone’s right to preach from the pulpit to his 55-member congregation at Holy Cross Anglican Church free from IRS censorship. While the IRS has long banned sermons that concern political candidates or certain hot-button moral issues, it has generally avoided enforcing the ban against churches. The anti-religious FFRF noticed, and is now suing in a Wisconsin-based federal district court to force the IRS to start enforcing the ban against churches like Holy Cross.

“Given recent IRS abuses, only a group like FFRF could want to force the IRS into the sermon censorship business,” said Daniel Blomberg, Legal Counsel for the Becket Fund. “Ministers preaching the truth to power helped start the American Revolution, stop slavery, and end racial segregation. Despite what FFRF wants, the tax man has no role in editing sermons.”

As the vicar of Holy Cross, Father Malone—who is also a Benedictine abbot—has a duty to provide religious guidance to his congregation on how to faithfully live as Christians. Under Anglican theology, this includes seeking justice and protecting the disadvantaged in society, especially those who are threatened by unjust laws. Father Malone believes that reversing unjust laws requires rejecting unjust lawmakers, and thus preaches openly about both.

Now FFRF wants the IRS to punish Father Malone and the Church for his sermons, by imposing laws that would revoke the Church’s tax-exempt status, involve the IRS in the Church’s finances, and levy fines against both the Church and individual leaders, such as Father Malone.

“While there’s room for religious disagreement over whether the pulpit should preach politics,” Blomberg said, “Everyone should agree that the IRS shouldn’t be the one making that theological decision—especially when it’s acting as FFRF’s attack dog.”

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is a non-profit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting the free expression of all religious traditions.

DoD asked to review connections to the Southern Poverty Law Center

The Thomas More Law Center with the Family Research Council (FRC) and 14 other organizations announced yesterday Thursday a letter has been sent to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel requesting that the Department of Defense (DoD) ensure that future training materials do not rely on information from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) or any other organization that engages in groundless and highly pejorative mischaracterizations of long-standing Christian organizations for their own political purposes.

The request comes after several training incidents in which Army instructors may have relied on anti-Christian materials produced by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that was linked to domestic terrorism in federal court in February, 2013.

Lt. General Jerry Boykin (retired), Family Research Council's executive vice president, made the following comments:

"In recent months, Army instructors have begun relying on the Southern Poverty Law Center, an anti-Christian group linked to domestic terrorism, as a source for its briefings. While we are encouraged that the Army Secretary has issued an order ceasing such briefings, we remain concerned that individual installation briefings may continue to draw upon SPLC materials.

"We are asking Secretary Hagel to issue clear guidance to the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute and instructing installations to stop relying on SPLC and other non-governmental sources as approved resources for equal opportunity training or other purposes.

"We will continue to monitor this situation and remain in contact with the Department of Defense to ensure that instructors carry out their role to train our troops to defend our freedom, and not push the Southern Poverty Law Center's anti-Christian agenda," concluded Boykin.

A message from the Advocates for Faith and Freedom: Help fight for Christmas

Will you help us preserve the real meaning behind Christmas?

We are looking for cases where people have been denied the right to celebrate the true meaning behind Christmas because of the ever present hostility directed at Christianity!

Here are some examples of the hostility we’re talking about:

• One South Carolina charter school canceled its annual Operation Christmas Child toy drive, since The American Humanist Association threatened them with a lawsuit.  The group claimed that the school’s actions violated the Constitution, since Operation Christmas Child is a project of the Christian relief agency Samaritan’s Purse.  
• A neighborhood in Orange County, in which several homes put up elaborate lights and decorations for the benefit of the community were told they needed to take down some of the lights because they are a violation of City ordinances.  They were confused, since they had done this for the last 5 years without any city interference.  
• One Wisconsin school district told music educators that, for holiday programs, they had to either: 1) Include 5 non-religious holiday songs for each religious one; 2) Hold a music program with no holiday music at all; or 3) Cancel the concerts.

If you have heard of a situation like one of these, or experienced it yourself, please contact our office so our lawyers can intervene.

We want to make sure that parents, students, teachers, governmental agencies, property owners and businesses owners don’t cower to the threat of the so-called “separation of church and state.” That phrase is not in our Constitution and does not require us to remove all semblance of Christ from this season celebrating His birth!  

God bless you and Merry Christmas!

Judge, ACLU say baker must provide same-sex wedding cake

Two men filed a complaint with the state of Colorado after a cake artist declined to use his creative abilities to promote and endorse their same-sex ceremony even though other cake artists were willing to do the job and marriage between members of the same sex is not legal in Colorado.

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted but that he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. Craig and Mullins, represented by attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union, immediately left the shop without comment and later filed a complaint the Colorado Civil Rights Division.

Friday and administrative law judge held that the baker had violated state law.  Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Nicolle Martin said, “America was founded on the fundamental freedom of every citizen to live and work according to their beliefs. Forcing Americans to promote ideas against their will undermines our constitutionally protected freedom of expression and our right to live free. If the government can take away our First Amendment freedoms, there is nothing it can’t take away. We are considering our next steps.”