Supreme Court Won’t Hear Former Marine’s Religious Liberty Case

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court declined to hear a case Monday involving a former Marine court-martialed in part for refusing to remove a bible verse from her work station. This means the ruling against LCpl Monifa Sterling from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces stands.

The decision not to hear the case “is going to affect the religious freedoms of all of those who serve us in uniform,” warned First Liberty Institute President Kelly Shackelford. “And that really is a shame.”

Shackelford’s nonprofit is defending the former Marine. He called the CAAF decision a “travesty.” “The military court’s outrageous decision means federal judges and military officials can strip our service members of their constitutional rights just because they don’t think someone’s religious beliefs are important enough to be protected. Our service members deserve better.”

United States v. Sterling was appealed to the Supreme Court last December. But the case is not as simple as it appears on first blush.

Sterling’s Court Martial

In 2013 Sterling displayed the phrase “No weapons formed against me shall prosper.” Summarized from Isaiah 54:17, the phrase was taped around her desk. When her supervisor objected, Sterling claimed displaying it was her First Amendment right. Sterling also noted that her coworkers displayed personal items at their desks. Later Sterling’s supervisor tore the phrase down. Sterling replaced the phrase, only to have it removed again.

A court-martial followed. But refusing to remove the phrase wasn’t all Sterling was charged with. As The Stream previously reported, she was also charged with refusing an order, failing to report for duty, and lying about why she didn’t wear the proper uniform. She was convicted and given a bad conduct discharge.

Exercise of Religion?

First Liberty only disputed the conviction regarding the Bible verse. But last August, the CAAF considered the verse in the context of Sterling’s other charges:

This is not the usual case where an individual or group sought an accommodation for an exercise of religion and it was denied. Nor is it a case where the practice at issue was either patently religious, such as the wearing of a hijab … Rather, the claimed exercise of religion at issue in this case involved posting the printed words “[n]o weapon formed against me shall prosper” at a shared workspace in the context of Appellant’s contentious relationship with her superiors.

First Liberty attorney Mike Berry previously told The Stream the CAAF set a dangerous precedent. He claimed it could force service members to prove the importance of their beliefs in order to enjoy Constitutional protection.

People shouldn’t be required to declare intentions “before we engage in religious activity,” he said.

Not Discouraged

Despite the CAAF’s ruling, First Liberty saw an “unusual” number of briefs supporting Sterling. Seven amicus briefs urged the Supreme Court to hear Sterling’s case. Amici included 13 retired military generals, 14 state attorneys general, 36 Congress members, and Dr. Simcha Goldman. Goldman was the plaintiff in a Supreme Court case involving the right to wear a yarmulke while in uniform. Goldman lost 5-4 in 1986.

Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin was one of the generals who signed onto the amicus brief. Boykin said Monday the Supreme Court’s decision will have the “unfortunate effect of allowing a chill on religious expression in the military to continue.” He says the ruling, “only underscores the need for the Trump administration to root out the anti-religious animus allowed to fester in the military during the Obama administration.”

Meanwhile, Shackelford claims he isn’t “discouraged” by Sterling’s outcome. “In fact it’s going to really cause us to redouble our efforts,” he said in a video. Shackelford noted First Liberty was previously undefeated in its military cases.

“We plan to keep that record going,” he said. “Eventually we will get this taken care of across the country.” (For more from the author of “Supreme Court Won’t Hear Former Marine’s Religious Liberty Case” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Latest: Neighbors Say London Attacker Tried to Radicalize Kids

/0 Comments/in , /by

Neighbors of one of the dead suspects in the London Bridge attacks say he was trying to radicalize young people, and that they reported him to police.

Jibril Palomba said he and his wife worried because the man, whom they knew as Abu Mohammed and recognized in photos of the attack, gave their children candy and preached about Islam. Erica Gasparri said she also saw him and two other men proselytizing outside a school.

Another neighbor, Michael Mimbo, said the van later used to ram pedestrians on the bridge was blocking the road at the suspect’s housing complex on Friday. The next day, Mimbo says that same van sped erratically down the street. (Read more from “The Latest: Neighbors Say London Attacker Tried to Radicalize Kids” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Here Come the Drag Queens

/0 Comments/in , /by

Make no mistake about it. From the moment gay activists came out of the closet in America, their agenda was clear: Society must get over its anti-gay sentiments and embrace everything gay — and I mean everything.

That’s why many of them were so brazen. They chanted, “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.”

That’s why gay pride parades were marked by the most offensive elements of the gay community, even if they were not representative of the whole.

That’s why it was drag queens who led the way in the 1969 Stonewall Riots. They were part of the frontline resistance, and they were out, proud and unashamed.

The “Self-Policing Social Code”

To be sure, some gay leaders in the 1980’s realized that this was a self-defeating strategy. If gay activism was to achieve its goals, it would have to put forth a different image, a more family-oriented, less-promiscuous, less-bizarre image.

Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen articulated some of this new strategy in the book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s (New York: Penguin, 1989, p. 145). They wrote, “The effect of presenting a bigot with an extreme instance of his stereotypic picture/label pair is to augment the strength of the bigotry.”

In other words, we were the bigots, and to present us with the most extreme images of the gay community was to confirm and even heighten our bigotry.

So, Kirk and Madsen called for a “Self-Policing Social Code,” with words of advice like this: “If I’m a Pederast or a Sadomasochist, I’ll Keep It Under Wraps, and Out of Gay Pride Marches.”

They also called for the “conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media” (p. 153).

And what would this propaganda look like?

Rather than exposing “bigots” like us to images of drag queens in their weird outfits or gay men gyrating in their underwear, we’d be bombarded by images of couples like Dan and Don, who’ve been together for 30 years, along with their adopted son Jason, and their pet dog Molly.

Do such gay couples exist? Of course. Are they more common than drag queens? Maybe so.

But statistics weren’t the issue. Image was the issue. And gay strategists fully understood that America would not embrace their goals as long as the most extreme elements of their society were at the forefront.

Transgender activists understood this strategy as well. That’s why they made a clear distinction between themselves and drag queens. “No, we’re not like them, and this has nothing to do with sexual orientation. We’re just normal people trapped in the wrong body, like little Sammy who’s really Sally.”

Americans could embrace that before they could embrace “Little Hot Mess” the drag queen.

But now that so many of the goals of LGBT activism have been realized, there’s no reason to push some of their own to the back of the bus, so to say.

And what does this mean, practically speaking? It means here come the drag queens.

Here Come the Drag Queens

It was drag queens who put pressure on Facebook in 2014 to change one of its fundamental policies, which required that you had to use your real name, not a made-up name. Before this time, drag queen John Doe could not use the name “Big Suzie Q,” which in his mind was his real name. Facebook apologized and changed its policy.

But that was minor compared to what’s happening today.

A concerned parent from Bloomington, Indiana wrote to me, saying, “Our local library always has a summer reading program for children.” Included was a link with this announcement for parents of children ages 2-6: “Learn about someone new! Local drag queens present stories and encourage us all to embrace our uniqueness.” Yes, for children ages 2-6!

This is perverse and outrageous. “Parents, bring your toddlers and little children to the library where local homosexual men who dress up as flamboyant women will read stories to them.” Here come the drag queens!

But it gets even worse. Much worse.

The Gyrating Drag Queen at a Grade School Talent Show

As Todd Starnes reports, “Parents are furious after children as young as 5-years-old were exposed to an erotic drag show performance at what was supposed to be a school district talent show.”

How bad was it? Take a moment to read some excerpts from the article.

“The New York Daily News described the lewd performance as ‘complete with gyrations, tongue gymnastics and a flashed G-string.’” (If this seems vulgar to read – and it is – can you imagine being there with your little kids?)

“The May 25th performance shocked and enraged parents who could not believe the school district would allow a grown man to spread his legs and display his crotch to wide-eyed children.”

One parent “filmed the seven-minute routine on her cell phone and provided me with a copy. It’s jaw-dropping, folks. And when the drag queen dropped to the floor and began writhing in a sexually-suggestive manner, the auditorium erupted.”

Did you get that? This perverse performance was 7 minutes long. In front of 5-year-olds. I’m shocked some parents didn’t walk right up to the stage and shut the whole thing down.

And what happened when this drag queen started writhing on the floor in a sexually-suggestive manor?

“Once he got to that part it was chaos,” parent Raquel Morales said. “People were yelling and leaving. A lot of parents were saying had they known this was going to happen they would have taken their kids out after they had performed.” I would hope so! This is absolute madness.

And how did such a degraded performance take place at all?

“The talent show was emceed by District 4 Superintendent Alexandra Estrella. And the individual who performed in drag was identified as the president of the Public School 96 Parent Association” (my emphasis).

This is sick, and this man needs serious help. (If you’re offended by my saying this, be offended. Truth is sometimes offensive.) The district superintendent needs serious help too. How can these people be trusted with such positions of authority?

The Cat is Out of the Bag

Now, I believe there are gay readers who are also upset as they read this account, saying, “That drag queen does not represent me. What he did is just plain filthy.”

Unfortunately, the cat is now of the bag, and if it’s gay (or trans), it’s got to be good.

That means if a gay couple is monogamish rather than monogamous, we’ve got to embrace it. Gay love is good!

And that means when a boy who identifies as a girl beats the girls at a track meet, we’ve got to celebrate it. You go boy-girl!

And that means when a drag queen wants to read stories to your two-year-old or, better still, gyrate and flash his G-string in front of your 5-year-old, you must show your appreciation.

In other words, our sentiments should be, “You’re here, you’re queer, and we’re used to it. In fact, we love it.”

Count me out of that one, friends. Enough is simply enough. (For more from the author of “Here Come the Drag Queens” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

City: You Can’t Sell Blueberries Unless You Affirm Gay Marriage

/0 Comments/in , , /by

. . .This year city officials told the devout Catholic family [Tennes family] that their blueberries and sweet corn were not welcome at the farmer’s market — and neither were they.

Last year, someone posted a message on Country Mill’s Facebook page inquiring about whether they hosted same-sex weddings at the farm. Tennes told the individual they did not permit same-sex marriages on the farm because of the family’s Catholic belief that marriage is a sacramental union between one man and one woman.

City officials later discovered the Facebook posting and began immediate action to remove Country Mill from the Farmer’s Market — alleging the family had violated the city’s discrimination ordinance.

“It was brought to our attention that The Country Mill’s general business practices do not comply with East Lansing’s Civil Rights ordinances and public policy against discrimination as set forth in Chapter 22 of the City Code and outlined in the 2017 Market Vendor Guidelines, as such, The Country Mill’s presence as a vendor his prohibited by the City’s Farmer’s Market Vendor Guidelines,” read a letter the city sent to the family.

It also did not seem to matter to city leaders that the farm is located 22 miles outside the city limits — and had absolutely nothing to do with the business of selling blueberries at the farmer’s market. (Read more from “City: You Can’t Sell Blueberries Unless You Affirm Gay Marriage” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

March for Life Wants Justice Department to Investigate Planned Parenthood

/0 Comments/in , /by

The March for Life, along with over a dozen other organizations, signed a letter released Tuesday asking Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI acting Director Andrew McCabe to investigate Planned Parenthood’s involvement in the selling of fetal tissue.

“We, the undersigned representing millions of Americans, strongly support an investigation into paid fetal tissue transfers involving Planned Parenthood,” the signers write.

The letter is prompted by the work of David Daleiden, an investigative journalist who founded the Center for Medical Progress, a nonprofit organization of “citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances.”

As part of his work, “Daleiden recorded doctors, executives, and staff-level employees discussing various aspects of the fetal tissue procurement industry,” the signers write.

Daleiden and a contractor hired by Center for Medical Progress, Sandra Merritt, are currently facing criminal charges in California over their undercover video work. Daleiden called the charges “bogus.”

Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, told The Daily Signal in an interview Thursday that pro-life organizations want justice to be served.

“Essentially, we’re asking the administration to take it up in its proper format, so it should have been looked at through the Justice Department in the Obama administration,” Mancini said. “Of course, that never happened, so we’re asking the Trump administration to rightly take up this in the Department of Justice.”

The letter comes days after the May 24 release of a video from the Center for Medical Progress that shows footage from the conventions of the National Abortion Federation in 2014 and 2015.

“An eyeball just fell down into my lap, and that is gross,” Dr. Uta Landy, Planned Parenthood Federation of America Consortium of Abortion Providers founder, said during a panel discussion at a National Abortion Federation convention.

Deb VanDerhei, national director for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America America Consortium of Abortion Providers, directly addressed revenues.

“But the truth is, that some might want to do it for, to increase their revenues,” VanDerhei said. “And we can’t stop them.”

The Center for Medical Progress has released multiple videos taken by undercover journalists showing Planned Parenthood employees discussing the selling of fetal tissue.

A video released in April by the Center for Medical Progress shows Dr. Mary Gatter, Planned Parenthood Foundation of America’s Medical Directors’ Council president, speaking about the price of fetal tissue.

“Yeah, $50’s on the low end, $50 [per specimen] was like 12 years ago,” Gatter said.

The last Congress, the letter said, investigated Planned Parenthood’s involvement in the selling of fetal tissue.

“The 114th Congress responded to the videos by holding hearings and initiating investigations that culminated in the House of Representatives creating the Select Panel on Infant Lives to further investigate the matter,” the letter reads.

The letter states that the panel “found evidence of violations of laws protecting human research subjects and patient privacy; laws regulating anatomical gifts for transplantation, therapy, research, and education; laws protecting late-term and born-alive infants; and laws pertaining to public funding for fetal tissue research and abortion providers.”

The panel, according to the letter, “made 15 criminal and regulatory referrals of tissue procurement companies and abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood affiliates, and investigations are underway around the nation.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee, which investigated the selling of fetal tissue, made seven criminal referrals to the Department of Justice, according to the letter.

Planned Parenthood did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment. Previously the organization has pushed back against Daleiden’s coverage.

“The videos generated by the discredited ‘Center for Medical Progress’ are a fraud aimed at single purpose: to end women’s access to reproductive health care, including medically safe and legal abortion, and to damage Planned Parenthood,” Planned Parenthood said in a statement last year.

The signers of the letter wrote that President Barack Obama’s administration “decided to turn a blind eye to the wrongdoing,” and are asking the Department of Justice to “continue the investigation into the practices surrounding this scandal.”

David Christensen, vice president of government affairs at the Family Research Council, a conservative policy organization, told The Daily Signal Thursday this request to the Department of Justice should be heeded.

“It was really important to see the Obama administration put its incredible support for Planned Parenthood and abortion rights over and above the law and justice,” Christensen said. “President [Donald] Trump has spoken strongly in favor of life and…we would like to see the Department of Justice follow up by appraising the law.”

This article has been modified since publication. (For more from the author of “March for Life Wants Justice Department to Investigate Planned Parenthood” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

5 Sickening Takeaways From Planned Parenthood’s Annual Report

/0 Comments/in , /by

Planned Parenthood’s annual report, covering the fiscal year ending in June 30, 2016, is now ready for public consumption, and there are some key takeaways.

More abortions: The nation’s largest abortion provider saw a slight uptick in abortions over the year covered in the report – listing 328,348 procedures. This is an increase of 1.34 percent from the previous year’s numbers, according to a report at the Washington Examiner, and adds up to just over 37 abortions per hour.

A low rate of prenatal care: Earlier this year, LiveAction – a pro-life advocacy organization – went under cover at multiple Planned Parenthood locations, finding that many of them did not actually provide prenatal care. While the report does list prenatal services, those are vastly outpaced by abortion procedures. According to the group’s own admissions, abortions outnumber the approximately 9,000 listed prenatal services on the report by over 35 to one.

More money — a lot more, actually: The era of Trump’s rise has been good to Planned Parenthood from a financial standpoint, at least. The report details that the organization’s total revenue increased by more than $1.35 billion over the previous year, with over $550 million of that coming from government sources and $445.8 million coming from private donations.

A state-supported industry: The current version of the GOP’s health-care bill would defund Planned Parenthood for a year by barring the organization from receiving reimbursement from government funding. The group’s financials show why defunding Planned Parenthood in this manner would be a big problem for the organization, as a 41 percent plurality of the group’s revenue comes from the government, with donations and charges for service coming in second and third.

A year of big wins: Anyone who has ever worked at a nonprofit will tell you that the main goal of an annual report is to show off your accomplishments to your board and your donors. This one is no exception. The report touts victories like the prosecution of citizen journalist, the failures of states to defund the group, and the Supreme Court’s Whole Women’s Health ruling as big pluses for the organization.

The numbers are staggering in some cases and unsurprising in others. What remains to be seen is whether or not they will be enough to spur a GOP-controlled Congress and White House to deliver on one of their biggest promises to the American people: a complete defund. (For more from the author of “5 Sickening Takeaways From Planned Parenthood’s Annual Report” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Oregon Shields Birth Record Changes for Transgenders

/0 Comments/in , /by

Gov. Kate Brown has signed a bill that will make it easier for transgender people in Oregon to shield any updates they make to their birth certificates, a process typically conducted through the court system without privacy from public view . . .

The new law eliminates the requirement that changes to someone’s name or gender identity must be posted publicly by the courts. It also allows court cases involving gender identity changes on birth records to be sealed.

HB 2673 passed the Democratic-controlled Oregon Legislature earlier this month with some Republican support at a time when, two years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage, the nation remains largely divided as to how to balance LGBTQ rights and religious freedoms. (Read more from “Oregon Shields Birth Record Changes for Transgenders” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Administration Considering Rule That Would Help Little Sisters of the Poor

/0 Comments/in , /by

For employers that don’t want to provide birth control and abortifacient coverage in health insurance plans, relief may be on the way.

President Donald Trump’s administration “is poised to make changes to Obamacare’s birth control coverage mandate by granting broad exemptions to employers that object on religious or moral grounds,” The Hill reported.

The proposed move is being cheered by some conservatives.

“Better late than never,” Mark Rienzi, senior counsel with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit legal organization, said in a statement.

“At long last the United States government acknowledges that people can get contraceptives without forcing nuns to provide them,” Rienzi added. “That is sensible, fair, and in keeping with the Supreme Court’s order and the president’s promise to the Little Sisters and other religious groups serving the poor.”

The Becket Fund represents the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns who fought the Obamacare contraception and abortifacient mandate all the way to the Supreme Court.

Last year, the Supreme Court “‘vacated,’ meaning erased, all of the lower court cases and required them to reconsider the claims brought by the Little Sisters of the Poor and others that the regulations promulgated pursuant to Obamacare violate their religious exercise in light of the government’s admission that it could indeed provide contraceptive coverage without the Little Sisters’ collaboration,” wrote The Heritage Foundation’s Elizabeth Slattery and Roger Severino, a former Heritage employee, at the time.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, an organization that promotes pro-life and family values, said the proposed rule change is good progress.

“While this apparent leaked document is a draft, it is a very positive sign to see the federal government work to cease its hostility toward Christians and those who object to the Obama-era health care mandates,” Perkins said in a statement. “This draft regulation shows that [Health and Human Services] Secretary Tom Price and President Trump intend to make good on their pledge to vigorously protect and promote [America’s] First Freedom.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., decried the proposed rule change.

Birth control advocates, such as Keep Birth Control Copay Free, an organization that promotes birth control access, are not supportive of the potential rule change.

“President Trump has been clear that religious liberty is important and that religious orders, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, are deserving of that freedom as well,” a White House spokesperson told The Daily Signal in an email.

The leaked rule “would leave in place the religious ‘accommodation’ created by the Obama administration, making that route available to groups that choose to continue using it,” according to the Becket Fund.

The Becket Fund also noted in its press release that many Americans remain on health insurance plans that do not have to provide abortifacients or birth control:

One hundred million Americans—nearly one in three—don’t have insurance plans that must comply with this mandate. The government was already exempting large corporations like Exxon and Visa, and even its own government-run plans for the disabled and military families.

Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel at Becket, told The Daily Signal in an email that the proposed rule could be published in the next week or in the next several weeks. (For more from the author of “Trump Administration Considering Rule That Would Help Little Sisters of the Poor” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Farmer Won’t Host Same-Sex Weddings at His Orchard. Now a City Has Banned Him From Its Farmers Market.

/0 Comments/in , /by

A farmers market and Facebook posts have opened a new front in courtroom battles over religious freedom.

It started when Steve Tennes, who owns a 120-acre farm in Charlotte, Michigan, expressed his traditional view about marriage on the farm’s Facebook page.

This drew a warning from an official more than 20 miles away in East Lansing, Michigan, that if Tennes tried to sell his fruit at the city’s farmers market, it could incite protests.

No one showed up to protest that August day last summer, though, and Tennes continued selling organic apples, peaches, cherries, and pumpkins at the seasonal market until October, as he had done the six previous years.

Nevertheless, East Lansing moved earlier this year to ban Tennes’ farm, the Country Mill, from participating in the farmers market when it resumes June 4. The city cited its human relations ordinance, an anti-discrimination law that includes sexual orientation.

So Tennes and his wife sued the city for religious discrimination.

As a Marine veteran who is married to an Army veteran, Tennes told The Daily Signal, this was consistent with his philosophy of defending freedom:

My wife Bridget and I volunteered to serve our country in the military to protect freedom, and that is why we feel we have to fight for freedom now, whether it’s Muslims’, Jews’, or Christians’ right to believe and live out those beliefs.

The government shouldn’t be treating some people worse than others because they have different thoughts and ideas.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal aid organization, is representing the Tenneses.

Neither East Lansing’s public information office nor the city manager’s office responded Wednesday to phone calls about the case from The Daily Signal.

East Lansing Mayor Mark Meadows told the Lansing State Journal that the city’s decision to exclude Country Mill—also known as Country Mill Orchard—from the farmers market had nothing to do with religious beliefs, but with the farm’s “business decision” not to host same-sex weddings.

“This is about them operating a business that discriminates against LGBT individuals, and that’s a whole different issue,” Meadows said.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, says of Steve and Bridget Tennes’ perspective, in part:

Plaintiffs support the rights of citizens and other businesses to express their views about marriage. Plaintiffs simply seek to enjoy the same freedom.

Yet, East Lansing’s policy strips plaintiffs of their constitutional freedoms, including free speech and the free exercise of religion, by punishing plaintiffs’ viewpoint on marriage, going so far as to prohibit Country Mill from continuing its long history of participating in the farmers market because plaintiffs publicly stated their sincerely held religious view that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

The suit also says the farm “has employed people from a wide variety of racial, cultural, and religious backgrounds, including members of the LGBT community.

Country Mill hosts a corn maze, birthday parties, weddings, and other events.

In 2014, two lesbians sought to be married in a wedding ceremony at Country Mill, but Tennes turned them down.

This occurred before the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage across the country.

According to his legal complaint, Tennes had a “civil” discussion with the women, and said his venue didn’t host same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs. But he referred the women to an orchard that held same-sex weddings.

In 2015, the two women were married at another orchard. On Aug. 22, 2016, one of them wrote a Facebook post discouraging consumers from doing business with Country Mill.

In response, Tennes initially said the farm would cease holding any weddings, writing on Facebook:

After this post, the East Lansing official asked Tennes not to sell produce at the market, saying he feared protests.

Tennes did anyway, and no protest occurred, according to the lawsuit.

In December, Tennes announced on Facebook that Country Mill would resume holding weddings:

This past fall our family farm stopped booking future wedding ceremonies at our orchard until we could devote the appropriate time to review our policies and how we respectfully communicate and express our beliefs. The Country Mill engages in expressing its purpose and beliefs through the operation of its business and it intentionally communicates messages that promote its owners’ beliefs and declines to communicate messages that violate those beliefs.

The Country Mill family and its staff have and will continue to participate in hosting the ceremonies held at our orchard. It remains our deeply held religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and Country Mill has the First Amendment right to express and act upon its beliefs. For this reason, Country Mill reserves the right to deny a request for services that would require it to communicate, engage in, or host expression that violates the owners’ sincerely held religious beliefs and conscience.

Furthermore, it remains our religious belief that all people should be treated with respect and dignity regardless of their beliefs or background. We appreciate the tolerance offered to us specifically regarding our participation in hosting wedding ceremonies at our family farm.

East Lansing city officials determined that these public statements violated the city’s 1972 human relations ordinance prohibiting discrimination. That law was the first in the state to recognize sexual orientation as a protected class from discrimination.

But this brought up a jurisdictional issue on top of First Amendment concerns, the farmer’s lawsuit says.

East Lansing, the complaint says, “has no authority to enforce its ordinance based on Tennes’ religious beliefs and their impact on how he operates Country Mill.” The farm, it says, is 22 miles outside the city.

The lawsuit also notes that the city has not taken action against a vendor that promoted same-sex marriage.

In March, East Lansing sent Tennes a letter denying Country Mill’s application to be a vendor at the 2017 farmers market:

It was brought to our attention that the Country Mill’s general business practices do not comply with East Lansing’s civil rights ordinances and public policy against discrimination as set forth in Chapter 22 of the City Code and outlined in the 2017 market vendor guidelines.

“As such,” the letter reads, “Country Mill’s presence as a vendor is prohibited.” (For more from the author of “This Farmer Won’t Host Same-Sex Weddings at His Orchard. Now a City Has Banned Him From Its Farmers Market.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Should Fearless Girls Worship the Golden Calf of Abortion?

/0 Comments/in , /by

The saga of the Charging Bull and the Fearless Girl is back in the news. It seems New York sculptor Alex Gardega objected to feminists’ appropriating the Wall Street icon. So he added something: a pug, relieving itself on the girl.

I couldn’t put my finger on it. But something about the Fearless Girl statue didn’t sit well with me. Social media fawned over the diminutive addition that bravely stood in front of Charging Bull in New York’s financial district. But the statue seemed like a cheap way to score political points. My cynicism grew the more I considered her underlying message.

The plaque at Fearless Girl’s feet reads: “Know the power of women in leadership. SHE makes a difference.” “SHE” is both a descriptive pronoun and the NASDAQ ticker symbol for the organization that funded her. Fearless Girl’s message is to promote workplace gender diversity. And to encourage companies to recruit women to their boards. Those pleasant enough politically correct platitudes.

The artist of the Charging Bull has himself complained that Fearless Girl distorted the meaning of his bronze. It transformed the bull from a symbol of strength and prosperity into one of a villain. In response, New York City Mayor de Blasio tweeted, “Men who don’t like women taking up space are exactly why we need the Fearless Girl.”

But there is more to the story than just political posturing and man-shaming. Mayor de Blasio has already made it clear that the statues’ meanings are fluid. So let’s consider what happens when we move these two statues somewhere else in the world. How does changing the context change their meaning?

Move Those Statues to Africa

If Charging Bull and Fearless Girl were on the African continent, people might think they are a Public Service Announcement. “Caution: Wild Bulls.” Locals seeing a little girl in the path of a raging bull might not find it so — well, inspiring. In fact, they would see it as quite the contrary. Any child left alone in such circumstances is a tribal (or village) failure. They know the inevitable outcome.

And what if the bronzes were moved to India or Nepal? There Hinduism is practiced, and all things bovine — including their dung and urine — are revered. Honoring cows is so weighty that U.S. diplomats are warned that if while driving they are faced with the choice of hitting a person or a cow, the better thing to do is hit the person. Perhaps again Fearless Girl might not inspire the same sort of “You go, girl!” spirit. Suddenly, Fearless Girl is no longer a heroine, but merely a bystander while the bull holds center stage.

Of course, worshiping bulls is nothing new. It never leads to anything good. Just ask the ancient Greek queen of Crete, Pasiphae, how worshiping the white bull worked for her. Their coupling created the monstrous Minotaur: the bull-headed man who devoured Athenian. Nor did the Israelites profit from worship of their golden calf. It nearly got them wiped out as a nation.

We have our own sacred cow. The West thinks that equality between men and women can only be reached by erasing their differences. Such “equality” rests squarely on the notion that women must be free from the burden of childbearing and therefore must have abortion on demand — no restrictions.

Worshiping the Golden Calf of Abortion

Abortion was sold as “safe, legal and rare.” But that golden calf has grown up into something fierce and terrifying. Today, worship of the bull of abortion is a rite of passage for any woman who craves power, prestige or fortune. Nearly every public woman in the corridors of influence from New York to Washington to Hollywood has offered her pinch of incense to the abortion behemoth — Planned Parenthood.

So what if we moved Fearless Girl and Charging Bull back to New York, but consider yet another meaning for each? What if we see Charging Bull as the abortion juggernaut, and Fearless Girl as all those who worship him?

This new, fierce and ferocious bull devours the innocent like the Minotaur. Instead of 15 males and 15 females a year, the numbers are closer to 1500 males a day and 1500 females a day in the United States alone.

Like the golden calf worshipers of old, the new bovine worshipers are not left unscathed. Tragically, all these women who worship abortion have been frozen as little girls — as if in bronze — never to grow up and become true women, but to forever remain stuck in a feminist frenzy: a vicious cycle of victimization, foot stomping tantrums, illogic, perpetual aping of men, and vulgar pink hats.

Sadly, unlike Africa, there are no more grown-ups in the village to come and protect them, for these little girls are the grown-ups; they are the cultural elite; they are culture makers. And yet little girls they remain — fearless and foolish — and try as they might, unless or until they find healing, there they will remain stuck in the path of the charging bull of their own making. (For more from the author of “Should Fearless Girls Worship the Golden Calf of Abortion?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.