Liberal Supreme Court Justices Ruth Ginsburg and Elena Kagan Have Both Officiated Gay Marriages

Newsmax.com:

At least one Supreme Court justice has signaled how she is likely to weigh in on a much-watched case over marriage equality, Yahoo Politics reports.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been talking a bit more freely about the case, noting increasing support for gay marriage in interviews, Yahoo reported as the high court prepares to hear oral arguments on Tuesday.

"I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court retreats from what it has said about same-sex unions," Ginsburg, 82, said in a January interview with The New York Times' Gail Collins, Yahoo reported.
Her remarks were in reference to the court's decision in 2012 "that found the federal government must recognize same-sex marriages," Yahoo said.
Both Ginsburg and her fellow Justice Elena Kagan have officiated at same-sex weddings, prompting some traditional marriage advocacy groups to say they must recuse themselves from ruling on the latest case, Obergefell v. Hodges.

That outcry is likely misplaced, Yahoo said, citing Columbia Law School Professor Jamal Greene. Yahoo said he pointed out that "officiating at a same-sex marriage in a jurisdiction that already allows it does not call into question the justices’ impartiality on that question."
While Ginsburg has not overtly shown her hand, she made note of the shift in public opinion on gay marriage in a February interview with Bloomberg.
"It would not take a large adjustment," the former civil rights attorney said, for Americans to accept a ruling legalizing same-sex marriages.

 RELATED: Justices Kennedy, Scalia Much Alike, But Not on Gay Issues

Kentucky Court Rules Christian Printer Can’t Be Forced to Produce Pro-Gay Messages

Reason.com:

Speech is speech! At least we have the settled for the moment, anyway, for this one case. The circuit court for Fayette County in Kentucky has ruled that the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission erred when it determined that a Christian T-shirt company discriminated when it refused to print shirts for a gay pride event.

In 2012 a Lexington, Kentucky, gay organization filed a complaint against Hands On Originals, a shirt company who wears its Christianity right on its site, if not on its sleeves (sorry, couldn't resist). The organization asked for Hands On Originals to make shirts for their 2012 gay pride festival. The shirt company declined, because they didn't support the message the group wanted printed. The group then accused the company of violating the county's public accommodation laws, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The response from Hands On was that they weren't discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. They were refusing to print a message with which they disagreed. This is a case that sounds familiar. In Colorado, a Christian man tried to show some sort of bakery hypocrisy when he tried to get a Colorado bakery to make a cake for him with an anti-gay message. The bakery refused. He complained, clearly trying to draw a similarity to those bakeries who were being cited and fined for refusing to make wedding cakes for gay customers.

But the mistake he made was demanding the cakes say something particular. Colorado dismissed his complaint. He was not being discriminated against just for being a Christian. Rather, the bakery could not be compelled to say something it found offensive.

And so it goes with Hands On Originals. They were not discriminating against gay customers. They were declining to publish statements with which the company disagreed, something they've done several times in the past, according to court documents.

Originally the county Human Rights Commission actually ruled against the shirt company, stating that forcing Hands On Originals to print the shirts "does not violate the Respondent's (HOO) right to free speech, does not compel it to speak, and does not burden the Respondent's (HOO) right to the free expression of religion."

Judge James Ishmael Jr.'s response is to simply point out that the Human Rights Commission is completely and utterly wrong. He does start by saying "With all due respect," which I assume is the circuit court judicial opinion equivalent of getting kicked directly in the teeth. He says the conclusions are "factually incorrect" with respect to both Supreme Court interpretations of the federal law and the state's own laws. Kentucky does have a religious freedom regulation, and the judge invokes it, along with the precedent recently set by the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Supreme Court ruling.

Ishmael then ordered the decision reversed and all charges against Hands On Originals dismissed. 

RELATED:  GoFundMe shuts down another donations page for a Christian business owner accused of discrimination?

Bruce Jenner Will Never Be A Woman

Townhall.com:

This past Friday night, I tweeted out, “My heart goes out to Bruce Jenner, & when he says, ‘I am a woman,’ I hear him saying, ‘I am deeply confused & hurting.’ Let's pray for him!” The responses to this tweet were as ugly and profane as anything I have ever seen. Why the extreme and even irrational hostility?

Some of the tweets included these gems:

"f--- you you disgusting saliva gerbil" (to be honest, I’ve never been called that before) 

"you cranky scheming mustachio'd clown" (this was also a new one)

“F--- YOU. I don’t have the patience for this nonsense anymore. You are the epitome of everything that’s wrong here.”

Why such vitriol?

Look again at what I posted. 

It was grounded in love, and I simply expressed what I heard in Bruce Jenner’s words, calling for prayer.
Some of the tweets were so profane that to quote them here would be of no use, since almost every word would have to be censored. But there were plenty of others that, while using better language, were just as ugly:

“you are a horrible human being”

“you’re disgusting”

“And all i hear is a bigoted old man who is scared to even think that a person may be different than him.”

Later in the evening, in response to some comments others had made (there were some who were not as nasty in their tweets), I asked why the trans advocates discredited those who regretted sex-change surgery or who now believed that you cannot change your gender, posting some relevant links as well.

Then on Saturday, I made this comment: “Who said that being a man or a woman is determined by how one feels? Since when are biology & genetics meaningless?”

In response to this, one young man wrote, “YOU’RE LITERALLY SO IGNORANT? Why is your mentality stuck in the 60’s, move forward with time to now this stuff happens.”

How do we deal with such moral madness? How do we even begin to interact with this social insanity that exalts subjective feelings and denies verifiable reality?

As followers of Jesus, we must be gracious and loving towards those who identity as transgender. And as I’ve said many times before, we need to have great compassion on the children who struggle with gender identity issues, continuing to do our best to get to the root causes of these issues with the goal of providing a way for them and their families to find wholeness without the need for lifelong hormones and sex-change surgery.

But the fact is that Bruce Jenner is not a woman, and it is not hateful to say so.

If he were a woman, he would not have been able to father all of his children, nor would he need female hormones to feminize his body.

That doesn’t mean he doesn’t feel like he’s a woman. It simply means he’s not a woman.

RELATED:  The Bruce Jenner Republican Moment

Bruce Jenner Photographed Wearing a Dress Outside His Malibu Home

A 65-year-old man, Olympic champion and boyhood idol who slept with women to help produce a handful of kids, decides that all this time he was meant to be a "woman"--yet another example of the sick, morally bankrupt world Godless, social liberals are leading us to.

RELATED: Jamie Foxx On Bruce Jenner Joke: Says It Wasn’t Transphobic

The Gay Wedding Gotcha Question That Isn’t

TheFederalist.com:

It started with Marco Rubio, but the “would you attend a gay wedding” question is one that is rapidly being applied to the entirety of the potential 2016 field. Thus far, Rubio has said yes, Ted Cruz has demurred, and Rick Santorum stands alone as a “no”. John Kasich says yes, he’d attend a loved one’s gay wedding (and also that he’s waiting for a signal from God on whether or not to run). And Scott Walker one-ups them all by saying: I already did.

This has all the hallmarks of being a gotcha question that really isn’t, along the lines of last cycle’s “should states have the right to ban contraception?” questions from George Stephanopoulos. It’s not about whether you believe in federalism. It’s not about the philosophical interpretation of the roles of states or the rights of citizens. It’s a question designed to test your allegiances. It’s being asked this cycle by reporters because of the obvious tension within the Republican coalition between the social conservative base and the need to appeal to general election voters who are increasingly fine with gay marriage. As such, just like the 2012 contraception question, it’s not about a pressing policy issue. It’s about trying to find a subject where the natural voter’s response is “what? Don’t be ridiculous”, but Republican candidates’ responses will be a fifteen minute discourse on the finer points of Griswold v. Connecticut.

“Would you attend a gay wedding” is a matter of personal conscience. But that’s why it’s such an obvious opportunity for turning the question back on the actual policy battle at issue, a bit of ju jitsu I haven’t seen from any of the respondents yet. The whole point is that it’s your decision whether to attend or not. 

Conservatives and (most) libertarians believe people ought to be able to decide whether to freely associate with others themselves, not be dragooned by the force of government into mandatory associations as the secular left maintains. The entire point of religious freedom laws in Indiana and elsewhere is that we want to give people who say “I cannot in good conscience participate in this ceremony” the right to defend themselves in court based on their deeply held beliefs. That used to be a bipartisan principle, and now it’s effectively a monopartisan one – but it’s the right principle. A Republican Party unwilling to defend it has been reduced from a party founded on the idea that no man should work and toil and earn bread where another eats it… to one only ready to smash their clay fire pots and raise a sword in the air for the cause of the Keystone Pipeline and the Medical Device Tax.

Hugh Hewitt has probably done us all a favor by teeing it up on a radio show that will feature appearances by every 2016er early on, as opposed to leaving it until the debates. The downside is that just means that the question will have to be updated by the time everyone’s answering questions on stage. I’d suggest something like “Would you send your kids to a school that teaches the Bible says being gay is a sin?”, or “How many Sam Smith albums do you own?”, or “Would you order a pizza from someone who wouldn’t cater a gay wedding?”. Only once the voters know your stance on bigot pizza can they be fully informed as to which side of Culture War 4.0 you are on.

This is a test. It is an early test. It should be easy for Republicans to pass it.

RELATED:  Hugh Hewitt puts Cruz, Santorum on spot on same-sex marriage

Kirsten Powers Rips Obama for Being ‘Largely Silent’ on Christian Slaughter

Mediaite.com:

What do you call it when 12 men are drowned at sea for praying to Jesus?

Answer: Religious persecution. 

Yet, when a throng of Muslims threw a dozen Christians overboard a migrant ship traveling from Libya to Italy, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi missed the opportunity to label it as such. Standing next to President Obama at their joint news conference Friday, Renzi dismissed it as a one-off event and said, "The problem is not a problem of (a) clash of religions."

While the prime minister plunged his head into the sand, Italian authorities arrested and charged the Muslim migrants with "multiple aggravated murder motivated by religious hate," according to the BBC.

As Renzi was questioned about the incident, Obama was mute on the killings. He failed to interject any sense of outrage or even tepid concern for the targeting of Christians for their faith. If a Christian mob on a ship bound for Italy threw 12 Muslims to their death for praying to Allah, does anyone think the president would have been so disinterested? When three North Carolina Muslims were gunned down by a virulent atheist, Obama rightly spoke out against the horrifying killings. But he just can't seem to find any passion for the mass persecution of Middle Eastern Christians or the eradication of Christianity from its birthplace.

Religious persecution of Christians is rampant worldwide, as Pew has noted, but nowhere is it more prevalent than in the Middle East and Northern Africa, where followers of Jesus are the targets of religious cleansing. Pope Francis has repeatedly decried the persecution and begged the world for help, but it has had little impact. Western leaders — including Obama — will be remembered for their near silence as this human rights tragedy unfolded. The president's mumblings about the atrocities visited upon Christians (usually extracted after public outcry over his silence) are few and far between. And it will be hard to forget his lecturing of Christians at the National Prayer Breakfast about the centuries-old Crusades while Middle Eastern Christians were at that moment being harassed, driven from their homes, tortured and murdered for their faith. 

A week and a half after Obama's National Prayer Breakfast speech, 21 Coptic Christians were beheaded for being "people of the cross." Seven of the victims were former students of my friend and hero "Mama" Maggie Gobran, known as the "Mother Theresa of Cairo" for her work with the poorest of the poor. She told me these dear men grew up in rural Upper Egypt and had gone to Libya seeking work to support their families. They died with dignity as they called out to their God, while the cowardly murderers masked their faces.

Rather than hectoring Christians about their ancestors' misdeeds, Obama should honor these men and the countless Middle Eastern Christians persecuted before them. 

RELATED:  ‘Stunned’ Krauthammer calls Obama’s Prayer Breakfast lecture to Christians ‘banal and offensive’

Poll: Most Americans Say Hillary Clinton Will Be The 45th President

Townhall.com:

Clearly, as many pundits and politicians have already noted, authenticity is not Hillary Clinton's strong suit.

Coordinated and scripted campaign stops, gross pandering, and breathless statements about how she was once “dead broke” after leaving the White House have all contributed to the perception that the former first lady is profoundly unrelatable, and an insincere spokeswoman for the working class. 

Appearing fresh and dynamic, however, is an admittedly difficult task for any presidential contender, especially one who has been on the national stage for decades. But given her universal name recognition and heir apparent status, her path to the nomination seems preordained. Hence, her campaign is likely to continue following a scripted regiment of avoiding the media, shunning debates, and embracing the popular zeitgeist of our time that, after losing the Democratic nomination eight years ago to a truly exceptional campaigner, nothing can now stand in her way. 

Indeed, more than half the country already thinks she’s going to win the 2016 election outright, according to a new poll—even though more than one-third of Democrats think that the party “needs a fresh face" in 2016.

But to whom, I wonder, will they look? If a certain progressive senator continues to brush aside the suggestion that she's entering the ring, who will emerge as a credible and viable Democratic alternative? Joe Biden? Martin O’Malley? 

Please. Hillary Clinton, it seems reasonably safe to conclude, will face little or no opposition during the primary. Barring an amendment to the US Constitution allowing presidents to serve three executive terms, the Democrats are putting all their eggs into the Hillary Clinton basket. 

But can she deliver? Can she overcome the scandals and the controversies? That remains to be seen. But Hillary Clinton’s most acute weakness, I think, is that she does not appear to be genuine, approachable, or even trustworthy. Perhaps, as one writer recently put it, she really is the “Mitt Romney of the Democrats.”

We'll see. 

RELATED:  While Hillary Is Bad For America, She Might Be the GOP’s Savior

Rick Santorum: I Wouldn’t Attend a Loved One’s Gay Wedding

Mediaite.com:

Likely Republican presidential candidate and Rick Santorum would not attend the same-sex marriage of a loved one.

After the pair decried the media’s focus on the same-sex marriage fight — calling it something of a distraction from the Islamic State’s brutality abroad — conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt asked the former senator the same question Fusion’s Jorge Ramos asked newly-announced candidate Marco Rubio on Wednesday: Would you attend the same-sex wedding of a loved one or anyone you are close to?

“I would not,” Santorum said, shocking no one. “As a person of my faith, that would be something that would be a violation of my faith. I would love them and support them, uh, but I would not participate in that ceremony.”

A shame that most of these GOP Presidential candidates are doing such a poor job defending conservative ideals while handling the liberal media. I mean, here's the easy answer to this question: 'No, I wouldn't attend a gay marriage and nor would I attend a polygamist wedding either. Next question.'

RELATED: Limbaugh to GOP Candidates: Stop Doing Interviews with Hillary Media Surrogates

Liberal News Media Buries Story About Homosexual TSA Agent Molesting Male Airline Passengers

NBCNews.com:

Two Transportation Security Administration employees have been fired after they allegedly set up a system to allow a male screener to pat down attractive men going through security at Denver International Airport, authorities said. 

The employees were not identified, and there will be no criminal charges because no victims have come forward, according to a police report. 

Denver Police got involved in March, after a tipster brought it to the attention of the TSA in November, which conducted an investigation and contacted police. 

The male screener would give a signal to a female employee when a male passenger arrived that he thought was attractive, and she would falsely enter the sex of the passenger as female, so the machine would report an anomaly that triggered a pat down of a passenger's groin, police said in a report. 

She told the TSA investigators she did this for the other officer at least 10 times in the past, according to the report. 

A TSA investigator observed the scheme in action at 9:25 a.m. on Feb. 9, when he saw a screener give a signal to another and then pat down the passenger's groin and buttocks using the palms of his hands, which is forbidden by TSA rules, according to the police report. 

"These alleged acts are egregious and intolerable," the TSA said in a statement. "TSA has removed two officers from the agency." 

The Denver District Attorney's Office said that because the passenger who was patted down, who the TSA believes was flying with Southwest Airlines, hasn't come forward it could not file charges in the "unlawful sexual contact" case. The case is still being reviewed for other possible charges, a spokeswoman for the DA's office said Tuesday. 

RELATED:  Obama’s Legacy: Transgender Bathroom Crusade

Orthodox News Site Censors ‘Pornographic Symbol’ Kim Kardashian

Mediaite.com:

In accordance with their religious beliefs, Orthodox Jewish news services frequently censor women from photos, a policy that tends to garner headlines: A New York paper was forced to apologize to the White House for removing Hillary Clinton from the famous Situation Room photo taken during Osama bin Laden’s assassination, and earlier this year, Israeli paper HaMevaser became the subject of international scrutiny after it erased Angela Merkel from a photo of the Charlie Hebdo march.

The industry’s apparent takeaway: They shouldn’t use Photoshop to censor the women, but more clever methods seem a-ok.

In a report about Kimye’s recent visit to Jerusalem, Israeli-based paper Kikar HaShabbat removed Kim Kardashian from an AP photo showing her and her husband, Kanye West, having dinner with Jerusalem’s mayor Nir Barkat. Instead of Photoshop, they just covered her with a receipt, and then chided Barkat for eating with Kimye at a non-kosher restaurant:

According to the AP, another photograph simply blurred her out of a photo, and Kardashian was repeatedly not referred to by name, but as “West’s wife.”

Editor Nissim Ben Haim defended the website’s decision, saying that Kardashian was a “pornographic symbol” who goes against Orthodox values, which, we suppose, is true.

RELATED:  Kim Kardashian And Kanye West Baptize North West In Jerusalem