Connect with us

Politics

Christian Bakers Forced To Pay Lesbain Couple $135K For Not Baking Them A Cake

Published

on

(Via The Daily Wire)

On Thursday, while the nation awaited the outcome in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, which is to be decided by the Supreme Court, the Oregon Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld a $135,000 fine against two Christian bakers who would not create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

In January 2013, Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery, refused to create a wedding cake for Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer. The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries subsequently decided that the Kleins violated a 2007 state law that prohibited a place of public accommodation from denying “full and equal” service to a person on account of their sexual orientation. The Kleins were forced to pay the Bowman-Cryers for emotional distress.

The Kleins appealed the decision in March 2017, but on Thursday the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld the fine against the Kleins, writing, “The final order does not impermissibly burden the Kleins’ right to the free exercise of their religion because it simply requires their compliance with a neutral law of general applicability, and the Kleins have made no showing that the state targeted them for enforcement because of their religious beliefs.”

Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer celebrated, offering this statement released by their attorney:

It does not matter how you were born or who you love. All of us are equal under the law and should be treated equally. Oregon will not allow a “Straight Couples Only” sign to be hung in bakeries or other stores.

Kelly Shackelford, the president and CEO of The First Liberty Institute, which represented the Kleins, countered with this statement:

Today, the Oregon Court of Appeals decided that Aaron and Melissa Klein are not entitled to the Constitution’s promises of religious liberty and free speech. In a diverse and pluralistic society, people of good will should be able to peacefully coexist with different beliefs. We are disappointed that the court ruled against the Kleins.

In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Colorado baker Jack Phillips refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The U.S. Department of Justice has submitted an amicus brief to support Phillips, stating, “Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Immigration

Majority of Americans Support Mass Deportation – CBS Poll

Published

on

In a recent CBS poll, it has been found that 62% of Americans support the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants from the United States. This result reflects the growing public sentiment in favor of stricter immigration policies and the enforcement of existing laws.

The poll, conducted by CBS, surveyed a diverse group of American citizens to gauge their opinions on various issues related to immigration. The findings indicate a significant shift in public opinion, with a majority of respondents expressing their support for the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants.

The results of the poll are not entirely surprising, given the ongoing debates and discussions surrounding immigration reform in the United States. Many Americans believe that the current immigration system is flawed and that stricter measures are necessary to address the issue of illegal immigration.

Proponents of mass deportation argue that it is a necessary step to protect the country’s borders and ensure the safety and security of American citizens. They believe that undocumented immigrants pose a threat to the nation’s economy, social services, and national security.

However, critics of mass deportation argue that it is an inhumane and impractical solution to the problem of illegal immigration. They point out that many undocumented immigrants have lived in the United States for years, contributing to their communities and the economy. Mass deportation, they argue, would result in the separation of families and would be detrimental to the well-being of those affected.

The findings of the CBS poll are likely to fuel further discussions and debates on immigration reform in the United States. As the issue continues to be a contentious topic, it remains to be seen how policymakers will respond to the growing public support for mass deportation of undocumented immigrants.

In conclusion, the recent CBS poll indicates that a majority of Americans support the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. This finding reflects the growing public sentiment in favor of stricter immigration policies and the enforcement of existing laws. As the debate on immigration reform continues, it is crucial for policymakers to consider the diverse perspectives and opinions of the American people in order to find a balanced and effective solution to the issue of illegal immigration.

Continue Reading

Health

mRNA COVID-19 Injections Not Vaccines – Ninth Circuit Rules

Published

on

In a recent decision that has stirred up discussions across the nation, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the COVID-19 mRNA injections do not qualify as vaccines under traditional medical definitions. This decision was made in a lawsuit brought by the Health Freedom Defense Fund and other plaintiffs against the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). The court’s decision could potentially expose pharmaceutical companies to future liability lawsuits, as it challenges the legal protections typically afforded to vaccine manufacturers.

The lawsuit against LAUSD was based on the claim that the district’s vaccine mandate infringed upon the plaintiffs’ fundamental right to refuse medical treatment. The court, in a majority opinion authored by Circuit Judge R. Nelson and supported by Judge Collins, asserted that the mRNA shots, marketed as vaccines, do not effectively prevent the transmission of COVID-19 but merely reduce symptoms in those who contract the virus. This distinction, the court argued, means that the injections should not be considered vaccines under traditional medical definitions.

The implications of this ruling are significant. If mRNA injections are not considered vaccines, then they may not be subject to the same legal protections as traditional vaccines. This could potentially open the door to liability lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies that have produced and distributed the injections.

The court’s decision has sparked a range of reactions on social media. Some users have expressed relief and support for the ruling, viewing it as a step towards greater transparency and accountability in the handling of the pandemic. Others have criticized the decision, arguing that it undermines public health efforts and could discourage the use of potentially life-saving treatments.

The ruling has also reignited debates about the handling of the pandemic and the promotion of alternative treatments. Some have questioned the effectiveness of the mRNA injections, while others have pointed to the rapid development and deployment of these treatments as a remarkable achievement in the face of a global crisis.

As the legal implications of this ruling continue to unfold, it is likely that the debate surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and the role of vaccines in public health will continue to evolve. The Ninth Circuit’s decision serves as a reminder of the complex legal and ethical issues at the heart of public health policy.

Continue Reading

Politics

President Trump: No More Tip Taxes!

Published

on

In a recent rally in Las Vegas, former President Donald Trump announced his intention to eliminate taxes on tips for service industry workers if he were to be re-elected. This proposal, which would allow workers to keep their entire tip amount without taxation, has been met with enthusiasm and support from many Americans, particularly those in the service industry.

Trump’s pledge to abolish tip taxes is a bold move that could have a significant impact on the lives of millions of Americans. Service industry workers, including those in restaurants and hospitality, often rely heavily on tips as a significant portion of their income. These workers are typically not highly paid and often face financial instability. By promising to eliminate taxes on tips, Trump is positioning himself as an advocate for the working class, addressing a specific economic concern that directly affects their livelihoods.

The proposal also touches on broader debates about tax policy and economic inequality. While the elimination of taxes on tips could be seen as a populist move to help the working class, it also raises questions about the fairness of the tax system and the distribution of the tax burden. However, Trump’s pledge is a clear indication of his commitment to supporting American workers and addressing the economic challenges they face.

Critics argue that while the policy may benefit service industry workers, it could also lead to unintended consequences, such as encouraging employers to shift more of their employees’ compensation to tips, potentially leading to reduced wages. However, these concerns should not overshadow the potential benefits of Trump’s proposal.

In conclusion, Trump’s pledge to abolish tip taxes is a bold move that could have a significant impact on the lives of millions of Americans. By addressing a specific economic concern that directly affects the livelihoods of service industry workers, Trump is demonstrating his commitment to supporting American workers and addressing the economic challenges they face. While there are concerns about potential unintended consequences, the potential benefits of this proposal should not be overlooked. Trump’s pledge to abolish tip taxes is a clear indication of his commitment to making America great again for all Americans.

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.