In a (temporary) victory for religious freedom and freedom of association, a federal court has ruled that under certain circumstances, private and public employees may not be forced to provide services which would be personally offensive and reprehensible to their religious faiths.
I say ‘temporary’, because this law will, I predict, continue to be challenged by Sodomite activists until it reaches the Supreme Court level, where there are NO White Protestant males, the people who founded the United States, still remaining. Remember that it was that unelected committee of nine tyrannical social engineers in black robes who overturned every popular election and referendum in every state which voted not to allow gay marriages, after all.
We have all heard about the cases where fag-enablers quickly escalated from “what people do in their bedrooms doesn’t affect you”, to “bake the cake or go to jail”. This law was designed to help protect people’s religious freedoms.
“The law championed and signed in 2016 by Republican Gov. Phil Bryant sought to protect three beliefs: marriage is only between a man and a woman; sex should only take place in such a marriage; and a person’s gender is determined at birth and cannot be altered.
It would allow clerks to cite religious objections to recuse themselves from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and would protect merchants who refuse services to LGBT people. It could affect adoptions and foster care, business practices and school bathroom policies.”
Gay lover U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves had originally struck down the popular Mississippi state law. Now, his biased decision has been overturned by a three judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The vast differences between the 5th and 9th circuit courts in their political perspectives demonstrate once again the growing regional and cultural balkanization of our country as we stagger towards national breakup. Different elements of the government will continue to find themselves at odds with one another politically, not merely between the branches as checks and balances, but within them, as well. This is also true of the armed forces as well as the federal executive bureaucracy and intelligence services.