GOP Senator: People Of Faith The New Targets Of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

As we have continually noted over the last few years, the Religious Right is in the process of an attempt to radically redefine the term “religious liberty” to encompass not just the right to live out one’s own faith but also the right to cite one’s faith as justification for infringing on the rights of others, whether by denying service to gay people in public accommodations, kicking people out of housing because of their sexual orientation, or preventing your employees from accessing affordable birth control even if you don’t pay for it.

So it was startling last week to hear Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, in an address on religious liberty to the Family Research Council, claim that it is in fact progressives who have redefined the term “religious liberty” in order to persecute people of faith, making believers, in Lankford’s words, the targets of a new “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

“We have an undercurrent of conversations happening in the country, where there’s become a redefinition of the term ‘religious liberty,’” Lankford said. “ Is this a term that has the same meaning as we use it out in the common vernacular? And I would tell you, across the country and multiple places that I’ve visited, no is the correct answer. This term is attempting to be redefined by our culture to say if you’re for religious liberty, then you’re hatred [sic] towards other people, you’re exclusive, you’re divisive, you’re a person who needs to be isolated because you’re for religious liberty.”

“I would say to you, people of faith in the workplace and in public settings have become the new individuals that are targeted towards ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’” he added. “If you have faith, don’t tell anyone and don’t ask anyone if you have faith, and if you have it don’t live it out publicly because people don’t want to see it.”

Lankford, for the record, has said that he would oppose workplace protections for LGBT people because “ homosexuality is a choice.”

'We Will Beg The Lord Above To Destroy Us': Glenn Beck Freaks Out Over The Removal Of Ten Commandments Monument

Doomsday prophet Glenn Beck issued a dire warning to America on his radio program today, declaring that this nation will soon beg the Lord to destroy us simply so we can escape the evil that we have unleashed upon the world.

What set Beck off this time was the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from outside the Oklahoma state capitol earlier this week, which, for some reason, he falsely conflated with the installation of a statue of Satan in Detroit back in July.

Beck literally read from this Time Magazine article, dated July 27, about the satanic statue as he repeatedly insisted that its unveiling had taken place last Saturday night, just days before the Ten Commandments monument was removed in Oklahoma.

The (false) juxtaposition of these two events, Beck warned, is proof that America has crossed a line into pure, unadulterated evil.

"I warn you America," he stated, choking back tears, "you will be the darkest nation to ever, ever exist on this planet. Evil will not destroy us, it will pervert us, it will use the technology and the strength that we have, it will use us for dark purposes. In the end, we will beg the Lord above to destroy us! We will beg for destruction to stop the evil that we will bring to this earth."

The fact that nobody cares "that there is a statue to Lucifer that has been erected last Saturday in Detroit" is outrageous, Beck said.

"Let me tell you, it is a big deal," he warned. "God will not be mocked on his own land, by his own people."

Allow us to also point out that immediately following this extended rant, Beck then interviewed Sen. Marco Rubio about his presidential bid.

Tamara Scott: If You Support Gender Equality, You Should Oppose Gay Marriage

Last week, Iowa Republican National Committee member Tamara Scott invited fellow RNC member Carolyn McClarty of Oklahoma on to her “Truth for Our Time” radio program to discuss an anti-marriage-equality amicus brief that a subset of conservative RNC members led by McClarty submitted to the Supreme Court.

As the two walked through the various points made in the amicus brief, Scott wandered into a digression about how the “women who are fussing on the left” about wanting to eventually see equal numbers of men and women in Congress should also oppose marriage equality, because if you ban gay marriage, there will be an equal number of men and women in each marriage.

“By 2020, they want 50/50 in the state houses and the U.S. House and Senate. They want 50 percent women and 50 percent men, they want 50/50, they want equality,” she said. “So my laugh is, why wouldn’t you want equality in a marriage? Why aren’t those same women wanting that same argument at home? Because we know children do better when they’re raised by their biological parents.”

This led McClarty to explain that “the extreme feminist movement and the gay liberation movement really is using same-sex marriage as a way to destroy marriage.”

“The feminist movement, they’ve been against marriage from the beginning, against traditional marriage, and it was up until the Massachusetts court case in 2003 where they recognized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts that they kind of changed their tune,” she said. “And now they see that this would also destroy marriage, so they’re for same-sex marriage.”

This led Scott to a discussion of civil unions, which she said she also can’t support because there is still the issue of “the act” that “God has not condoned,” and so allowing civil unions is “asking your fellow citizens to embrace something that goes against their First Amendment religious protections.”

“Well, it doesn’t make sense to me, because the whole point of our concern with the same-sex marriage is that the act, that God has not condoned it,” she explained. “I can’t condone what he’s condemned. I just can’t go there. So to ask or to force American citizens to condone something that’s against their deeply held religious convictions is wrong. So whether you call it marriage or you call it a civil union, you’re still asking your fellow citizens to embrace something that goes against their First Amendment religious protections.


Rafael Cruz: Nondiscrimination Measures Let Football Teams 'Decide That They Want To Shower With The Girls'

Rafael Cruz, the Religious Right activist and father of Sen. Ted Cruz, told an Oklahoma church last week that LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinances allow entire high school boys football teams to decide “that they want to shower with the girls.”

Cruz told the Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Oklahoma, that the Supreme Court’s striking down of part of the Defense of Marriage Act has wreaked havoc in municipalities, including Houston, which “has a lesbian for a mayor”:

In Houston, Texas, in the heart of the Bible Belt, that city has a lesbian for a mayor. Well, a few months ago that mayor and that city council passed an ordinance that if a man, today, feels like a woman, he has the right to walk into a women’s bathroom. And if a woman is in there and she complains, she can be sued for that man because she is violating his civil rights.

As a matter of fact, according to that ordinance, if the football team in the high school decides that they want to shower with the girls and the girls complain, they can be sued. This is an abomination!

Cruz made a similar claim last month , telling fellow anti-LGBT activists that “God will hold you accountable” for failing to stop such ordinances.

Oklahoma State Sen. Joseph Silk: Gays 'Do Not Want People To Have Freedom'

Last week, Oklahoma state Sen. Joseph Silk made news by defending a bill that he had introduced that would allow Christian business owners to discriminate against gay customers under the guise of protecting religious liberty, telling the New York Times that gay people "don’t have a right to be served in every single store."

Naturally, Silk was a guest on Bryan Fischer's radio program today, where he declared that such legislation is necessary because gay activists "do not want people to have freedom"

"I tell people this all the time," Silk said, "the LGBT activists do not want people to have freedom. They do not want people to be able to exercise their religious convictions. They don't at all and people really don't understand that."

After warning that "there is a tremendous amount of spiritual warfare going on" in the fight over his legislation, Silk went on to call upon the church "to get vocal" in support of this bill before the government shuts them down.

Gays "want their behavior condoned and they want their behavior accepted," Silk said, "and the church doesn't understand it's coming to the church. If we continue to lose this, very, very soon the church will not have the right, according to the government, to preach that homosexuality is wrong. That's where this road is going. That's why it's so important":

YP4 Leads Trainings at “Take Root” Reproductive Justice Conference in Oklahoma

Last week, Young People For (YP4) Director Joy Lawson, YP4 Fellowship Associate Vidushani Jayalal, and current YP4 Fellow Alyssah Roth of El Paso, TX, served as trainers during the pre-conference of the fifth annual “Take Root” reproductive justice conference in Norman, OK.

“Take Root” focuses on sharing the unique perspectives, experiences, and lessons learned from organizing around reproductive justice in conservative states. This year, YP4 developed and led the pre-conference to engage “Take Root” participants on guiding principles for social justice organizing. Participants took part in workshops and conversations on values-centered organizing, navigating ideologies in the reproductive justice movement, and more.








Additionally, several YP4 Fellows and alumni participated in the conference and led workshops and panels related to building access to the reproductive justice movement in under-resourced areas.  After the workshops, many of the participants reflected that the trainings gave them “a vision of what they wanted to accomplish and what the process might look like.”

YP4 is a year-long leadership development program that helps a diverse set of young leaders turn their ideals into actions and create lasting change on their campuses and in their communities. YP4 develops Fellows’ leadership capacity and strategic thinking through a capstone project — the Blueprint for Social Justice — and offers opportunities to connect with others creating change across the country.


PFAW Foundation

Oklahoma Advances Extremist Lawmaker's Bill To Fire Any Clerk Who Follows Gay Marriage Rulings

Yesterday, the Oklahoma House Judiciary Committee advanced legislation that would prohibit judges and clerks in the state from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, despite federal court decisions striking down the state’s ban.

Along with “prohibiting public funds for any activity licensing or supporting same-sex marriage; prohibiting public employees from recognizing same-sex marriage licenses; prohibiting spending public funds to enforce certain court orders,” the constitutionally dubious bill [PDF] also states that “[n]o employee of this state and no employee of any local governmental entity shall violate or interfere with the implementation of this act and continue to receive a salary, pension or other employee benefit at the expense of taxpayers of this state. If a judge violates this act, the judge shall be removed from office.”

The chief sponsor of the legislation just so happens to be Sally Kern, the Republican lawmaker who has repeatedly declared that homosexuality is a “bigger threat” and “more dangerous” than terrorism. As Kern explains it, homosexuality is more dangerous than terrorist attacks because homosexuality will “destroy the future of America.”

“So which one’s the biggest threat? And you know, every day our young people, adults too, but especially our young people, are bombarded at school, in movies, in music, on TV, in the mall, in magazines, they’re bombarded with ‘homosexuality is normal and natural.’ It’s something they have to deal with every day. Fortunately we don’t have to deal with a terrorist attack every day, and that’s what I mean,” Kern said back in 2011.

Kern also wants to make it law that any business can legally discriminate against “any lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender person, group or association.”

She has also expressed several unusual opinions on education, suggesting that African Americans are less likely to study in school than white students since they believe “the government would take care of them,” demanding teachers criticize evolution in the classroom and embarking on a crusade against AP U.S. History courses.

Pamela Geller: Oklahoma Beheading Was The Next 9/11

In an interview with Janet Mefferd yesterday, anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller insisted that the beheading of an Oklahoma woman by a former coworker last week — which the district attorney in the case says was motivated by the man’s loss of his job and a feud about racist comments he had made — was “really a game-changer” and “a 9/11 in a different way.”

“You know, everyone’s looking backwards Janet, like ‘When’s the next big 9/11?’ It doesn’t work like that,” she told Mefferd. “It’s the element of surprise, it’s the element of change, and I believe that this is the beginning of a terrible sort of episodic era in American history. I can tell you that this is not the end, it’s absolutely the beginning.”

Geller also linked the attack to President Obama, whom she said had led the U.S. into “Dante’s Inferno.”

Bryan Fischer Links Oklahoma Beheading To Satanic 'Black Mass'

On his radio broadcast yesterday, Bryan Fischer not only linked the incident in which an Oklahoma man attacked and beheaded a former coworker to Islam and drug decriminalization efforts, but also managed to tie it to a recent Satanic "black mass" that took place in Oklahoma City.

"Remember that it was in Oklahoma City where the city fathers said 'you can have your Satanic ritual in the heart of our city,'" Fischer said. "And then literally, I mean this literally, ladies and gentlemen, all Hell has broken loose in the state of Oklahoma. Oklahoma City allows a Satanic ritual and all of a sudden, we start hearing about people having their head cut off in the name of the demon god Allah. Just a coincidence? I'll leave it up to you to make up your own mind":

PFAW Foundation’s Supreme Court 2014-2015 Term Preview

To: Interested Parties
From: Paul Gordon, Senior Legislative Counsel, People For the American Way
Date: September 25, 2014
Subject: PFAW Foundation’s Supreme Court 2014-2015 Term Preview

The beginning of a new Supreme Court term has become a time to worry, “What’s next?” In the past two terms alone, often in 5-4 decisions, the Roberts Court has severely undermined the Voting Rights Act, continued its assault on the American people’s efforts to limit money in politics, strengthened the hand of employers who discriminate, significantly eroded church-state separation, discovered religious rights for for-profit corporations seeking to deny female employees needed contraception coverage, undercut unions, and found ways to help large corporations bypass laws designed to limit their power over small businesses and ordinary people.

As bad as the Roberts Court has been, there have also been some good decisions in the most recent terms. For instance, the Court struck down the odious Defense of Marriage Act, upheld the EPA's general authority to issue regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, and unanimously recognized our Fourth Amendment right to privacy concerning our smart phones.

The 2014-2015 Term is set to begin on October 6, the traditional First Monday in October, and the Court will be hearing a number of important cases. At the same time, perhaps half the cases it will hear this term have not been determined or announced, and there is substantial speculation on whether it will hear cases on several high-profile issues, marriage equality most prominent among them. Below is a summary of some of the major cases the Court may hear this term, along with cases already scheduled that we will be following.



If the Court accepts a marriage equality case, it will obviously become the blockbuster case of the term (and perhaps the decade). The Court has already been asked to hear appeals of pro-equality rulings by three circuit courts: From the Tenth Circuit are Herbert v. Kitchen (Utah) and Smith v. Bishop (Oklahoma). From the Fourth Circuit are Rainey v. Bostic, Schaefer v. Bostic, and McQuigg v. Bostic (all Virginia). From the Seventh Circuit are Bogan v. Baskin (Indiana) and Walker v. Wolf (Wisconsin). While states and government officials who lost in the lower courts are filing the appeals, the couples who won the cases are also urging the Court to hear the appeals, so there can finally be a national resolution to the issue.

Should one of the remaining circuit courts uphold a state marriage ban, the resulting split among circuits on such a major constitutional issue would almost guarantee review by the Supreme Court. But if every circuit continues to rule the same way, the Justices might decide to let the issue be resolved there.

Conservatives like Scalia and Thomas, who have in case after case shown their hostility to LGBT equality but may be unsure of how Kennedy would vote, might not be willing to risk a Supreme Court precedent that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. From their perspective, if they can’t change the outcome around the country, why make it worse by adding a jurisprudential nightmare from the nation’s highest court that would taint American law for decades to come?

For Justices likely to recognize the constitutional right to marriage equality, the calculation might be different. They, too, not knowing Kennedy’s position, might not want to risk a 5-4 ruling in the “wrong” direction on a major constitutional and societal issue. But even if they could be certain of being in the majority, they might find advantages to having the Court stay out. Justice Ginsburg, for instance, has suggested publicly that Roe v. Wade went “too far, too fast,” provoking a backlash that could otherwise have been avoided. If the legal question of marriage equality is being decided rightly in all the circuit courts, some Justices might rather leave well enough alone. In fact, Justice Ginsburg told a group of law students in mid-September that without a circuit split, she saw “no urgency” for the Court to take up the issue now, although she added that she expects the Court to take it up “sooner or later.”

Should the Court grant cert on one or more of the appeals, it could answer a number of critically important questions in addition to whether states can prohibit same-sex couples from marrying.

Exactly which constitutional right do the bans violate? While numerous courts have ruled in favor of same-sex couples, they have been anything but unanimous in their reasoning: Some have suggested that the bans violate the Due Process Clause, because the longstanding, fundamental right to marry includes the right to marry someone of the same sex. Other judges indicate that the bans violate the Equal Protection Clause because they deny the right to marry based on the sex of the people seeking to get married. Still others suggest that the bans violate the Equal Protection Clause because they discriminate against gays and lesbians. While the different legal rationales would all have the same immediate result (marriage equality), they could create very different legal precedents and have very different impacts down the line as lower courts consider other types of discrimination, whether aimed at gays and lesbians, at transgender people, or at others.

A Supreme Court ruling might decide what level of scrutiny the Equal Protection Clause requires for laws that discriminate against gay people, an issue not squarely faced in previous cases. Most government classifications are subject to – and easily pass – “rational basis” scrutiny by the courts: The law is constitutional as long as it’s rationally related to some legitimate government interest. (The Court has said that animus against gays and lesbians is not a legitimate purpose, which in the past has let it bypass the question as to whether anti-gay laws warrant more scrutiny from the courts.)

But a few types of laws trigger heightened Equal Protection scrutiny. Sex-based classifications are subject to intermediate scrutiny: They must be substantially related to an important government interest. Race-based classifications are generally subject to strict scrutiny, the highest level: They must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. If the Court rules that laws discriminating against lesbians and gays warrant some level of heightened scrutiny, that would have an enormous impact nationwide on all kinds of laws that discriminate against lesbians and gays, not just marriage bans.

The Court’s discussion of this issue could also shed light on whether eliminating private discrimination against LGBT people is (in the Court’s eyes) a compelling government interest. This could have an enormous impact as courts consider right wing challenges to anti-discrimination laws on the basis of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act or state-law analogs.


Opponents of the Affordable Care Act strategically launched lawsuits in four different circuits challenging federal subsidies for millions of Americans buying health insurance on federally-run exchanges. The circuits were apparently selected to maximize the possibility of a circuit split, which in turn would maximize the likelihood of getting the case heard by the Roberts Court, which (they hope) would deliver a crippling blow to Obamacare. Decisions have been reached in two of the circuits, although one has since been vacated.

Section 1311 of the ACA says states should set up insurance exchanges, while Section 1321 of the Act says the federal government can set one up if a state doesn't. Subsidies are available for less well-off people getting health insurance through an exchange, based on the amount the person pays for the insurance s/he is enrolled in through an exchange "established by the state under [section] 1311" of the ACA. The law’s opponents hope to have the Supreme Court rule that Congress intended for subsidies to be unavailable to Americans purchasing insurance through the federally-established exchanges that the law calls for in cases where the state does not step in. In other words, the argument is that Congress intended to undercut the financial viability of the law and thwart its central purpose.

A unanimous panel of the Fourth Circuit rejected this wild claim in King v. Burwell. However, two far right judges on the D.C. Circuit formed a majority in a three-judge panel ruling actually agreeing with the Obama care opponents in Halbig v. Burwell. Dissenting Judge Harry Edwards recognized the lawsuit as a “not-so-veiled attempt to gut the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” noting that “[i]t is inconceivable that Congress intended to give States the power to cause the ACA to crumble.” The full D.C. Circuit subsequently vacated the ruling and will consider the issue en banc, and most observers expect a ruling more like the Fourth Circuit’s.

But even if that happens, there are still lawsuits percolating in Indiana (Seventh Circuit) and Oklahoma (Tenth Circuit), so the hoped-for circuit split may yet occur. If it does, the Roberts Court is almost certain to consider the issue. While the case is transparently political and legally weak, that did not stop the conservative Justices when it came to the Commerce Clause challenge to the individual mandate.


The Roberts Court may hear one or more cases involving religious nonprofits that oppose the ACA’s contraception coverage requirement, in a sequel to Hobby Lobby v. Burwell. In that case, the Roberts Court gave certain for-profit corporations religious liberty rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), then completely rewrote the law to give the chain store the right to “exercise” its religion by refusing to comply with the ACA’s contraception coverage requirement.

Under RFRA, a federal law cannot impose a substantial burden on a person’s religious exercise unless it is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and it is the least restrictive means of doing so. In Hobby Lobby, the Roberts Court concluded that the corporation and its owners suffered a “substantial” burden” on their religious exercise because the owners were offended by the contraception coverage requirement, even though it did not restrict or burden what they may believe or do. The majority also concluded that the law was not the least restrictive means of furthering the government’s interest in women’s health, because the Administration offers religious nonprofits an accommodation: They are exempt if they simply sign a form certifying that they are a religious nonprofit that objects to the provision of contraceptive services, and provide a copy of that form to their insurance issuer or third-party administrator, which then has the responsibility to pay for and provide the coverage. (Churches, in contrast, are wholly exempt.) The Roberts Court concluded that the federal government can make this accommodation available to for-profit corporations, meaning the coverage requirement is not the least restrictive means of achieving the ACA’s goal.

But three days later, the Court issued a temporary injunction against enforcing even this accommodation against Wheaton College, a non-profit religious institution that argued that the accommodation substantially burdens its religious freedom. This prompted a furious dissent from the three women Justices. Although the merits of the case are still being argued before a lower federal court, this was an ominous sign of how the Roberts Court will address the legal question when it inevitably reaches the high court.

Another high-profile case (or one similar to it) that may reach the Court involves Little Sisters of the Poor. This religious nonprofit organization, too, has a religious objection to the accommodation that was designed to meet its religious objections, arguing that the form is like a permission slip that would trigger contraception coverage, making the nuns complicit in sin. However, the Little Sisters’ insurer is classified as a “church plan,” which is actually exempt from the ACA requirement. So regardless of whether the Little Sisters signed the form, their employees would still not have the contraception coverage. Nevertheless, last January, while its RFRA suit against the contraception coverage provision was before the Tenth Circuit (where it is still pending), the Supreme Court enjoined the federal government from enforcing the law until a final resolution on the merits.

It seems likely that there will be a request that this issue be considered by the Supreme Court at some point this term, either through one of these cases or one similar to them.



Young v. UPS: Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy

The Supreme Court is to decide to what extent employers can treat pregnant workers temporarily unable to work differently from other workers temporarily unable to work.

This case involves Peggy Young, a pregnant employee of UPS with temporary medical restrictions on how much she could safely lift. UPS did not make any accommodations for her, such as temporary alternative work. As a result, she spent several months on unpaid leave, during which she lost her medical coverage.

In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that discriminating against employees who are pregnant was not sex discrimination under Title VII. Congress corrected that interpretation of the law in 1978 with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), which has two relevant provisions. First, it specifies that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

The second provision explains how to apply that general principle: It says that women affected by pregnancy “shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes … as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.” This establishes a basis of comparison. So while a typical sex discrimination case looks at how a female plaintiff is treated in comparison to similarly situated men, a PDA case looks at how she is treated in comparison to non-pregnant workers with similar ability (or inability) to work.

UPS’s collective bargaining contract calls for UPS to accommodate temporarily disabled employees if the disability is due to an on-the-job injury, or if they have lost their DOT certification to drive. UPS also accommodates employees who have a permanent impairment under the Americans With Disabilities Act. UPS says its policy is “pregnancy-blind:” They claim they are treating Young the same way they’d treat a non-pregnant employee whose injury doesn’t fit any of the above conditions.

But Young argues that isn’t the proper analysis under the PDA. She points out that UPS would have made an accommodation for someone “similar in their ability or inability to work” to her if they were in one of those three categories. So, she concludes, the plain text of the PDA requires UPS to accommodate her, as well.

Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk: Overtime pay for workers at warehouse distribution centers

The Supreme Court is to decide if employers can deny overtime pay to employees at “customer fulfillment” distribution centers for the time they spend waiting for mandatory security screenings.

This is a class-action lawsuit brought by Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro, two former employees of Integrity Staffing Solutions, which provides workers to work in the warehouses of companies like Amazon.com. At the end of the shift, the company requires every employee to go through a security check before they leave the facility to make sure they aren’t stealing the merchandise. The employees wait as long as 25 minutes to be searched. Busk and Castro claim that they should have been paid overtime for this time under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as should all current employees, as well.

FLSA requires overtime pay when a covered employee works more than 40 hours in a workweek. In 1947, Congress helped define what counts as “work” by passing the Portal-to-Portal Act (PPA), which says that FLSA’s overtime requirement doesn’t apply to activities that are “preliminary” or “postliminary” to an employee’s primary job responsibilities. In a 1956 case called Steiner v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court interpreted the PPA as requiring overtime only for tasks that are an “integral and indispensable part of the principal activities for which covered workman are employed.”

Busk and Castro say that any activity required by and benefitting the employer (such as the security searches) are part of the actual job, not “postliminary” to it, so they count as time at work under FLSA and should generate overtime pay. They get support from an amicus brief submitted by the National Employment Lawyers Association, which details how loss-prevention activities have become integrated into the modern retail work routine, making searches like those at issue here part of an employee’s principal activities.

The workers won at the Ninth Circuit, but the court used different reasoning: that the searches are “postliminary” (so the Portal-to-Portal Act applies), but that they are an “integral and indispensable part” of the workers’ principal activities and therefore subject to overtime pay. Integrity (supported by an amicus brief from the Obama Administration) asserts that the searches are “postliminary” to work, are not an “integral and indispensable part” of the employees’ principal activities and, therefore, don’t trigger the overtime requirement.

Part of the company’s argument seems to be a results-based pitch to a corporate-friendly Court: In its certiorari petition urging the Justices to hear its appeal, Integrity Staffing wrote that since the Ninth Circuit ruling, “plaintiffs’ lawyers have brought nationwide class actions against a number of major employers—including Apple, Amazon.com, and CVS—seeking back pay (plus overtime and penalties) for time spent in security screenings.” Notice that it isn’t employees who are suing, but “plaintiffs’ lawyers,” a framing that is red meat for right-wing ideologues. This argument also seems to have less to do with discerning congressional intent and more to do with protecting large corporations.

Mach Mining v. EEOC: Pre-lawsuit settlement efforts by the EEOC

The Supreme Court is to decide if employers can escape liability for illegal discrimination by arguing that the EEOC failed to make a sufficiently good-faith attempt to reach a settlement with the employer.

Mach Mining has never hired a woman for a mining position. A woman who had been turned down several times for a coal mining job filed a sex discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a step that Title VII requires before filing a lawsuit. EEOC looked into the allegation, found it had merit, and – again, as required by Title VII – sought to negotiate an end to the alleged sex discrimination “by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion” before suing. After several months without success, the EEOC notified the company that it felt further efforts would be futile and initiated a lawsuit. Mach Mining says the case should be dismissed on the grounds that the EEOC didn’t make a good-faith conciliation effort. In response, the EEOC says Title VII doesn’t allow such a defense.

While several other circuits have ruled otherwise, the Seventh Circuit in this case concluded that Title VII cannot be interpreted to allow courts to inquire into the adequacy of the EEOC’s conciliation efforts. For one thing, Title VII has no express provision for an affirmative defense based on a defect in the EEOC’s conciliation’s efforts. It also calls for the EEOC to “endeavor” to end the discrimination through “informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.” If it can’t reach a result “acceptable to the Commission,” it can sue. The Seventh Circuit interpreted this as giving the EEOC great deference.

The court also noted that Title VII makes the process confidential, with penalties for making the information public without the consent of everyone concerned. That could prevent the EEOC from showing the court the evidence that it had sought to conciliate in good faith. It seems unlikely that Congress wrote Title VII to require the EEOC to defend its conciliation efforts in court but made its ability to do so dependent on the permission of the employer being sued. The court also concluded that there would be no meaningful standard of review. For instance, just how hard should the agency pursue an agreement?

A Supreme Court ruling for the employer could give employers a significant tool to stymie legitimate lawsuits against unlawful employment discrimination. As the Seventh Circuit wrote:

Simply put, the conciliation defense tempts employers to turn what was meant to be an informal negotiation into the subject of endless disputes over whether the EEOC did enough before going to court. Such disputes impose significant costs on both sides, as well as on the court, and to what end?

All the employer should legitimately hope to gain is some unspecified quantum of additional efforts at conciliation by the EEOC. The result of such a defense, as we have said in a closely related context, is to “protract and complicate Title VII litigation, and with little or no offsetting benefit.”


Holt v. Hobbs: Right of a Muslim prisoner to grow a short beard

The Supreme Court is to address whether a state prison’s prohibiting a Muslim prisoner from growing a half-inch beard violates the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

This case originated with a handwritten request to the Supreme Court from Gregory Holt (aka Abdul Maalik Muhammad), a Muslim prisoner in Arkansas, to hear his case. He states that his religious beliefs require him to have a beard, and he seeks to grow a half-inch beard. The state Department of Corrections prohibits beards generally, but allows quarter-inch beards grown for medical reasons. Muhammad sees his request as a compromise (since his religious beliefs really would have him grow it much longer) that has been accepted in prisons elsewhere.

Since he is in a state prison, Muhammad’s case is governed by a federal law called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA. Passed unanimously by Congress in 2000, RLUIPA requires prisons accepting federal funds to give greater religious liberty protections to inmates than is required by the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. Similar to the better-known Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was at issue in Hobby Lobby, RLUIPA is triggered when the government imposes a “substantial burden on the religious exercise” of a person confined to an institution. When that happens, the action can be upheld only if the government can demonstrate that the burden: “(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

The state argues that the no-beard policy furthers the compelling government interests in prison safety and security, and that the proposed half-inch accommodation would not be as effective as the no-beard rule in achieving those purposes. For instance, they provide the opinions of penal experts that prisoners could use the beards to hide contraband, and that escaped prisoners could too easily and quickly change their appearance simply by shaving. Muhammad (now represented by counsel) argues that the lower courts, which ruled against him, did not provide the strict scrutiny of the state’s arguments that is required by RLUIPA.

In Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court significantly rewrote RFRA, watering down the “substantial burden” requirement and applying the religious liberty law to for-profit corporations. Neither factor is relevant to this case, meaning the Court could rule in favor of Muhammad without rewriting the law. But the Roberts Court is known for playing the “long game.” Even if the Court rules unanimously for Muhammad, they may not all agree on the reasoning: The conservatives could write an opinion designed to be cited in future RFRA litigation strengthening the hands of those on the right who would reshape RFRA from a shield against government oppression into a sword.


Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama / Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama: Racial gerrymandering

The Supreme Court is to address whether Alabama engaged in unconstitutional racial gerrymandering when it drew new state House and Senate district lines that channeled large numbers of African Americans into districts that were already majority-minority.

The GOP-controlled Alabama state legislature enacted a redistricting plan that transferred a significant portion of the black population that had previously been in majority-white districts into districts that were already majority-black. In so doing, the legislature was seeking to achieve certain percentages of black voters in the majority-black districts. At issue is whether legislators engaged in an unconstitutional effort to separate voters by race, or whether they followed traditional redistricting criteria in a way that was necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act.

Due to population shifts, majority-black districts established after the 2000 Census lost population and had to be redrawn after the 2010 Census to bring in new people. In some cases, the population loss was disproportionately white, meaning that a significantly higher percentage of the remaining population was African American than before. In redrawing the lines while keeping the same number of majority-black districts, the legislature made two decisions that led to what some call “bleaching” – drawing lines so that large numbers of African Americans in majority-white districts would be redistricted into supermajority-black districts, and diminishing African Americans’ political influence in much of the state.

First, they chose to reduce the permissible population difference between districts from 10% (the 2000 standard) to 2%. To achieve district populations that close to each other, many more people would have to be drawn into the modified black-majority districts than would otherwise have been necessary. That huge numbers of those people would be blacks removed from majority-white districts was determined by the second decision: Ostensibly to comply with the requirement under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (this was before Shelby County) that new lines not lead to a retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise, the African American percentages in the redrawn majority-minority districts should be at least whatever they had become in 2010.

This reapportionment was upheld by a divided three-judge federal district court. The majority concluded that race was not the predominant factor in drawing the redistricting boundaries, so that they need not be analyzed under strict scrutiny as in the 1993 Shaw v. Reno case. The majority also concluded that even if strict scrutiny applied, the legislative boundaries were narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling purpose of compliance with the preclearance provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which applied at the time. The plaintiffs in this case – the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus and state Democrats – challenge those conclusions, arguing that legislators had misinterpreted Section 5, that race was impermissibly the overriding criterion used by legislators in drawing lines, and that the redistricting plan violated the Fourteenth Amendment.


Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona: Municipal sign regulations

The Supreme Court will hear a church’s Free Speech challenge to city rules regulating the size and placement of various types of signs, which affect the signs it puts up to direct people to its church services.

This case was brought by a small church (25-30 adult members) in Arizona that places signs up to invite people to its weekly services and inform them where they are being held. Good News Church and its pastor Clyde Reed are urging the Court to strike down the town of Gilbert’s sign ordinance, which treats some signs (such as directional signs for events, like a fair or, in this case, a church service) differently from others (like political, real estate, or ideological signs). The different types of signs have different rules on how large they can be, and where and when they can be posted. Good News Church argues the law is an unconstitutional content-based infringement of its First Amendment rights. The lower court had upheld it as content-neutral.

Gilbert regulations generally require a permit before posting a sign, with a number of exceptions that can be posted without a permit. These exceptions (each with specific size, number, and placement rules) include construction signs, open house signs, parking signs, building identification signs, garage sale signs, street address signs, and restaurant menu signs. The church devotes much of its focus to three of the exceptions:

  • Temporary directional signs relating to a qualifying event (like the church’s weekly church service)
    • Size: up to 6 square feet (and up to 6 feet in height)
    • Time: 12 hours before, during, and 1 hour after an event
    • Number: maximum of 4 on a single property
  • Political signs
    • Size: up to 32 square feet
    • Time: any time before election, until 10 days after
    • Number: unlimited
  • Ideological signs
    • Size: up to 20 square feet
    • Time: any time
    • Number: unlimited

The church has signs in the first category to tell people about their weekly church services in the space they rent. The maximum size is smaller than political and ideological signs, fewer can be posted, and they cannot stay up nearly as long. Represented by the far-right Alliance Defending Freedom, Good News Church argues that the city is violating its First Amendment rights by applying different rules to different types of noncommercial signs based on their content. According to the church, any classification based on what a sign says is content-based and therefore subject to the highest level of scrutiny. And if the law’s purpose is, say, to promote traffic safety or aesthetics, then what difference should it make if the sign is for a church service, political candidate, or particular ideology?

A divided panel of the Ninth Amendment disagreed, ruling against the church. It said the distinctions among different types of signs are content-neutral (and thus subject to a somewhat lower level of scrutiny) because Gilbert’s interests in regulating temporary signs are unrelated to the specific content or message of the sign. Each exemption is based on objective criteria related not to the sign’s message, but to the reason for the exemption (such as need for communication about elections, or the need to let event sponsors inform people how to get to the event).


Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi v. IndyMac MBS: Timing of lawsuits

The Court is to decide whether the clock stops on a deadline to sue for securities fraud when someone files a class action suit.

This case relates to a key 1974 precedent called American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, where the Supreme Court ruled that the filing of a class action lawsuit stops the clock (“tolls” in legal parlance) on the statute of limitations on filing federal antitrust claims for all potential members of the class, including those who are not actively involved with or even aware of the class action lawsuit. So if a court then doesn’t certify the class for some reason or dismisses its claims, but makes that decision after the statute of limitations has passed, those who would have been included in the class have not lost their opportunity to have their day in court just because they hadn’t made an individual filing in the case.

The current case relates to the financial meltdown of the 2000s and involves federal laws in the Securities Act of 1933 prohibiting sellers of securities from misleading investors. The law has two key time limits: (1) You generally have one year to file a lawsuit, and that can be a year after the untrue or misleading statement is made or discovered. (2) But there is an additional limit, one that restricts just how long after the fact you have to discover the wrongdoing: “In no event shall any such action be brought … more than three years after the security was bona fide offered to the public [or, depending on which section of the law is involved] more than three years after the sale.” The Second Circuit concluded that the American Pipe rule did not apply to this statute.

One of the great benefits of class action litigation is that it protects the rights of people who cannot afford to themselves engage in litigation and may not even realize they have been wronged. It also vastly enhances our society’s ability to hold large corporations responsible when they violate people’s rights. The rule from American Pipe has served that purpose well. But in other contexts, the Roberts Court has significantly undercut the ability of Americans to utilize class actions to protect their rights. If the Court rules that American Pipe doesn’t apply in the securities fraud context, it will be important to see if its reasoning also undercuts American Pipe as a precedent in other contexts.

Omnicare v. Laborers District Council: Holding companies accountable for false statements to investors

The Court is to address what investors need to prove to hold companies accountable for material misstatements in investment material.

When responding to a public offering of company shares, investors may rely on a company’s registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, investors can sue if that statement “contained an untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact [that was] necessary to make the statements therein not misleading.” This case asks what investors need to prove if the purportedly “untrue statement” was the company’s opinion that it wasn’t breaking the law.

Omnicare is the nation’s largest provider of pharmaceutical care for the elderly and other residents of long-term care facilities. In Omnicare’s registration statement, it said that “we believe” that its financial relationships with pharmaceutical manufacturers were legal. The investors here claim that some of those deals constituted unlawful kickbacks. The question is whether that allegation is enough to trigger Section 11.

According to Omnicare, for the investors to have a claim under Section 11, they have to allege that Omnicare didn’t believe the statement when it was made. Otherwise, companies could be held liable for statements of opinion that turn out later not to be true. Two circuit courts have taken that view.

But in this case, the Sixth Circuit took a different approach, one that makes it easier for investors to file a Section 11 claim. That court reasoned that Section 11 is a “strict liability” statute where the state of mind of company officials isn’t relevant, so it’s sufficient to allege that the opinion was false, regardless of whether the company knew at the time it was false. That’s the ruling the investors in this case are asking the Supreme Court to uphold.

In an amicus brief, the Obama Administration takes a middle ground, in which the company isn’t held liable only because it expressed an opinion that turned out not to be true. The Administration argues that a statement of opinion is actionable under Section 11 if: (1) the company didn’t believe it at the time (which both parties in this case agree on), or (2) there was no reasonable basis for the opinion at the time, even if it was sincerely held (which Omnicare disagrees with).

Any ruling by the Roberts Court should keep in mind that Congress enacted Section 11 to encourage maximum disclosure by companies making a public offering. After all, people associated with the company know far more about the business than potential investors could ever know, and Section 11 was intended to dissuade corporations from tricking investors.


Just as the Lochner case defined the Supreme Court a century ago as it turned conservative economic policies into constitutional dogma, America finds itself living through the Citizens United era, where the Court again routinely rules in favor of corporate and other powerful interests. By the end of June, we will know if the current term will have been as damaging to Americans’ fundamental rights as recent terms have been.


Sally Kern's Husband Is One Step Closer To Joining Her In The State Legislature

Yesterday, Oklahoma pastor Steve Kern, husband of famously anti-gay state legislator Sally Kern, advanced to a runoff primary in his own bid to take public office. He is hoping to join his wife in the Oklahoma legislature — she’s a state representative and he’s aiming for a spot representing Oklahoma City in the state senate.

Steve Kern seems to be an ideological ally of his wife, who gained national notoriety when she insisted that the “homosexual agenda” is a greater threat to America than terrorism and then writing a book called “The Stoning of Sally Kern” about the criticism she received.

Not only did Steve Kern defend his wife's comments, saying "they were true in the sense that the [gay] agenda was more stealthy than the terrorists' agenda," but he has a history of right-wing activism of his own.

Last year, Steve Kern led a rally of pastors to protest a biblical satire with “homosexual themes” being performed in Oklahoma City and prayed that God’s “mercy would withhold his justice” in punishing the city.

Kern also holds a David-Barton style view of the Constitution as an explicitly Christian document. In an August 2013 lecture, he explained that the founders were only tolerant of other religions in an effort to “try to win them to Jesus.”

He explained that this Christian-Nation ideology is “not asking for anything that isn’t already happening everywhere in the world,” perhaps unwisely comparing it to the system of Islamic law in Saudi Arabia. He added that same-sex marriage is “unconstitutional” because it “goes against the very worldview that we established our constitution on in the first place.”

Later in the presentation, Kern responded to a questioner who wondered if it would be treasonous to overthrow the government, to which Kern replied that it would not.

Oklahoma GOPer Defends Stoning Gay People To Death

A Republican candidate for Oklahoma’s state house of representatives advocated stoning gay people to death in a Facebook post last year, writing that such a plan is “totally just” because he has “some very huge moral misgivings about those kinds of sins.”

The candidate, Scott Esk, responded to a Facebook commenter who asked if “we should execute homosexuals (presumably by stoning)” by arguing that gay people are indeed “worthy of death.”

Another Republican candidate for State House, Gordon Klingenschmitt of Colorado, has also said that “homosexual acts are worthy of death.”

HT: Igor Volsky.

John Benefiel's Prayers Caused Record Flooding And Protected Oklahoma City From Recession

John Benefiel returned to "God Knows" for a fourth episode in which he explained to Cindy and Mike Jacobs how he and Chuck Pierce broke Baal's control over Texas, Kansas, and Missouri back in 2007, which resulted in massive amounts of rainfall across the region and subsequent flooding.

"Literally the day after we used this Ball divorce decree in 2007," Benefiel explained, "the rains came and we ended up having more rain between February and June of 2007 than any other twelve month period in history."

On top of that, Benefiel's efforts to divorce Baal also ended up protecting Oklahoma City from the global recession that hit in 2008.

"That is not an accident," he said. "That's God's blessings":

John Benefiel Reveals His Close Ties To Top-Level Oklahoma Governmental Leaders

Last week, we posted a video of self-appointed "apostle" John Benefiel, who believes that the Statue of Liberty is a demonic idol, telling Cindy and Mike Jacobs that America is under a curse because ancient Egyptians dedicated this land to Baal thousands of years ago.

On this week's episode of "God Knows," Benefiel revealed that, back in 2004, he and a group of prayer warriors were given access to the Oklahoma House chamber where they broke Baal's hold over the state by praying over all of the desks and anointing all the chairs with oil. Four months later, Benefiel reported, conservative Christians gained control of the state House of Representatives. 

Two years later, Benefiel and crew were given access to the Senate chamber and did the same thing, with similar results.

By 2010, all of the state's executive branch officials were "all born-again Christians who love the Lord" and who had deep ties to Benefiel and his ministry.

Benefiel reported that his group led Gov. Mary Fallin "in the baptism of the Holy Spirit years ago" and that Lieutenant Governor Todd Lamb is also a close friend who joined them recently and was prayed over by intercessors, as are both the state's Attorney General and Speaker of the House:

Weeks Later, Rep. Bridenstine Finally Responds To Supporter Who Called For Obama's Death

Back in January, the Tulsa 9:12 group posted video on YouTube — which they have since removed — of a celebratory event with Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) where a woman in the audience demanded that President Obama be killed.

“Obama, he’s not president, as far as I’m concerned, he should be executed as an enemy combatant,” she said as part of a larger rant about how Obama is supposedly “shipping” Muslims into the country.

As we reported at the time, the congressman responded to her call to violence against the President not being condemning her remarks but by going into a rant about Obama’s supposed “lawlessness.”

The Oklahoma Democratic Party responded with this statement:

Republican Congressman Jim Bridenstine (OK-1) recently held an event at which a supporter called the President a traitor who should be executed. Bridenstine’s supporter can be heard calling the President derogatory names and several references to the Muslim community as well.

“Just three days ago, someone was arrested for threatening to kill President George Bush. It is absolutely astonishing that a sitting United States Congressman would encourage and support that type of behavior. As an Oklahoman I am appalled that someone would threaten the Commander-in-Chief–Republican or Democrat. Congressman Bridenstine owes the President an apology, the country an apology and the people of Oklahoma an apology,” said ODP Chairman Wallace Collins.

Now several weeks later and only after he has been criticized for his response — or lack thereof — to the incident, Bridenstine finally responded to the activist’s deranged comments:  

A public figure cannot control what people say in open meetings. I obviously did not condone and I do not approve of grossly inappropriate language. It is outrageous that irresponsible parties would attribute another person’s reckless remarks to me.

Keyes: Rebel Against Marriage Equality Before It Harms Straight People & Leads To The 'Nation's Demise'

In his weekly column for WorldNetDaily, Alan Keyes today claims that the judge who overturned Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the rights of straight people and paved the way for the destruction of America.

Keyes, who has warned that marriage equality will lead to “the murder of the masses,” contends that judges who rule in favor of marriage equality should be impeached and removed from their positions since the legalization of same-sex marriage will “overthrow America’s historically exceptional government.”

“The will to resist such abuses called the American people into existence as a nation. If today that will has failed, its failure will be the headstone that marks our nation’s demise,” Keyes writes. “Be advised, this tragic conclusion is the purpose of the whole ‘gay marriage’ maneuver.”

Keyes even claims that gay marriage undermines the “unalienable rights retained by the people (e.g., the heterosexual couple’s exclusive prerogative of procreation, which gives rise to the institution of marriage and its attendant rights.)”

We’re not exactly sure how allowing same-sex couples to marry will stop other couples from getting married and having children, but this is a recurring theme in Keyes’ nightmares of the coming gay dystopia.

The elitists’ push to legalize, and forbid disapproval of, homosexual relations is the most telling evidence of their hostility toward America’s way of life. It is also the key, in principle, to their thus far successful strategy to overthrow America’s historically exceptional government of, by, and for the people; and to restore unchallenged rule by and for the advantage of, the most powerful elitist clique.

The latest case in point is the ruling of U.S. District Judge Terrence C. Kern regarding same-sex marriage, overturning the amendment by which Oklahomans restricted the State’s recognition of marriage to heterosexual couples. Though the decision contained nothing new, both its content and the manner in which it was argued by both sides illustrate the deadly legal chicanery by which the elitist faction means to dissolve the moral, legal and institutional basis for just government, i.e., government aimed at securing the God-endowed unalienable rights of the people.

By contrast the judges and justices deny and disparage authoritatively antecedent unalienable rights retained by the people (e.g., the heterosexual couple’s exclusive prerogative of procreation, which gives rise to the institution of marriage and its attendant rights.) They seek to establish an unconstitutional regime of constraint upon one of the powers of government constitutionally reserved to the states, respectively, or the people (i.e., the power to make laws “respecting an establishment of religion.”) The will to resist such abuses called the American people into existence as a nation. If today that will has failed, its failure will be the headstone that marks our nation’s demise. Be advised, this tragic conclusion is the purpose of the whole “gay marriage” maneuver.

It is irrational to assume that the same Judiciary that has been the source of these abuses will now suddenly cease and desist. To stop their attack, we must implement the Constitution’s provisions for the impeachment/removal of civil officers who persistently violate their constitutional oath of office.

Oklahoma Pastor: Fight To Stop Gay Marriage Is The 'Same Thing' As Struggles Against Slavery, Nazi Germany

On Washington Watch yesterday, Family Research Council head Tony Perkins chatted with Oklahoma pastor Paul Blair of Reclaiming America for Christ about a federal judge’s decision to strike down Oklahoma’s ban on same-sex marriage, and the two Religious Right figures were unsurprisingly outraged.

Blair, who has claimed that the gay rights movement is a Satanic endeavor to destroy America and introduce communism, said that the movement to stop marriage equality is no different from the fights against slavery and Nazi Germany: “It’s time for us to stand with men like Charles Finney in opposition to slavery and with Dietrich Bonhoeffer to opposition to totalitarian government in Germany. We’re facing much the same thing.”

Blair: We had talked in years past when they made the change as far as the United States Military and just exactly where this is going to lead. Well, now this is on our front doorstep and it’s not just going to stop here. Ultimately, this will be forced upon pastors and our hiring practices and any Christian business within the state of Oklahoma. It’s up to us now to decide that along with our forefather pastors, “resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.” It’s time for us to stand with men like Charles Finney in opposition to slavery and with Dietrich Bonhoeffer to opposition to totalitarian government in Germany, we’re facing much the same thing. The answer really is simple, if we will just adhere to what the rule of law is, the Declaration and the Constitution are very clear. If we follow the rules, this union would function beautifully; unfortunately, we haven’t followed the rules in almost seventy-five years.

Because we all know how “beautifully” America was functioning seventy-five years ago.

Blair also told Perkins that the Oklahoma judge, in his marriage equality ruling, “shook his fist in the face of God and defied natural law and he shook his fist in the face of 6,000 years of human history.” He claimed that the decision was part of a growing “omnipotent, national dictatorship,” and urged Oklahoma to simply ignore the judge’s “illegal acts.”

Perkins, apparently unaware that gay people live in Oklahoma, said that the legal challenge to the state’s anti-gay laws is part of a “strategy” to “go into the heart of the conservative part of the country and force this redefinition on the people.”

Blair: It seems that any time the federal-anything acts, the citizens of the country need to shake and tremble. Not only did this guy throw out the will of 76 percent of the voters in Oklahoma from 2004, but he shook his fist in the face of God and defied natural law and he shook his fist in the face of 6,000 years of human history in stating that he knows better about how civil society should function than what God, history or the citizens of the state of Oklahoma know.

Perkins: Pastor Blair, it’s not even a question in Oklahoma, 76 percent of voters affirmed the marriage amendment. I grew up in Oklahoma and went to high school there, this is the reddest of red states. I think the strategy here is to try to go into the heart of the conservative part of the country and force this redefinition on the people. What is going to be the response, in your opinion, from Oklahomans to this decision?

Blair: We’ve already been responding to some of the other things, quite frankly beginning the travesty of Obamacare, we have been acting. But the bottom line is this, Tony: the Tenth Amendment is not going to defend itself. In the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution we didn’t establish an omnipotent, national dictatorship to rule over us. Article 1, Section 8, We the People of the United States created this federal government, we only delegated seventeen legally defined and limited responsibilities, and quite frankly the federal government is running roughshod over those limitations. Unless the states simply say we are not going to enforce your illegal acts, they’re going to continue to do whatever they want to do.

Breaking: Federal Judge Rules Same-Sex Marriage Ban in Oklahoma Unconstitutional

Today a federal judge found Oklahoma’s ban on marriages for same-sex couples to be unconstitutional. While this is great news, same-sex couples are not yet able to marry in the state because the decision is stayed – in other words, on hold – pending appeal.

As victories for marriage equality continue to stack up across the country, it is increasingly clear that the march toward full equality nationwide cannot be halted. Congratulations, Oklahoma!

PFAW Foundation

Beck: 'We Get Our Laws From The Laws Of Moses'

On his radio broadcast today, Glenn Beck spent a segment complaining about government-provided subsidies to purchase health insurance under Obamacare, declaring that such subsidies are nothing more than theft and are therefore fundamentally immoral.

Somehow, the immorality of these subsidies prompted Beck to start railing against the effort by a group of Satanists to place a monument outside the state capitol in Oklahoma, declaring that it is okay for monument of the Ten Commandments to be placed on government grounds because that is where we get out laws.

"I'm sorry, but we are a Christian-Judeo nation," Beck said. "We are based on Judeo-Christian values. That is not a religion, that is just how we put our laws together. So putting the Ten Commandments up is just a monument of where we got our laws."

Declaring that a Satanic monument has no right to be placed on government grounds because "we don't get our laws from Satan," Beck asserted that "we get our laws from the laws of Moses."

"It's truly insanity":

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious