If they knew a little less they could be network news anchors as things stand I think they are only eligible to be university professors.
State Of Illinois Forcing Christian Owned Bed And Breakfast To Host Gay Weddings
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Looks like the enumerated right of freedom of religion is taking a hit again from the invisible right to “Dignity” that justice Kennedy found in his ruling regarding Gay Marriage.
A 3-member panel of the Illinois Human Rights Commission refused to hear an appeal in a decision compelling TimberCreek Bed & Breakfast to pay a fine for declining to host a gay wedding on their property, although they have hosted opposite-sex weddings in the past.In our opinion, forcing a small business with one employee to host gay marriage which violates the owners sincerely-held Biblical belief that marriage is between one man and one woman is an extreme circumstance, especially when marriage has been understood for thousands of years to be a union between one man and one woman
In March, Administrative Law Judge Michael R. Robinson ordered TimberCreek to pay the same-sex couple $30,000 for causing emotional distress, plus over $50,000 in attorney fees.
“Respondent [must] pay each Complainant $15,000, which represents damages for the emotional distress arising out [of] its refusal to host their same-sex, civil union ceremony,” ordered Robinson.
Regarding the Commission’s upholding of the previous decision, Walder told a local media outlet that the “fix was in from the get-go,” as he said two of the three panel members were involved in LGBT activism or openly gay.
“The public probably assumes that these three commissioners were nonpartisan, fair and neutral when the exact opposite was the case,” stated Walder.
UK Parliament Overwhelmingly Supports Brexit
In a vote of 461-89 the parliament of the United Kingdom overwhelmingly confirmed support for the referendum to exit the EU.
he Prime Minister forced MPs to say whether they backed Brexit by asking them to vote in Parliament on whether they “respect” the will of the British people. The motion was carried on Wednesday evening with a majority of 372.It came as the Supreme Court considers whether Theresa May can get on with Brexit negotiations without MPs’ approval.
But what does it all mean for the process of Britain’s departure from the EU?
On Monday, eleven Supreme Court judges began hearing a Government appeal calling for Mrs May to be able to trigger Article 50 without the approval of Parliament.
In its case, the Government is arguing that Mrs May should be able to use the royal prerogative to trigger Brexit negotiations, which does not require a vote in Parliament.
However, Wednesday’s vote is not binding – meaning that it technically does not have any bearing whatsoever on the Supreme Court case.
Wednesday’s amendment only states that Parliament “should respect the wishes of the United Kingdom as expressed in the referendum on 23 June; and further calls on the Government to invoke Article 50 by 31 March 2017”.
It looks like the Anti-Brexit forces are only going to be able throw sand in the wheels of Brexit.
Quote of the Day
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
Seeing as we started with a video of people that were clueless about the cabinet lets finish with a quiz about the cabinet. This is quick and pretty easy 100% should be doable.
Drink up That’s it for the Watercooler today. As always it’s an open thread