At CNSNews.com:

A group of more than 60 legal scholars released a statement . . . calling on all federal and state officeholders not to accept the Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges decision -- declaring a national right to same-same sex marriage -- as binding precedent.

One of the signers and authors of the statement was Robert. P. George, the founder of the American Principles Project and McCormack Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton. 

"We stand with James Madison and Abraham Lincoln in recognizing that the Constitution is not whatever a majority of Supreme Court justices say it is," said George. "We remind all officeholders in the United States that they are pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the will of five members of the Supreme Court." 

What follows is the complete text of the statement: 

__________

We are scholars and informed citizens deeply concerned by the edict of the Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell v. Hodges wherein the Court decreed, by the narrowest of margins, that every state in the country must redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships. 

The Court's majority opinion eschewed reliance on the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, as well as the Court's own interpretative doctrines and precedents, and supplied no compelling reasoning to show why it is unjustified for the laws of the states to sustain marriage as it has been understood for millennia as the union of husband and wife.

The opinion for the Court substituted for traditional -- and sound -- methods of constitutional interpretation a new and ill-defined jurisprudence of identity -- one that abused the moral concept of human dignity.

The four dissenting justices are right to reject the majority opinion in unsparing terms. 

Justice Scalia refers to it as "a naked judicial claim to legislative
. . . power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government."

Justice Thomas says the opinion "exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority" as it perverts the meaning of liberty into an entitlement to government action. 

Justice Alito calls attention to the well-established doctrine that the "liberty" guaranteed by the due process clause protects only those rights "that are deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition," and that it is "beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights." He further points to the opinion’s tendency to reduce the purpose of marriage to "the happiness of persons who choose to marry." He warns it will be used to "vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy" and is yet another example of the "Court's abuse of its authority."

Chief Justice Roberts says "the Constitution leaves no doubt" that the majority's "pretentious" opinion is incorrect. It even attempts to "sully those on the other side of the debate" in an "entirely gratuitous" manner. 

If Obergefell is accepted as binding law, the consequences will be grave. Of the results that can be predicted with confidence, four stand out: 

First, society will be harmed by being denied the right to hold out as normative, and particularly desirable, the only type of human relationship that every society must cultivate for its perpetuation. This compelling interest is strengthened by the fact that there is strong evidence to support what common sense suggests, namely, that children fare best when raised by their married mother and father who are both responsible for bringing them into the world and who provide maternal and paternal influences and care. 

Second, individuals and organizations holding to the historic and natural understanding of marriage as a conjugal union -- the covenantal partnership of one man and one woman -- will be vilified, legally targeted, and denied constitutional rights in order to pressure them to conform to the new orthodoxy. 

Third, the new jurisprudence of dignity is unlimited in principle and will encourage additional claims to redefine marriage and other long-established institutions.

Fourth, the right of all Americans to engage in democratic deliberation, and ultimately self-government, will be decisively undermined. 

Any decision that brings about such evils would be questionable. One lacking anything remotely resembling a warrant in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution must be judged anti-constitutional and illegitimate. Obergefell should be declared to be such, and treated as such, by the other branches of government and by citizens of the United States.

In 1788, James Madison wrote, "The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers."

In 1857, Abraham Lincoln said, "Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal profession." If a decision "had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part, based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, to not acquiesce in it as a precedent." If, however, a decision is "wanting in all these claims to the public confidence," it is "not factious" to resist it. 

Obergefell is wanting in all these claims to the public confidence. It cannot therefore be taken to have settled the law of the United States. 

Therefore: 

We stand with James Madison and Abraham Lincoln in recognizing that the Constitution is not whatever a majority of Supreme Court justices say it is.

We remind all officeholders in the United States that they are pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the will of five members of the Supreme Court. 

We call on all federal and state officeholders: 

To refuse to accept Obergefell as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case.

To recognize the authority of states to define marriage, and the right of federal and state officeholders to act in accordance with those definitions.

To pledge full and mutual legal and political assistance to anyone who refuses to follow Obergefell for constitutionally protected reasons.

To open forthwith a broad and honest conversation on the means by which Americans may constitutionally resist and overturn the judicial usurpations evident in Obergefell.

We emphasize that the course of action we are here advocating is neither extreme nor disrespectful of the rule of law. Lincoln regarded the claim of supremacy for the Supreme Court in matters of constitutional interpretation as incompatible with the republican principles of the Constitution. Our position is summed up in Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address: 

"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

The proper understanding and definition of marriage is self-evidently a vital question affecting the whole people. To treat as "settled" and "the law of the land" the decision of five Supreme Court justices who, by their own admission, can find no warrant for their ruling in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, would indeed be to resign our government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. That is something that no citizen or statesman who wishes to sustain the great experiment in ordered liberty bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be willing to do. 

Related
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"

Mark Hodges reports at LifeSiteNews.com:

The Supreme Court has no power to impose gay “marriage” on the states, according to a new measure introduced by Tennessee legislators that would ignore the court's decision.

The Tennessee Natural Marriage Defense Act states that in the state [of] Tennessee, marriage is between one man and one woman, "regardless of any court decision to the contrary."

The bill would make a law that "any court decision purporting to strike down natural marriage, including Obergefell v. Hodges, is unauthoritative, void, and of no effect."

Two Wilson County lawmakers -- State Sen. Mae Beavers of Mt. Juliet and Rep. Mark Pody of Lebanon, both Republicans -- unveiled the bill at a rally at the state Capitol before hundreds of cheering voters.

"The Obergefell case is clearly and blatantly an overstep of the Supreme Court's authority," LifeSiteNews quotes Sen. Beavers as saying.

"The legislators also quoted Thomas Jefferson, who said, '[Whensoever] the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force'," LifeSiteNews reports.

This general principle from Jefferson appears in the first paragraph of the "Resolutions Adopted by Kentucky General Assembly," Nov. 10, 1798.

The U.S. Constitution, which defines the sphere of Supreme Court authority, clearly states that Congress -- not the Supreme Court -- is the legislative branch of the federal government.

"All legislative powers granted herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives," states the U.S. Constitution in Section 1 of Article 1.

Therefore, the Supreme Court has no authority to make law. Period.

In addition, any attempt to transmogrify a High Court "ruling" or "decision" in "the law of the land" not only violates the U.S. Constitution but also violates the Supreme Court "Oath of Office," in which every justice of the court swears to "support and defend" the Constitution before entering into that office.

Here is the Supreme Court Oath of Office:  

I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

"It is time that states like Tennessee stand up against the judicial tyranny of which Thomas Jefferson so eloquently warned," Rep. Pody said, accordng to LifeSiteNews. "This decision defies constitutional authority, and is one of the most glaring examples of judicial activism in U.S. Supreme Court history."

Because in Obergefell the High Court defied constitutional authority and broke the oath sworn to by the High Court justices themselves, its attempt to redefine marriage is "unauthoritative, void, and of no force."

Against this judicial tyranny, this High Court anarchy and violation of the rule of law, Tennessee legislators have stood up.

Bravo, Tennessee legislators. Let freedom ring.

Related
Kim Davis: Modern Day Rosa Parks
Huckabee Schools Stephanopoulos on Kim Davis's Proper and Legal Defiance
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"

Former Arkansas governor and current GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee appeared last Sunday on "This Week," anchored by former Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos.

Below is a transcript of their discussion (watch Youtube here), in which Huckabee explains that Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis is within her right as an elected official -- following Kentucky law, federal law, and the U.S. Constitution -- to refuse to bow to judicial tyranny, in this case the judicial tyranny of a court order demanding that she obey a Supreme Court ruling as if that ruling were a piece of legislation, which it is not:

George Stephanopoulos: Governor, thank you for joining us this morning. I know you're going to be going to Kentucky on Tuesday as a part of demonstration and support of Kim Davis.

But there are some dissenting voices in the conservative movement. I wanted you to respond to something from Rod Dreher in The American Conservative.

He says that, "The Supreme Court makes a ruling we don't like, we are obliged to obey the law or be willing to suffer the consequences of disobedience. What we cannot do, and what the government cannot permit, is open defiance of settled law."

He believes this is going to backfire on the religious liberty movement.

What's your response?

Mike Huckabee: Well, he would have hated Abraham Lincoln because Lincoln ignored the 1857 Dred Scott decision that said black people weren't fully human. It was a wrong decision. And to say that we have to surrender to judicial supremacy is to do what Jefferson warned against, which is, in essence, surrender to judicial tyranny.

And we had so many different presidents, including Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln -- there were other founders like Hamilton, Adams -- who made it very clear that the courts can't make a law. The Constitution is expressly clear that that's a power reserved to Congress.

When the courts have a ruling, then it is incumbent on Congress to codify that into law and specifically delineate what that means. That hasn’t happened, George.

Stephanopoulos: But, sir, how is this different, then, from Loving v. Virginia back in 1967? Of course that was a Supreme Court ruling that struck down bans on interracial marriage. If a clerk at that time had said, “Listen, my religious beliefs forbid me from issuing this license,” would you support that?

Huckabee: Well, it's an incredibly different situation --

Stephanopoulos: How so?

Huckabee: -- because what the Supreme Court did in Loving -- No, it’s not the same, George, not even close. Because in Loving you still had a marriage which was a man and a woman, and it was equal protection. But it didn’t redefine marriage. What’s -- the Supreme Court did in June --

Stephanopoulos: But you didn’t have laws implementing --

(Crosstalk)

Huckabee: And this is why I think --

Stephanopoulos: You didn’t have laws implementing the ruling then either, so would it have been OK to defy the Supreme Court in that case?

Huckabee: I think it’s -- again, it's a very different equation altogether because this is a redefinition. Marriage is not defined in the federal Constitution at all. It's a matter for the states. And applying the 14th Amendment to the equality of men and women in their relationship in marriage is totally different than redefining marriage.

And I think what we’ve seen here is the overreach of the judiciary. This, if allowed to stand without any congressional approval, without any kind of enabling legislation, is what Jefferson warned us about. That’s judicial tyranny.

Stephanopoulos: I’m not sure I follow your reasoning, sir. This is exactly the same. In both cases, you have the Supreme Court saying --

Huckabee: No, it’s not.

Stephanopoulos: -- that state laws further the Constitution, don’t further the 14th Amendment.

Huckabee: George, can you cite for me what statute Kim Davis would be required follow in order to issue a same-sex marriage license in Kentucky when her state specifically says, by 75% of the voters, that marriage means one man, one woman? Can you cite the statute at the federal or state level that she’s supposed to follow? Even the very form that she fills out specifically lists a male and a female. Does she have the authority just to scratch that out and create her own?

Stephanopoulos: Doesn’t she have to the duty to obey a legal order from the court?

Huckabee: Well, you obey it if it’s right. So I go back to my question. Is slavery the law of the land? Should it have been the law of the land because Dred Scott said so? Was that a correct decision? Should the courts have been irrevocably followed on that? Should Lincoln have been put in jail? Because he ignored it.

I mean, that’s the fundamental question. Do we have a check-and-balance system? Do we have three equal branches? Or do we have one supreme branch, not just the Supreme Court? That’s the fundamental question.

And, George, this is a bigger issue than this one thing. This goes back to the larger issue of whether or not what we’ve learned in 9th-grade civics is even still operative. And why people are so angry across the country, not just on this issue but on others, is that the ruling class has thumbed their nose at the very Constitution.

You’ve got Democrats who ignored the law when it was the law to have traditional marriage.

Gavin Newsom in San Francisco as mayor performed same-sex weddings even though it was illegal. Did he ever get put in jail? He most certainly did not.

You have Barack Obama and Eric Holder, when he was attorney general. They ignored the rulings of DOMA. Did they get put in jail for ignoring the law? They most certainly did not.

So when is it that liberals get to choose which laws they support, but a county clerk in Kentucky who, acting on her Christian faith, is criminalized, jailed without bail, because she acted on her conscience and according to the only law that is in front of her?

Stephanopoulos: One of the most memorable statements ever made by a president on separation of church and state was a quote from John F. Kennedy to the Baptist ministers back in his campaign in 1960. Let me play a bit of that.

(Video clip begins)

John F. Kennedy, President of the United States: But if the time should ever come, and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible, when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office.

(Video clip ends)

Stephanopoulos: Would you make that same statement in your candidacy for president?

Huckabee: I can't see any circumstance in which I would be required to violate my conscience and -- and the law. And if so, I think maybe there is a point at which you say either I'll resign or put me in jail.

But what I want to go back to is that --

Stephanopoulos: But let me -- before you do --

Huckabee: -- if we -- listen --

Stephanopoulos: -- before you do, though, let me ask you, a follow-up on that --

Huckabee: OK.

Stephanopoulos: -- because I've just [garbled] for one situation. The federal government now recognizes same-sex marriage for tax purposes. Health, Social Security and death benefits go to same-sex couples.

So would you resign rather than carry out those policies?

Huckabee: Well, when you say the federal government recognizes it, what statute under which do they recognize it?

They do it by decree, but there is no congressionally elected -- or voted upon statute.

George, let me --

Stephanopoulos: So you would reverse that?

Huckabee: Let me give you an example. When I was governor -- No, let me finish this, because it's very important.

When I was governor, we had a Supreme Court case on school finance that said we were inadequate and inequitable. They ruled. I read the ruling. I agreed with it. I knew it was right.

But I didn't just sit down at my desk and start writing new checks to school districts. We had to go back to the legislature, come up with a school funding formula. It was passed. I signed it. And then we ordered the Department of Education to send checks.

We are bypassing the process when we have one branch of government acting as [if] it has authority over the other two. And what I'm coming back to -- and I -- I think people are missing this -- either we live under the rule of law, which is a three-branch, checks-and-balances system of government, or we end up with what I think was so powerful when Lincoln said this -- and I want to read this.

He said, "If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court the instant they are made, then in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of this imminent tribunal."

We either -- we either are a people of government, a people of law, and we are a nation of the people, or we are a nation under the power of the Supreme Court, which is what --

Stephanopoulos: Yes.

Huckabee: -- the dissenting opinion of Roberts and Scalia so powerfully said.

Stephanopoulos: Governor Huckabee, that's all we have --

Cheryl Chumley reports at WND:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee . . . jumped directly into the jailing of Kim Davis -- the Kentucky clerk who refused to grant gay wedding licenses and is now behind bars -- and said Americans need to wake up to the "criminalization of Christianity" that's coursing through the country.

According to Chumley, among Huckabee's statements on this issue are:

"What a world, where Hillary Clinton isn't in jail but Kim Davis is."

 And:

"Government is not God. No man, and certainly no unelected law, has the right to redefine the laws of nature or of nature’s God."

Related
Homoesex "Marriage" Opens Door to Unlimited Statism
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"
"God's Authority": KY Clerk Refuses to Issue License for Phony Homosex "Marriage" After Losing High Court Fight

At the Blaze:

A county clerk in Kentucky who is continuing to deny marriage licenses to gay couples says she's doing so "under God’s authority."

Secularists may freak out at this "under God's authority," but that just shows how alienated they are from the American mainstream, which happens to be that of a nation rooted in the concept of "unalienable rights" . . . from . . . the . . . Creator.

You can read about it in the Declaration of Independence.

And please note: We are not talking about blind "faith" or privatized religion here. Rather, we are talking about publicly actionable information from a Creator who has given that information in space and time so that it can be checked for its veracity.

For more on this reality orientation, as opposed to that of secular superstitions or that of fanatical belief in counterfeits, see this article and this book.

Now back to that story in the Blaze:

Rowan County clerk Kim Davis emerged from her office Tuesday morning after some couples were denied the licenses. She asked David Moore and David Ermold, who've been rejected four times, to leave. They refused, surrounded by reporters and cameras.

Ermold said: "We’re not leaving until we have a license."

Davis responded: "Then you’re going to have a long day."

Well done, Miss Kim.

Let it be noted that no person should be forced to give a government stamp of approval upon that which is a counterfeit, whether we are talking about counterfeit money or counterfeit homosex "marriage."

This is true even if a misguided "Supreme" Court -- or Congress or President or a couple of guys really into perverted sex -- tries to impose its will. Well, there is no power or authority or perversion that can change that which is intrinsically a counterfeit into that which is intrinsically authentic.

These politically correct homofascists need to get a clue.

Meanwhile, people who think for themselves revolt.

As do those who care about a silly little thing called "freedom."

Just as the core elements of marriage, love, and freedom were above the pay grade of the King of England in 1776, even so they are above the pay grade of homosexuals and their lawyer allies on the U.S. Supreme Court today.

Truth, not counterfeits, sets you free. Well done, Miss Kim. Well done. Now, may many others go and do likewise.

"It's not up to the courts to decide what marriage is," said Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop. "It's up to God to decide that. If we are living in obedience to Jesus Christ and the teachings of the Bible, we are on the right side of history -- no matter what they say."

Read the entire story by Todd Starnes.

Related
Fox Sports Sue for Anti-Religious Discrimination After Firing Football Analyst for Views on Homosex "Marriage"
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"
Shame! Fascist Oregon Fines Christian Bakery, Then Tells Them to Shut Up

Daniel J. Flynn reports at Breitbart.com:

College football analyst Craig James filed suit against Fox Sports in a Dallas court this morning contending religious discrimination for his 2013 termination over his stance on gay marriage.

"Fox Sports fired James for one reason only: his religious beliefs about marriage," the 35-page suit charges.

"In so doing, Fox Sports violated the law. Specifically, Fox Sports violated the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act ('TCHRA') and Texas contract law along with a myriad of equitable principles."

Homosex "marriage" is a counterfeit, and no one (atheist, Christian, baker, or photographer) should be penalized for questioning it, rejecting it, or for preferring the real thing over the phony.

Fox Sports should have commended Craig James but befouls itself instead. Please, Fox, get your head out of the moral and political gutter and back into sports.

The games will be more enjoyable to watch. And you'll smell better, too.

Related
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality"
Shame! Fascist Oregon Fines Christian Bakery, Then Tells Them to Shut Up

Samantha Reinis reports at The Daily Signal:

The talk show The View pitted two childhood stars against each other to discuss the controversial issue of Christian bakers receiving a $135,000 fine for refusing to bake a lesbian wedding cake. Candace Cameron Bure of Full House and Raven-Symoné of That’s So Raven went head to head discussing the hot topic issue, coming down on different sides of the argument.

While Raven-Symoné began the conversation by comparing the issue to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, Bure quickly stopped her, claiming that was comparing apples and oranges. "I don’t think this is discrimination at all. This is about freedom of association," Bure said, speaking about Aaron and Melissa Klein, who received the fine after they declined to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

"It’s about constitutional rights. It’s about First Amendment rights. We do have the right to still choose who we associate with," Burr stated, according Reinis. "It’s in the Constitution."

Comment: As I have argued elsewhere, "In a free country, a business would be able to sell and cater to whomever it desires -- and to reject service or products to whomever it or whatever it desires.

"Here's an example: I despise racism but would acknowledge that a black racist is within his human rights to choose to refuse to bake cakes for Caucasians (when living on Capitol Hill in DC, I was once told certain events were for Black folks only). I would take my business elsewhere and encourage others to do so -- as an ethical repudiation of his or her poor ethical choice.

"The state denial of ontological human givens (to choose, to express one's creativity via one's property) creates a bigger problem than that of specific acts of bigotry. Using the opportunity of a moral failing (bigotry) to liquidate ontological givens (human choice in the area of property) creates massive structural oppression.

"This oppression is compounded and metastasized when state power is used to impose that mistake on all people and all property. It ends with gulags and gas chambers, not just for some, but in principle for everyone.

"By denying the bakers their human free speech rights, what Oregon is now doing is attacking humanity per se, not bigotry (which it also ill-defines and then misapplies).

"No matter how pervasive the PR or how many votes might agree, or court decisions might support, state-sponsored attacks on human foundations signal collapse, not liberation.

"If you want to empower a relativistic dictatorial elite to run your lives, this is the way to go. Freedom and intelligence resists."

Update: But is it "discrimination"? No. Do you think money counterfeiters would get far by shrieking, "Discrimination!"? Well, neither should the marriage counterfeiters get far shrieking, "Discrimination!" Their crusade isn't about love of marriage, but about the end of it. More here.

Related
Shame! Fascist Oregon Fines Christian Bakery, Then Tells Them to Shut Up
Fascism Is Back
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality," by J. Richard Pearcey

Herb Titus and William Olson write:

There is simply no other way to say it. 

The Supreme Court’s decision redefining marriage to include couples of the same sex is wholly illegitimate and unlawful. A nullity. Worthy only to be disobeyed.

Anyone who says otherwise -- that the rule of law requires recognition of same-sex marriage -- is committing a fraud.

And any State official -- like Governor Robert Bentley of Alabama -- who says that his oath of office requires unconditional obedience to the Supreme Court’s mandate to issue same-sex couples licenses to marry is mistaking his oath to the Constitution as if it were an oath of absolute obedience to five justices who happen to be sitting on the nation’s highest court.

Read more here.

Related
Shame! Fascist Oregon Fines Christian Bakery, Tells Them to Shut Up

From the Right Scoop:

Christian Persecution is alive and well in the fascist state of Oregon, where the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa [have] just been fined $135,000 for not making a cake for a lesbian couple’s wedding.

But not only that, now the state of Oregon is trying to silence them from even talking about it, using Oregon law as their justification.

Here is the what an Oregon Overseer, by name of Brad Avakian, occupying the office of Oregon Labor Commissioner, handed down upon dangerous bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein: 

The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders (the Kleins) to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published . . . any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations . . . will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation."

Why, how dare these people -- the Kleins -- think outside the tiny secular box imposed by Oregon fanatics holding state office. And, my word, we can't let renegade bakers actually express themselves in public! So, shut up, dangerous bakers.

"Fortunately, Aaron and Melissa Klein aren’t going to be silenced and aren’t giving up the fight," the Right Scoop writes, and then quotes this from the Kleins' Facebook page:

The final ruling has been made today. We have been charged with $135,000 in emotional damages, But also now Aaron has been charged with advertising. (Basically talking about not wanting to participate in a same-sex wedding)

This effectively strips us of all our first amendment rights. According to the state of Oregon we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech.

We will NOT give up this fight, and we will NOT be silenced.

We stand for God’s truth, God’s word and freedom for ALL americans. We are here to obey God not man, and we will not conform to this world. If we were to lose everything it would be totally worth it for our Lord who gave his one and only son, Jesus, for us! God will win this fight!

The Kleins are correct to reject Oregon fascism paraded and laundered as law. To be human is to act into history in both word and deed, across the whole of life, both public and private.

This is the Kleins' moral, legal, constitutional, human, and existential right. But an ugly dictate stands in the way.

Why stand in the way? Because elements within the state of Oregon are at war with the Creator who has endowed human beings with certain unalienable rights, among them "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Homosex "marriage" is a counterfeit as phony as Monopoly money. The Kleins are to be praised for refusing to bow to homosex phoniness and for resisting Oregon state fascism.

Shame on you, official Oregon. For your hate, bigotry, and fascism.

Bravo to Aaron and Melissa Klein. For your love, tolerance, and freedom.

Related  
Accepting Homosex Marriage Opens Door to Unlimited Statism, by Nancy Pearcey
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality," by J. Richard Pearcey

Kathleen Brown reports at CNSNews.com:

Nationally syndicated radio host Mark Leven called the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges ruling legalizing gay marriage "utterly lawless" and a "bastardization" of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

"The idea that the 14th Amendment -- a Civil War amendment -- somehow reaches the personal policy agenda of Anthony Kennedy is an absurdity. It's a bastardization," Levin said on his Friday broadcast.

"A lawless Supreme Court -- utterly lawless, it's absolutely nuts -- doesn't deserve your respect ever again," Levin is quoted as saying, "even if it issues an opinion that you like."

From Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, at Christian Post:

By disenfranchising 50 million Americans, in a decision divorced of law and logic, they have only poured fuel on the fire.

The Left will say we are on the wrong side of history, but that shouldn't matter if we're on the right side of truth.

Related
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality," by J. Richard Pearcey

Nick Hallett reports at Breitbart.com:

Feminist commentator Germaine Greer has criticised Elton John for calling his partner David Furnish "mother" of their two sons.

Speaking at the Hay Literary Festival, Greer accused the men of "deconstructing motherhood," criticising them for the fact that Furnish was listed as mother on their children’s birth certificates.

"Sir Elton John and his 'wife' David Furnish have entered on the birth certificate of their two sons that David Furnish is the mother. I’m sorry," Greer is quoted as saying. "That will give you an idea of how the concept of motherhood has emptied out. It’s gone, it’s been deconstructed."

Related
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality," by J. Richard Pearcey
Memo to the Supreme Court: Who Respects the Human Body? Not Homosexuals, by Nancy Pearcey  

Todd Starnes writes:

Louisiana Republican lawmakers sided with Democrats, big business, and LGBT activists to kill a bill that would have protected individuals and religious institutions opposed to same-sex marriage.

In doing so, lawmakers defied the objections of an overwhelmingly majority of voters and handed Gov. Bobby Jindal a significant defeat for his legislative agenda.

But Gov. Jindal responded by issuing an "Executive Order late Tuesday to protect religious liberty and prevent the state from discriminating against those with deeply held religious beliefs," Starnes writes in a story update.

"In Louisiana, the state should not be able to take adverse action against a person for their belief in traditional marriage," Jindal is quoted as saying.

"That’s why I’m issuing an Executive Order to prevent the state from discriminating against people, charities and family-owned businesses with deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman," Jindal said, according to Starnes.

Comment: Jindal is right to protect the people of Louisiana from attempts by homosexualists to impose a counterfeit concept of marriage upon the body politic.

Such an imposition is profoundly hateful, inhumane, intolerant, and discriminatory.

And unwise.

For in both business and society, rejecting counterfeits is a sign of health, sanity, and common sense.

And just as it is right and humane to ethically discriminate against racism and slavery, even so it is right and humane to ethically discriminate against phony marriage and the authoritarianism that attends its fevered imposition.

All people, whether Christian or otherwise, ought to have the freedom to say no to counterfeits and to LGBT oppression, and to say yes to marriage and liberty in community with the verifiable Creator who is the source of both marriage and unalienable rights (for more, see the U.S. Declaration of Independence).

To be human is to be free. Not just in a church or prayer closet, but on campus, in business, in the boardroom, in the voting booth, whether civilian or military, and "to end of the earth," as the pro-human leader of the resistance once put it.

The scope of this calling even includes the State of Louisiana. If you want real "love without limits," this is it.

Related
The Revolt of Intelligence Against "Marriage Equality," by J. Richard Pearcey
Memo to Conservatives: Accepting Homosex "Marriage" Opens Door to Unlimited Statism, by Nancy Pearcey
Jindal on Hillary's Vision: "It Sounds Like Re-education Camps," by J. Richard Pearcey