I’m grateful that gay conservatives are fighting the religious bigotry being imposed on people of faith this era of ‘tolerance.’ However, gay marriage presents a more significant threat to another vulnerable group.
Gay marriage changed me. I found purpose and connection unlike anything I ever knew before. Can’t this coexist with religious Americans’ rights?
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh told senators, ‘The days of discriminating against gay and lesbian Americans or treating [them] as inferior in dignity and worth are over.’
They underscore the right not to be compelled to worship at the government’s altar, speak the government’s message, or join the government’s associations.
Our cultural elites treat opposition to same-sex marriage as beyond the bounds of reasonable discourse. But three years’ more experience only reinforce that it’s a legal and cultural mistake.
It would be more than a little ironic for conservatives to seek to defend the Constitution while ignoring it when convenient.
The ACLU characterizes the core issue in Masterpiece as not free speech or the free exercise of religion, but discrimination comparable to racial division in the 1960s.
A florist and baker at the heart of major legal cases explained why they won’t use their creative talents and services to affirm same-sex marriage.
The question Obergefell has raised across that land is: can we craft laws that permit mutually exclusive views to peacefully coexist? Or must the disfavored view be driven out of public life?
Despite this week’s positive religious liberty rulings, the 2015 Obergefell ruling created conflicting precedent harassing schools into controversial manifestations of unproven gender ideology.
It is one thing to compassionately treat those with gender dysphoria. It is another thing entirely to cause gender dysphoria.
Our culture is obsessed with granting validation and approval through naming each sexual phenomena. So we’ll keep making up new terms for sexual preference.
The assumption in Obergefell that the sexes are interchangeable is affecting laws and regulations that concern sex differences in many other forms.
The ever-changing interpretation of the Constitution Senate Democrats promote imposes litmus tests nearly every justice who is not currently serving would fail.
If the Wyoming Supreme Court is permitted to insert an unstated requirement upon judges, what prevents some future court from reading pastors, priests, and bishops into the same decision?
The 3-2 decision of the Wyoming Supreme Court says holding mainstream Christian beliefs undermines Judge Ruth Neely’s impartiality even though marriages aren’t part of her duties.
Obama-era rules empower meat inspectors to become speech inspectors, and that’s created a crazy situation at one farm in Michigan.
- Why John Roberts’ Citizenship Decision Is Legally And Politically CorruptSince when is the Supreme Court in the business of goincontinue reading >
- Why Scarlett Johansson Is Mostly Right About Identity-Blind CastingThe 'Avengers' star is generally right that actors can continue reading >
- Women From All 50 States Gather In D.C. To Advocate For Gun RightsThe DC Project brings students, mom, competitive shootecontinue reading >