Christians 1, U. of Idaho 0: free speech wins

The University of Idaho [go Potato Heads!] has been ordered to pay $90,000 as part of a settlement the Alliance Defending Freedom brought on behalf of Christian law students and a professor after the university's civil rights investigation office issued "no-contact" orders against them.

According to a report by the Columbian, the settlement ends a case brought to the school by three law students who are members of the Christian Legal Society student group, along with a law professor who is the group's faculty advisor.

Beyond paying the $90,000, the university has also rescinded the “no-contact” orders as part of the settlement.

The group filed its lawsuit in April, maintaining that the university had illegally punished them for expressing their religious beliefs, which included their support for the traditional idea that marriage is between one man and one woman.

The ADF noted that the university issued the no-contact orders after a woke student was offended by the group's requirement that its officers agree with Christian doctrine, in spite of it being a Christian group. In this case, the belief about marriage being between a man and a woman, not two men, two women or any other combination of people or woodland creatures, etc.

Moreover, after disclosing this information, the Christian Legal Society’s beliefs were also publicly denounced by the student and several others at a panel with the American Bar Association.

“Today’s university students will be tomorrow’s leaders, judges, and school administrators, so it’s imperative that university officials model the First Amendment freedoms they are supposed to be teaching their students,” ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer said in a statement.

“We’re pleased to settle this case favorably on behalf of Peter, Mark, Ryan, and Professor Seamon, and we hope that it will encourage all public universities across the country to support the constitutionally protected freedom of students and professors to share their deeply held beliefs on campus,” Langhofer said.

Christian Legal Society attorney Laura Nammo also reacted to the settlement, stating, “If we are to repair the current culture of political polarization, conversations among persons with differing viewpoints are essential.”

But different viewpoints are precisely what freaks out the woke left, as evidenced in what we're now learning about Twitter's pre-Musk past.

“University officials’ censorship of such conversations needlessly exacerbates polarization and harms all students’ ability to learn from one another,” Nammo added.

It's about time the Constitution got some R E S P E C T.

Tweet

BREAKING: Senate passes same-sex marriage bill with 12 RINOs in support

In a vote Tuesday of 61 to 36, the US Senate advanced lesbian and gay legislation that would codify same-sex marriage protection into law, while most GOP lawmakers argue the language of the bill infringes on religious freedom. So now we can expect the LGBTQ+1/JTL~FRT community to demand religious devotees bake their wedding cakes and do what they demand in general.

Like the patterning behavior of birds, Senate Democrats unanimously followed the leader in support of the bill, but there was also help by some so-called Republicans. The Left is very good at naming their bills with the exact opposite meaning of what they actually are. For example, this bill is called the Respect for Marriage Act and is exactly the opposite of that title. It would be more accurate to call it the Disrespect of the Judea-Christian, Islamic, Hindu and Traditionalist's Act. But again, when you can call an act that supports killing the unborn "A Woman's Right to Choose," leaving out the little thing [literally] that she is choosing to do that is not her right, then it shouldn't surprise anyone that this bill is named Respect for Marriage Act. It's total disrespect for marriage.

And this bill repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, which is between one man and one woman.

Fortunately, this bill doesn't force states to allow for dudes to marry dudes, women to marry women, under the Obergefell v. Hodges decision. But it would however, make it so that any “person acting under color of State law” fully recognizes marriage between two people in another state and that the federal government must recognize marriages if they were valid in the state where the marriage occurred, basically nullifying the concept of states' rights.

“I hope we can get it done with all due speed because millions of Americans deserve equal justice under the law and the peace of mind knowing their right to marry the person they love is protected,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck "Nostrils" Schumer (D-NY) said Monday. Schumer is hoping once the bill gets through, he can live out his dream of marrying Adam Schiff and spend his twilight years with the man he loves.

Schumer and congressional Democrats moved the bill quickly allegedly out of fear that the Supreme Court would take up the landmark 2015 ruling that legalized marriage nationwide after overturning Roe v. Wade last summer.

Since the bill first worked through the halls of Congress, Senate Democrats worked to garner ten GOP votes — enough to clear the 60-vote filibuster threshold.

Oklahoma Republican Senator James Langford, who proposed an amendment addressing religious liberty concerns in his deep melodic voice, warned that the language fails to place any restrictions which would cause entities such as nonprofits or faith-based organizations to choose not to provide those services or to “abandon their faith,” to which Chuck Schumer responded with, 'Faith schmaith. Let's get it done," as he raised his fist and punched at the sky, feigning a punch in the balls to 'someone up there.'

“I encourage everyone in this body to ask a very simple question to themselves: is today about respecting the rights of all?” Langford said on the Senate floor. “Or is it about silencing some?”

[Fun Fact: It's about silencing some. Can you guess who?]

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) called for protections for those with religious beliefs or simply normal moral conviction that marriage is between a man and a woman. He introduced an amendment prohibiting federal bureaucrats from discriminating against individuals, organizations, and other religious entities by stripping away tax-exempt status, licenses, contracts, or other benefits, because he knows how the left thinks.

The amendments proposed by Langford, Lee, or Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) passed as religious freedom in America is slowly becoming unacceptable.

* * *

Hey folks, consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and please check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against Critical Race Theory, ignorance, The New York Times, and bovine flatulence. You also help me and the orphans. Thanks.

* * *

Republican senators that voted in favor of the bill included Roy Blunt (MO), Richard Burr (NC), Shelley Moore Capito (WV), Susan Collins (ME), Todd Young (IN), Joni Ernst (IA), Cynthia Lummis (WY), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Rob Portman (OH), Mitt Romney (UT), Dan Sullivan (AK), and Thom Tillis (NC).

Remember those names. Write them down. Vote. If you don't vote, you shouldn't really have much to say, at least on this issue.

Tweet

SCOTUS rules in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District case re: fired football coach

In a 6-3 decision by the SCOTUS, a major victory for religious liberty was delivered in the Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which involves a high school football coach who was fired for praying on the football field at the 50 yard line after games were completed.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Donald Trump appointee, authored the decision.

The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression.

Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic. Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a personal religious observance, based on a mistaken view that it has a duty to suppress religious observances even as it allows comparable secular speech. The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination. Mr. Kennedy is entitled to summary judgment on his religious exercise and free speech claims.

Joe Kennedy worked at Bremerton School District in Washington as a junior varsity head coach and varsity assistant coach between 2008 to 2015.

His post-game praying was initially done alone, but eventually, other students began joining him of their own free will. This soon angered the secular and atheist community because they find it difficult to tolerate people with different beliefs [see also the SCOTUS decision on Roe v. Wade and the concomitant mostly peaceful riots that ensued, including the torching of a police officer with a homemade flame thrower]. School officials soon got involved and Kennedy was fired.

Religious leaders shared thoughts with the media after the high court released its ruling in the case on Monday morning. [H/T Fox News Digital]

In a message on Monday morning, Rebecca Hatfield, president of 2nd Vote, a faith-based nonprofit in Nashville, TN, said, "The Supreme Court ruling in favor of Coach Kennedy's rights to pray and exercise his right to free speech is a huge victory for our country at a time when religious liberties and free speech have been greatly under attack."

She added, "2nd Vote would like to thank the Supreme Court for correctly interpreting the First Amendment and correcting this injustice to Coach Kennedy. We rejoice whenever liberty reigns in our land."

Meanwhile atheist heads exploded and if they don't change their ways, they can go to hell. 

* * *

 Consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and please check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against Communism, ignorance, The New York Times, and the heebie-jeebies.

* * *

Judge Phil Ginn, president of Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES) in Charlotte, NC said, "The Supreme Court ruling in the Coach Joe Kennedy case is a breath of fresh air for both religious freedom and the concept of free speech, both of which are firmly imbedded in our Constitution."

He also said, "It has always been a feckless argument to say that someone might be offended or influenced by religious expression. In the real world, speech is always intended to influence in some manner; therefore, the right to free speech ought to apply to all kinds of speech, not just to that which a majority thinks it should be confined."

Tell that to the Left.

Tweet

Catholic priests, Jewish congregants sue Cuomo, de Blasio and NY Attorney General over worship double standard

Catholic priests and Jewish congregants filed a lawsuit against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo [CNN's Chris Cuomo's older brother and member of their comedy team] along with New York City Mayor, Comrade Bill de Blasio [aka Warren Wilhelm] over an alleged double standard on worship and protests during pandemic restrictions. In other words, these political clowns forbade religious practice in houses of worship, but allowed leftist protesters to congregate en masse in protests and riots in the city.

Two Catholic priests from upstate New York and three Orthodox Jewish congregants from Brooklyn filed lawsuit June 10 against leftists Cuomo, de Blasio, and Attorney General Letitia James in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.

“It is time to end New York’s experiment in absolute monarchy,” said Thomas More Society Special Counsel Christopher Ferrara in a statement.  “We are asking the court to put an end to these unconstitutional executive orders and their prejudicial enforcement.” [H/T: Daily Caller]

The Thomas More Society’s complaint lists a number of alleged abuses of power, accusing the defendants of exploiting the pandemic to create “a veritable dictatorship” through Cuomo’s executive orders, of selectively enforcing social distancing through fines and punishments, and much more. It's an illuminating read and I highly recommend you read it.

The lawsuit accuses and illustrates how Cuomo, de Blasio, and James infringed on freedoms of religion, speech, assembly, expressive association, and due process.

Senior Judge Gary L. Sharpe has ordered the defendants to file a response by noon on June 15, or two days as of this post.

“These orders, both the emergency stay-home and reopening plan declarations, clearly discriminate against houses of worship,” Ferrara said. “They are illegally content based, elaborate, arbitrary and pseudo-scientific.”

Again, I urge you to read the first 40 or so pages of the complaint. It's a work of legal art and comes as these leftist idiots allow protests and riots to go on in New York City and upstate, while religious services remain restricted or banned altogether. It's unimaginable to think the five plaintiffs would lose based upon their constitutional rights.

“The governor and his agents, along with New York City’s mayor have employed favoritism and political platforms against people of faith,” Ferrara added. “Why is a large worship gathering deemed more dangerous than a mass protest, full of shouting, arm-waving people in close proximity to one another?”

De Blasio claimed Thursday that trips to a playground might be too risky for the spread of COVID-19, but wouldn't say the same about the protests.

The Thomas More Society said in a press release that only days after de Blasio was caught without a face mask at a political gathering in New York City — despite the requirement that all New Yorkers wear face masks and avoid gatherings of more than 10 people — police enforced the state’s ban on gatherings of more than 10 people and kicked a small group of Hasidic Jewish children out of a park.

De Blasio, an obvious anti-Semite and anti-America has also threatened the Jewish community over “illegal” religious gatherings, warning of arrests and prosecutions.


Please consider following this blog, and remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings and a dead terrorist gets his virgins.




Tweet

Christian woman awarded $21.5 million for being fired for refusing to work Sundays

Miami, Florida -- a federal jury awarded Marie Jean Pierre, a Christian woman, $21.5 million in punitive damages last week.

The court declared that her employer, the Conrad Hotel, unjustly fired her when she refused to work on Sundays because of her Christian faith.

"Marie Jean Pierre worked as a dishwasher at the Conrad from 2006 to 2016," the Miami Herald reported. "The hotel knew about her involvement in the Soldiers of Christ Church that prevented her from working Sundays. But in 2015, her boss, kitchen manager George Colon, assigned her to work Sundays anyway."

Ms. Pierre managed her new schedule while adhering to her church's sabbath requirements by trading shifts with her fellow co-workers. This went on for several weeks but then her employer demanded she work Sundays, regardless of her efforts. She refused to compromise her belief and she was fired.

After the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued Pierre a "right to sue" notice, Pierre filed suit against the Conrad Hotel, managed by HEI Hotels & Resorts, alleging she had been unjustly fired for her religious beliefs.

"I love God," she told NBC 6 Miami, according to Yahoo News. "No work on Sunday, because Sunday I honor God."

Marc Brumer, Pierre's attorney, told NBC 6 that her lawsuit was for all employees being discriminated against because of their religion.

"They accommodated her for seven years, and they easily could have accommodated her, but instead of doing that, they set her up for absenteeism and threw her out," her attorney, Marc Brumer, told NBC 6. "She’s a soldier of Christ. She was doing this for all the other workers who are being discriminated against."

Pierre's complaint said that the "defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by, among other things, creating a hostile work environment for Plaintiff, reprimanding Plaintiff for her religious beliefs, and terminating Plaintiff."

Pierre has now been awarded $36,000 for lost wages, $500,000 for emotional wages, and $21 million in punitive damages. Hopefully this will have made an impression on Conrad Hotels and those on the left who fearlessly attack Christians and Jews while cowering from the requirements of Islam while on the job.

"This was not about money," Bruner told NBC 6. "This was about sending a message to other corporations whether big or small. Whatever size you are, if you’re going to take the blood and sweat of your workers, you better accommodate them or let them at least believe in their religious beliefs. Not a preference but a belief."

The hotel chain, part of the Hilton brand, did not learn their lesson and expressed disappointment with the verdict. They plan to appeal, asserting that "multiple concessions" were made on her behalf.

But not on Sunday's schedule apparently.

"We were very disappointed by the jury’s verdict, and don’t believe that it is supported by the facts of this case or the law," the chain said in a statement. "During Ms. Pierre’s 10 years with the hotel, multiple concessions were made to accommodate her personal and religious commitments. We intend to appeal, and demonstrate that the Conrad Miami was and remains a welcoming place for all guests and employees."

Without knowing the full story behind Ms. Pierre and her history with the hotel, if what is accurate is their refusal to give her Sundays off from work, that alone is damning . . . literally.

I hope that 2019 will be the year you follow Brain Flushings and have a few laughs while you get a conservative viewpoint.  Politics is the new NFL without the mindless kneeling and this blog will both inform you and hopefully entertain you bigly. 




Tweet

Nebraska principal tells teachers to avoid decorating rooms with Christmas-themed ornaments

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas and the idiots who have a problem with chilling out, or need to find something offense for their schadenfreude needs.

An elementary school principal in the corn-husker state was place on leave after telling his teaching staff to avoid decorating their classrooms with Christmas-themed ornaments. It's Christmas and Christians might offend non-celebrants of Christmas if they use objects that celebrate the holiday.

Evidently, the possibility of offending people who are offended by other people celebrating their holiday has given the Manchester Elementary School principal, Jennifer Sinclair, the vapors.

People who are anti-religion idiots are most susceptible to the vapors.

Sinclair sent out a memo earlier in the  week with guidelines regarding what she demands is appropriate decorations and assignments--power evidently has gone to her head.

Teachers were reportedly told by Principal Grinch that generic winter-themed items, such as sledding and scarves, and the "Frozen" character Olaf, were acceptable.

Decorations that included Santa, Christmas trees, reindeer, green and red colored items and even candy canes, however, were not acceptable for the elementary school.

The candy canes, according to KETV, were prohibited because Sinclair deemed them to have religious significance. "Historically, the shape is a 'J' for Jesus. The red is for the blood of Christ, and the white is a symbol of his resurrection," she reportedly wrote. "This would also include different colored candy canes."

Sinclair is clearly and seriously disturbed.

"I feel uncomfortable that I have to get this specific, but for everyone's comfort, I will," Sinclair reportedly wrote in the memo.

The Elkhorn School District told Fox News in a statement that "the memo does not reflect the policy of Elkhorn Public Schools regarding holiday symbols in the school."

That's refreshing.

The district's policy states that "Christmas trees, Santa Claus and Easter eggs and bunnies are considered to be secular, seasonal symbols and may be displayed as teaching aids provided they do not disrupt the instructional program for students."

Sinclair was placed on administrative leave as of Thursday morning.

While Sinclair evidently believes she is protecting the rights of non-Christians from being offended, she is violating the rights of Christians who celebrate the holiday in this style.

I mean, candy canes?

If anyone is offended by someone else's religion and how they celebrate it, that's their problem, and they can go to hell, if they're not careful.


Hello fellow conservatives. At this time of year when everyone has a hand out for a hand out, I don't. I simply want you to follow Brain Flushings and check out the ads. It's free, I'm free and you're free to follow or not. I hope you do. Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah.



Tweet

Obama gives free pass to religious freedom violators

If you're an Islamic nation and not a direct enemy of the US, you're allowed to violate the religious freedom of non-Muslims because Obama said so, International Religious Freedom Act  (IRFA) be damned.

Thus, if you're a Christian in Saudi Arabia, and your Bible is discovered, the Islamic government can take it from you and burn it, as they do with all non-Islamic religious items entering the country. 

Obama and his Islamophiliacs have waived punitive restrictions for violating religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. But restrictions remain in place for Iran, Burma, China, Eritrea, North Korea and Sudan. The reason Obama's administration gave for the waivers is that national security concerns trumps the IRFA.

State Department spokes-puppet John Kirby said Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan would be re-designated as Countries of Particular Concern under the IRFA.

"These designations help us shine a spotlight on countries and conditions that require the international community's attention," Kirby said before going to the ground and facing Mecca. Then he got up and lied: "Today and every day, as you know, we are committed to working with governments and civil society organizations, and individuals to achieve our shared interest in promoting peace and stability through, in part, the promotion and protection of all human rights including religious freedom."

Of course this lie flies in the face of women in Muslim countries who are treated worse than cattle, and Christians who are often killed, their churches torched and gays who are thrown from buildings or beheaded by these theocratic countries, because that's what it says to do in the Koran.

But Kirby and his ilk lie for Obama and do it with a straight face.


Tweet