Tuesday, June 5, 2018


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
John McCann and Mayor Deirdre Dillon

John McCann and Mayor Deirdre Dillon
New Jersey – -( As New Jersey’s largest and most effective results-oriented Second Amendment organization, we have become overwhelmed with inquiries about Republican congressional candidate John McCann and his position on the Second Amendment.
We feel it is best to address everyone’s concerns about John McCann in a short statement.
After speaking with McCann, an attorney campaigning in New Jersey’s Fifth Congressional District, he claims that he is a solid supporter of the Second Amendment. Since we have heard it a million times: “I support the Second Amendment, but…” we at New Jersey Second Amendment Society have a much more thorough vetting process when it comes to an aspiring congressman. And from what we have heard so far, we are definitely not switching NJ2AS’ endorsement from Steve Lonegan, who is currently battling McCann for the Republican nomination in the 5th district.
Lonegan, who has been a long-time supporter of gun owners in New Jersey, has a long history of his vocal positions on exactly where he stands in support of our constitutional rights. Though McCann talks a good game, there’s not much of a record to dissect, and some of his closest friends and supporters are not exactly Second Amendment supporters.

Actually, they reflect and define the core definition of the enemy of the Second Amendment.

Specifically, Ramsey Mayor Deirdre Dillon, who stood with Moms (paid by Mike Bloomberg to) Demand Action against the development of a gun range immediately off Route 17 in the Bergen County town. We are dumbfounded by the fact that John McCann could claim enormous support of the Second Amendment but his closest supporter and cheerleader fought tooth and nail to ban gun ranges.
And for the record, many courts throughout the country have ruled against banning of gun ranges, because part of the Second Amendment is being proficient in it and banning gun ranges is unconstitutional.
Mayor Deirdre Dillon, a so-called Republican, epitomizes this toxicity and divisiveness against the Second Amendment and John McCann stands by her side while simultaneously claiming he supports the Second Amendment. Frankly speaking, this is exactly what gun owners are sick of hearing and dealing with. Remember when Republicans claimed national reciprocity was going to be priority number one if they got elected in 2016?
When we confronted McCann regarding the Ramsey situation, he deflected that it was a “land-use issue,” not a Second Amendment issue. We at NJ2AS strongly disagree with that position. Instead of condemning Mayor Dillion’s attack on the Second Amendment, he chose to condone it. This was a huge mistake and sends the wrong message to the thousands of members we have in New Jersey’s Fifth Congressional District.
If voters want to elect someone to Congress that will actively fight for our rights, it is clear that the choice is Steve Lonegan.
We encourage everybody to share and forward this alert especially if you live in New Jersey's Fifth Congressional district.
~ New Jersey Second Amendment Society
About New Jersey Second Amendment Society:
New Jersey Second Amendment Society
New Jersey Second Amendment Society – The NJ2AS uses innovative and bold direct-action tactics to expose, document, and take results-oriented action to confront anti-Second Amendment policies and legislators.
By Defending, Protecting, and Preserving the Second Amendment within New Jersey, the NJ2AS works to ensure that our civil rights are restored, no longer degraded, and to prevent NJ from being used as a laboratory to destroy the Second Amendment nationwide. Visit:


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The Qur’an depicts the Jews as inveterately evil and bent on destroying the well-being of the Muslims. They are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); they claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); they love to listen to lies (5:41); they disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13). They are disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more. They are under Allah’s curse (9:30), and Muslims should wage war against them and subjugate them under Islamic hegemony (9:29).
Danke, Merkel!
“Jewish Youths Attacked by Arabs in Berlin Train Station,” by David Israel, Jewish Press, June 4, 2018 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
Another violent attack on Jews took place in Berlin Saturday night at Bahnhof Zoo station, according to Bild.
The newspaper reported: “A disgusting, brutal, anti-Semitic incident took place at Bahnhof Zoo last night. The victims: three young Jews. The perpetrators: three young Arabs. They said, among other things: ‘This is our town, our precinct. If I see you again, I’ll slit your throat, you [expletive] Jew.’”
A female friend of the Jewish youths, who was also on the platform, wanted to mediate, but the Arabs told her: “Why do you open your mouth as a woman? Why are you protecting these Jews?”
The victims were slightly injured by blows and kicks, according to the report.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
This is why Tommy Robinson is being held as a political prisoner.
Pedophilia has had a long history among the 90 percent white population in England and until recently even that was covered up.
Now after decades of neglect, England must finally answer to why the powers that be quietly allowed mainly Pakistani, Kurdish, and Kosovo Muslim men to form a network of sex trafficking rings all across Great Britain that sadistically raped thousands of English girls for roughly four decades.


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
President Donald Trump will host an iftar dinner at the White House next week to recognize the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, according to a White House official, a departure from last year’s decision not to host the traditional post-sundown meal.
The iftar dinner is scheduled for Wednesday. The White House official declined to provide a list of attendees.
During the month of Ramadan, Muslims fast from dawn to sunset and they break the fast with a meal known as an iftar.
The White House faced criticism last year for neglecting to host an iftar dinner, breaking with a long-standing tradition embraced by Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

In a statement issued last month marking the start of Ramadan, Trump said, “Ramadan reminds us of the richness Muslims add to the religious tapestry of American life.”

Stop White House Ramadan, Honor #TommyRobinson

Super Bowl champs, the Philadelphia Eagles, decided most of them would boycott the traditional White House honorary appearance so Trump turned the tables and cancelled it entirely. But after stopping last year the White House Ramadan Iftar celebration (started by Hillary in 1996), it’s back on. What’s going on?

UPDATE JUNE 7, 2018:

Trump, at White House Iftar, hails Ramadan’s “timeless message of peace, clarity, and love”

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
“Clarity,” really? Not “charity”? The White House website says “clarity,” so that’s that.
Anyway, a jihad group explained Ramadan this way back in 2012: “The month of Ramadan is a month of holy war and death for Allah. It is a month for fighting the enemies of Allah and God’s messenger, the Jews and their American facilitators.”
So which is it? Is Ramadan a time of “peace, clarity, and love,” as Trump said last night, or is it a “month of holy war and death for Allah”?
Islam’s core texts make it clear that the latter statement is closer to the truth. During Ramadan, Muslims are exhorted to renew and deepen their devotion to Allah. Hence it is a time when they’re supposed to grow more generous and kind toward their fellow Muslims. However, the Qur’an says: “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves” (48:29). If the Ramadan imperative is to become more devout, the Muslim who applies himself diligently to the Ramadan observance will simultaneously become more both merciful to his fellow Muslims and more severe against the unbelievers.
Throughout the history of Islam, we can see jihad being waged with extra ferocity during Ramadan. In my new book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, I recount the harrowing story of the centuries-long and excruciatingly devastating Islamic jihad against India. During Ramadan in 1504, the Delhi sultan Sikandar Lodi, in the words of the contemporary Muslim historian Niamatullah, “raised the standard of war for the reduction of the fort of Mandrail; but the garrison capitulating, and delivering up the citadel, the Sultan ordered the temples and idols to be demolished, and mosques to be constructed.” Then he “moved out on a plundering expedition into the surrounding country, where he butchered many people, took many prisoners, and devoted to utter destruction all the groves and habitations; and after gratifying and honouring himself by this exhibition of holy zeal he returned to his capital Bayana.”
Yes, plundering, butchering, and destroying temples was, as far as Niamatullah was concerned, an “exhibition of holy zeal.” Murdering infidels doesn’t contradict the spirit of Ramadan; it embodies it. Trump’s statement is a dispiriting reiteration of the fantasies that prevailed in Washington during the three administrations (at least) that preceded his.
“‘Ramadan Mubarak’ — Donald Trump Welcomes Muslims to the White House for Iftar Dinner,” by Charlie Spiering, Breitbart, June 6, 2018:
President Donald Trump hosted an Iftar Dinner at the White House on Wednesday in honor of the Muslim feast of Ramadan.
“To each of you and to the Muslims around the world, Ramadan Mubarak,” Trump said, during remarks at the dinner, extending the Ramadan greeting shared by Muslims. “In gathering together this evening we honor a sacred tradition of one of the world’s great religions.”…
In the first year of his presidency, Trump broke the tradition of hosting an Iftar dinner at the White House, started by President Bill Clinton. But this year, the White House restored the tradition….
Trump pointed to the “timeless message of peace, clarity, and love” that occurred during the month of Ramadan, urging all Americans to strive to achieve these values.
He recalled that the first state visit of his presidency was to Saudi Arabia, calling it “one of the most fabulous times” of his presidency.
“Let us pray for peace and justice and let us resolve that these values will guide us as we work together to build a bright and prosperous future that does honor and glory to God,” he said.

Trump's first White House Iftar dinner

US President Donald Trump hosted his first Ramadan dinner in the White House. Most invitees were Muslim diplomats who joined him for the traditional fast-breaking meal. Protesters held an anti-Trump demonstration outside the White House.The event also sparked online criticism.

How Can Trump Honor Absurd Islamic 

Beliefs With White House Dinner?

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Posted by Don Boys on June 7, 2018
Historic Islam (Koranic Islam) is America’s Trojan Horse full of an enemy that has clearly proclaimed plans to destroy America. If our leaders do not recognize that fact and act accordingly, they are like a man wading waist-deep through the snake and alligator infested Everglades Swamp. They are going to get bit.
President Trump, no doubt because of intense pressure, honored Islam at the White House with a Ramadan dinner to break their daily fast! The guests were “safe” Muslims all being diplomats and ambassadors from Muslim-majority nations. Of course, it was still giving credibility to a dangerous cult that is at war with America and all non-Muslim nations. It would be as reasonable to honor snake handlers from Appalachia! At least they are a domestic cult while Islam is a foreign cult. And snake handlers are only dangerous to themselves and don’t have plans for world dominance.
The Muslim front groups for terrorism were not invited to the White House so they decided not to attend the dinner to which they were not invited! Trump is to be commended for not honoring the most extreme Muslims as he is to be condemned for honoring their hostile religion. Such is politics and most Americans have no ability to discern the subtleties.
The ignorance of Americans toward Islam is shocking. We should at least have basic knowledge about those who plan to conquer or destroy us!
Muslims throughout the world are obligated to obey the Koran and the Hadith, the two primary sources of Islamic theology and laws for daily living. Muslims are obligated to follow the same path of Mohammed. So, the “perfect” Koran is required reading for all Muslims and absolute adherence to its teaching is demanded.
The Hadith is the collected sayings and actions of Mohammed; some Muslims reject the hadiths because they are so absurd and they cannot live with the ridicule that follows. But without the hadiths, much of Islam is lost. For example, the details on how to pray, how to perform the Hajj, and the five pillars of Islam all come from the Hadith, not the Koran.
Some of the outrageous beliefs of Muslims listed below are taken from my first book dealing with Islam: ISLAM: America’s Trojan Horse! (now available as an eBook). I assure you that the PBS Special and other media pieces dealing with Mohammed were mere propaganda pieces that revealed none of the following.
According to most Muslims, Judas died on the cross instead of Christ! “Yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness.” (Koran, 4:157-158.) Obviously, from the beginning, the Koran cannot be trusted and is far from a “perfect” book.
I heard a Muslim cleric say that death does not sever the marital relations between a husband and wife so sex with the dead is permissible! Moroccan Muslim cleric Zamzami Abdelbair declared that necrophilia is religiously acceptable!
Mohammed slept with his dead aunt! Narrated by Ibn Abbas: “I (Muhammad) put on her my shirt that she may wear the clothes of heaven, and I slept with her in her coffin (grave) that I may lessen the pressure of the grave. She was the best of Allah’s creatures to me after Abu Talib.” Mohammed was referring to Fatima, the mother of Ali. Mohammed was trying to give his aunt a ticket to Heaven or make it easier for her after death.
You never heard that from the spokesmen at CAIR or other Islamic public relations groups who have a love affair with terrorists.
Mohammed had sexual relations with every wife every day! “The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number. I asked Anas, ‘Had the Prophet the strength for it?’ Anas replied, ‘We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty men.’” (Sahih Bukhari (5:268.) Mohammed was not only dishonest; he was delusional! He seems to have had delusions of adequacy!
Islam permits cannibalism according to Al-Shafie, who is considered to be the founder of Islamic jurisprudence. He declared, “We allowed the eating of the flesh of dead humans… under necessary conditions. It [dead human flesh] must not be cooked or grilled to avoid Haram (wrongdoing) …and he can kill a murtadd (apostate) and eat him.” Again, “One may eat the flesh of a human body. It is not allowed to kill a Muslim nor a free non-Muslim under Muslim rule (because he is useful for the society), nor a prisoner because he belongs to other Muslims. But you may kill an enemy fighter or an adulterer and eat his body (716 in volume 1, Al-Kortoby).”
That’s something else CAIR officials never discuss.
Since the Koran in 6:37, 17:59, 28:48 and 29:50-51 states that Mohammed did no miracles, Muslims looked for proof of his prophethood. They point to a huge growth on his back as proof! (That might make the hunchback of Notre Dame a Muslim prophet!) The growth was big as a “pigeon’s egg.” (Sahih Muslim, Book 030, Number 5790 Shaikh ‘Abdu ‘l-Haqq.) Sure, a growth on the back is proof of prophethood; that makes sense–to an uneducated, uncivilized, and unsophisticated seventh-century Bedouin.
Mohammed hated the cross and according to al-Waqidi, “Muhammad had such a repugnance to the form of the cross that he broke everything brought into his house with that figure upon it.” (Dictionary of Islam, p. 63.)
Mohammed didn’t think a woman had much of a mind. In Vol. 3, Book 48, Number 826, “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes,’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.” Mohammed said, “I have not seen any one more deficient in intelligence and religion than you women.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 6, No. 301; Vol. 2, Book 24, No. 541.) I’m still waiting to hear from the screaming feminists about their reactions.
Mohammed said that wives “are as a tilth (property) unto you, so approach your tilth when or how ye will.” (Koran 2:223.) Since women are property, men are free to have sex with them at any time or beat their wives as per the Koran in 4:34. Husbands are told to first admonish the wife, then refuse to sleep with her, then to beat her. Occasionally, Muslim men will take time from beating their wives to lecture others on how sensible, sensitive and sophisticated they are!
Mohammed clearly taught that it was acceptable to beat wives so he had no problem with beating drunks! Narrated Abu Huraira: “A drunk was brought to the Prophet and he ordered him to be beaten (lashed).” (Bukhari Vol. 8, Book 81, Number 772.) Don’t think that practice will put AA out of business even though few people like such meetings.
Mohammed knocked on the door of Hell in trying to speak with the dead. Muslims who overheard him asked, “Are you calling the dead?” and the Prophet answered, “They hear me no less than you do, except that they are unable to answer me.” (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, Translated by Isma’il Razi A. al-Faruqi, p. 74.) The Bible condemns all witchcraft including speaking with the dead.
It seems Satan urinates in the ears of those who sleep during prayer time! (Hey, don’t look at me like that. I don’t explain them; I only report them. Ask a Muslim to explain it to you.) Narrated Abdullah: “A person was mentioned before the prophet and he was told that he had kept on sleeping till morning and has not gotten up for the (fajr–early morning) prayer. The prophet said, ‘Satan urinated in his ears.’” (Vol. 2, Book 21, No. 245.) Be careful about missing mosque services or slumbering in church!
Mohammed believed that yawning comes from Satan: Narrated Abu Huraira: “The prophet said, ‘Yawning is from Satan and if anyone of you yawns, he should check his yawning as much as possible, for if anyone of you (during the act of yawning) should say: ‘Ha,’ Satan will laugh at him.’” (Vol. 4, Book 54, No. 509 – see also Vol. 8, Book 73, No. 242.)
Muhammad even claimed that Satan actually lives in the upper part of a person’s nose during the night and therefore it needs to be flushed out every morning by snorting water in and out of one’s nose! Narrated Abu Huraira: “The prophet said, ‘if anyone of you rouses from sleep and performs the ablution, he should wash his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out thrice, because Satan has stayed in the upper part of his nose all the night.’” (Vol. 4, Book 54, No. 516.)
Read again the previous paragraph then call your ear, nose, and eye specialist and inform him.
Fevers come from Hell. Narrated Aisha: “The prophet said, ‘fever is from the heat of the Hell-fire so abate it with water.’” (Vol. 4, Book 54, No. 485 also Vol. 1, Book 10, No. 514.)
Mohammed practiced medicine without a license when he ordered people to drink camel’s milk and urine! Narrated Abu Qilaba: “Anas said, ‘some people of ‘Ukal or ‘Uraina tribe came to Al-Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine) …” (Vol. 1, Book 4, No. 234.)
Mohammed gave explicit instructions on when and how to urinate. He said, “One of the major sins is not to protect oneself [one’s clothes and body] from one’s urine [i.e., from being soiled with it].” (Vol. 1, Book 4, No. 215.)
Mohammed believed that people would be tormented in their graves for soiling their clothes with their urine: Narrated Ibn Abbas: “Once the prophet while passing through one of the Heytan (gardens or graveyards) of Al-Medina or Makka, heard the voices of two persons who were being tortured in their graves. The prophet said, ‘These two persons are being tortured not for a major sin (to avoid).’ He then added, ‘Yes! (There they are being tortured for a major sin). Indeed, one of them never saved himself from being soiled with his urine while the other used to go about with calumnies (to make enmity between friends).’” (Vol. 1, Book 4, No. 215.)
Mohammed took a green branch from a date tree, broke it, and placed a piece on each grave to relieve the pain of those being tortured for careless peeing!
Muslims are taught that soiling their clothes with urine is a major sin yet they don’t blink at killing Muslims who leave Islam–even their own children!
So, how can sane people believe the “holy” books of Islam that are filled with such mistakes, mishmash, and madness? They can’t, yet they are trusting their eternal souls to its teaching!
If it weren’t for terror being the major impetus of this cult, much of its teaching would be slightly gigglesome yet Islam was honored by President Trump in the White House! At least the President did not say, “Muslim Americans have been part of our American family since its founding” as Obama did.
Boys’ new book Muslim Invasion: The Fuse is Burning! was published recently by Barbwire Books; to get your copy, click here. An eBook edition is also available.
Websites Links

Trump excluded Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups 

from Iftar at White House

In Jihad Watch’s coverage of Donald Trump’s welcoming Muslims to the White House for a Ramadan Iftar dinner, Robert Spencer indicated that Trump’s statement about Ramadan’s message of “timeless message of peace, clarity [sic], and love” was a “dispiriting reiteration of the fantasies that prevailed in Washington during the three administrations (at least) that preceded his.”
It is also interesting that Trump excluded Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups from his Iftar:
Among the excluded political groups were the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Also excluded were the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA).


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
New Jersey residents who thought they had finally been freed from ObamaCare’s individual mandate have another think coming: The Garden State, whose motto is “Liberty and prosperity,” just reinstated the mandate.
On Wednesday, Governor Phil Murphy, a Democrat, signed into law a bill that imposes a state-level individual mandate to replace the one that Congress and President Donald Trump repealed in December. The state mandate will take effect January 1, the same day the federal mandate is set to expire.
According to Politico:
New Jersey’s mandate, which mirrors the former federal requirement, includes an annual penalty of 2.5 percent of a household‘s income or a per-person charge — whichever is higher. The maximum penalty based on household income will be the average yearly premium of a bronze plan. If it’s based on a per-person charge, the maximum household penalty will be $2,085. A “hardship exception” for individuals who cannot afford coverage would be determined by state Treasurer Elizabeth Muoio.
Roughly 800,000 New Jerseyans obtained health coverage under ObamaCare, reported About 500,000 got it through Medicaid, while the rest bought private plans. Meanwhile, about 189,000 New Jerseyans paid a total of $93 million in penalties for opting out of coverage.
New Jersey expects to be able to use the penalties it will collect under its own mandate to fund a reinsurance program to pay claims of patients with catastrophic illnesses. The “program is supposed to reduce the average premium increase by 10 percent to 20 percent,” wrote Politico.
Whether the state will be able to carry out its grandiose plan remains to be seen. For one thing, it has to apply for a waiver from the federal government to create the reinsurance program. For another, it also wants Washington to cover about half the cost of the program, which state Senator Joseph Vitale (D-Middlesex), one of the lead sponsors of the legislation, estimates will be $275 million. Experience with government estimates suggests the price tag will end up being significantly higher.
“The individual market would descend into a death spiral if not for this legislation,” Vitale toldPolitico. In other words, ObamaCare was structured in such a way that the only way to keep it afloat is to require people to buy health insurance (that the law made even more expensive) whether they want it or not. Otherwise, only those with costly, chronic conditions are likely to buy coverage, which will drive premiums so high that the market will collapse.
Contrary to Democrats’ insistence that they only want to help the less fortunate, the ObamaCare mandate and the similarly styled New Jersey one actually harm low- and middle-income families the most, noted Americans for Tax Reform. Based on Internal Revenue Service data, the group calculated that 78 percent of New Jersey households subject to the ObamaCare penalty earned less than $50,000 per year, and 38 percent earned under $25,000.
“Forcing individuals to buy a plan they can’t afford or don’t want is not a winning policy,” said Nina Schaefer, a health policy researcher at the Heritage Foundation. “Moreover, it does nothing [to] address the real problem of rising health care costs.”
The real problem, of course, is government interference in the healthcare marketplace. Mandates, regulations, and subsidies all increase the cost of healthcare and health insurance and skew them toward politicians’ desires rather than consumers’. Tax preferences for employer-sponsored insurance tie coverage to jobs and shield employees from their true healthcare costs. Government insurance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid discourage patients from seeking low-cost care and encourage the overuse of the healthcare system.
ObamaCare was just the latest attempt at patching this bureaucratic nightmare. It was already failing when the federal mandate was repealed, but repeal is quickly revealing just how shaky the law’s foundation was in the first place.
Instead of trying to apply yet another Band-Aid to the already wounded healthcare system, New Jersey ought to treat the disease that is afflicting it by declaring ObamaCare — and countless other unconstitutional federal healthcare laws — null and void within its borders and by repealing its own mandates and regulations that drive healthcare out of the reach of so many people.


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
WASHINGTON — While not completely solving the issue at large, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who was at the center of a case involving his right to decline to decorate cakes for events such as same-sex celebrations when doing so would violate his religious convictions, finding that he was wrongfully subjected to hostility by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission because of his faith.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, appointed to the bench by then-President Ronald Reagan, wrote the majority opinion, concluding that the Commission was “neither tolerant nor respectful of [the baker’s] religious beliefs.”
“As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust,” he wrote.
“The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. Phillips was entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided,” Kennedy outlined.
He, however, did not go further into the merits of the case—the specifics as to the rights of business owners, but said that the issue would need to play out as time passes. Kennedy suggested that the courts need to strike a balance between religious conviction and the rights of those who identify as homosexual, not infringing upon either.
“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market,” he wrote.
Read the 7-2 ruling in full here. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were the lone dissenters.
As previously reported, the case began in 2012 when Dave Mullin and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado to look for options for their upcoming same-sex ceremony celebration. As Colorado—at the time—had a constitutional amendment enshrining marriage as being between a man and a woman, the men planned to travel to Massachusetts and then return to Colorado for a separate celebration.
However, after their arrival at the cake shop, Mullin and Craig were advised by owner Jack Phillips that he does not make cakes for same-sex ceremonies.
“My first comment was, ‘We’re getting married,’ and he just shut that down immediately,” Craig stated.
Phillips told Christian News Network that he does not make cakes for such events because of his Christian convictions.
“I’m a follower of Jesus Christ, and I believe that the relationship is not something that He looks favorably on,” the master pastry chef stated. “If Jesus was a carpenter, He wouldn’t make a bed for this union.”
However, Phillips says that it is not just same-sex celebrations that he declines. He also doesn’t create custom baked goods for bachelor parties or Halloween events, and remarked in a recent video that sometimes in a day he will turn down more requests than he accepts.
Phillips, who attends a Baptist church, said that when he informed Mullin and Craig that his bakery does not make cakes for same-sex “weddings,” the men immediately left. He stated that one of them made a comment on his way out the door that the bakery was a “homophobic cake shop.”
Phillips said that he told the men that he would be happy to make them any other type of baked goods outside of having to facilitate the ceremony, which he believed was a form of personal participation. But Mullin and Craig complained to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and have prevailed in their case ever since.
In December 2013, Judge Robert Spencer sided with the ACLU, contending that Phillips should have made the cake because he was not told that there would be any words or symbols written on it.
“Phillips was not asked to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or to construct the cake in any fashion that could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage,” he wrote. “The act of preparing a cake is simply not ‘speech’ warranting First Amendment protection.”
In May 2014, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission upheld Spencer’s ruling, stating that Phillips violated the state’s civil rights law. The Commission then ordered that Phillips educate his staff in alignment with the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, to implement new policies in light of the ruling, and to file quarterly compliance reports for two years. The reports were to outline each pastry creation request that was declined and the reason why to prove that Phillips’ religious beliefs no longer influence his business decisions.
Phillips filed an appeal with the Colorado Court of Appeals, which upheld the lower court’s rulings in August 2015, asserting that providing the cake for the ceremony does not equal an endorsement of same-sex nuptials.
“Nothing in the record supports the conclusion that a reasonable observer would interpret Masterpiece’s providing a wedding cake for a same-sex couple as an endorsement of same-sex marriage rather than a reflection of its desire to conduct business in accordance with Colorado’s public accommodations law,” the court ruled.
The matter was appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case last year. Therefore, Phillips took his case to the nation’s highest court, which agreed in June to be the arbiter of the issue.
Phillips expressed relief over the decision on Monday, remarking in a statement, “It’s hard to believe that the government punished me for operating my business consistent with my beliefs about marriage. That isn’t freedom or tolerance. I’m so thankful to the U.S. Supreme Court for this ruling.”
Editor’s Note: There has been confusion among some as to why reports from various outlets refer to the ruling as “narrow.” “Narrow” refers to the chosen scope of the ruling, and not the fact that the decision was 7-2. The justices did not explicitly reach whether or not people of faith may decline to create goods for same-sex celebrations, but rather simply noted that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission must be neutral toward religion in applying the law. In writing the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy outlined that “[t]he outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts” with “tolerance” to both sides of the issue. 

Supreme Court Sides with Christian Baker and Religious Freedom!!!

Big future implications for Facebook, Google
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Liberal hypocrisy backfired after the Supreme Court blasted the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for its anti-Christian bias when it accused a bakery of bias against same-sex marriage.
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of a devout Christian baker who refused to bake a gay wedding cake, a lopsided ruling which indicates the justices didn’t vote among party lines.
In Monday’s ruling, the Supreme Court said the “commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint.”
In other words, the commission wasn’t ensuring equality under the law but was instead showing preference for one group over another.
The ruling could have major political implications on future cases involving Facebook, Twitter and Google, all of which have been accused of censoring conservative news sites such as the Drudge Report while simultaneously showing favor to liberal causes.
The gay cake dispute began in 2012, two years before gay marriages were even legal in Colorado, a fact which bolstered the baker’s defense that was already cemented on First Amendment grounds.
The baker, Jack Phillips, argued that “requiring him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his right to free speech by compelling him to exercise his artistic talents to express a message with which he disagreed and would violate his right to the free exercise of religion.”
According to the AP:
Colorado law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and the commission concluded that Phillips’ refusal violated the law. Colorado state courts upheld the determination.
But when the justices heard arguments in December, Kennedy was plainly bothered by comments by a commission member. The commissioner seemed “neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs,” Kennedy said in December.
This bias even bothered some of the liberal justices because it had no basis in neutral application of law.
In the Supreme Court’s own words:
The State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three [separate] cases that a [more gay-friendly] baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages.
Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.
That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection.
As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.
No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court pointed out that, as a governmental body, the commission doesn’t have the authority to determine whether the religious grounds of Phillips’ argument are “legitimate or illegitimate.”
To summarize, the commission is not the Spanish Inquisition.
The commission describes itself as a “seven-member, bipartisan board,” and its membership consists of three Democrats, two independents and one Republican.
“Two commissioners represent business (one of whom represents small business), two represent government, and three represent the community at large,” according to its web site. “At least four of the commissioners are members of groups who have been or might be discriminated against because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, or age.”