Freedom in the Balance: Will the Government of the United States of America force people of faith like Jack Phillips to use their talents and privately-owned business to honor and serve “marriages” based on immoral homosexual behavior? Click to enlarge. Photo: Alliance Defending Freedom.

Folks, here is a neat video on the Jack Phillips Supreme Court case by Elizabeth Johnston, the “Activist Mommy” despised by the Left because she is an effective and fearless Christian, conservative truth-teller. It strikes me as un-American that our simple freedom as citizens of this nation, founded on religious liberty, to associate with whomever we want and publicly live by our moral and spiritual beliefs now hangs by the thread of the whims of a few Supreme Court Justices.

All eyes are on Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, though appointed by Ronald Reagan, has earned hero status on the pro-LGBTQ Left for his consistent, pro-homosexual record on the Court. Where will Kennedy, who authored the God- and Constitution-defying 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision imposing counterfeit “same-sex marriage” on all 50 states, come down on Phillips’ conscience-based refusal to participate through his cake shop in the celebration of disordered homosexual “weddings”? [Read the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s superb dissent on Obergefell HERE.]

Social conservatives warned that legalizing so-called “same-sex marriage” would result in escalating State and cultural oppression against religious people and institutions–ironically, in the name of “civil rights,” “diversity,” and “equality.” Now that is happening with horrific consequences for principled Christians like Phillips and Barronelle Stutzman. The media- and Democratic Party-enabled “Gay” Revolution has advanced to the point where it is now working to effectively criminalize faithful Christians and other moral dissenters by preposterously comparing them to racist bigots and treating them accordingly.

The leading legal crusader for homosexual “marriage,” Evan Wolfson, said, “I’m not in this just to change the law. It’s about changing society.” Indeed. Now the question is: are we going to let the pro-LGBTQ Lobby and the Government destroy our First Amendment liberties in the service of a godless, radical egalitarian agenda that regards the public expression of biblical faithfulness as just one more component of “anti-gay discrimination”? We’ll see, but to say that a lot rides on this case would be an understatement. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera

Homosexual activists fret over Neil Gorsuch’s judicial philosophy and record; Log Cabin Republicans noncommittal

Let the “Borking” Begin: Homosexual legal group Lambda Legal runs photo of Trump’s SCOTUS nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, with the word “Dangerous” printed over his face.

By Peter LaBarbera

Trump giveth, and Trump taketh away. Days after giving homosexual activists a huge gift by NOT rescinding a 2014 Obama executive order forcing federal contractors to have an LGBT “nondiscrimination” policy, Trump offered up a constitutional “originalist,” Judge Neil Gorsuch, to replace deceased Justice Antonin Scalia.

That led the coddled array of deviant-sex-and-gender leftist groups, otherwise known as the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer) movement, to go ballistic [see my LifeSiteNews piece here].

Note that, regarding one 2015 decision by Circuit Court Judge Gorsuch involving a gender-confused prisoner, the LGBTQ Lobby almost literally has its (transgender) panties in a wad. (The poor fella in the case, a “male-to-female” transsexual, was not permitted to wear “feminine undergarments” in jail. Boo-hoo.)

It is hardly shocking that the same homosexual and transgender activists who create “rights” based on sodomitic inclinations and same-sex/gender-confused feelings would fear a man like Gorsuch, who is being compared to the brilliant conservative Justice Scalia. The latter repeatedly eviscerated the “living, breathing Constitution” judicial philosophy of “progressives” that discovers “rights” out of thin air to accommodate modern social ills like abortion-on-demand, homosexuality and pornography.

Even honest liberals might agree with this: it is difficult to find a “constitutional” right for two dudes to “marry” seeing that sodomy itself was illegal in most colonies and a taboo at the time of the Constitution’s framing. (“Prior to 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state, punished by a lengthy term of imprisonment and/or hard labor,” the left-biased Wikipedia reports.)

So even though the newly elected Trump choked badly by telling 60 Minutes that legalized same-sex “marriage” via the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling is “settled law” (while somehow Roe v. Wade is not), the Supreme Court could be just one more Trump appointment away from reversing it and sending “gay marriage” back to the states. That freaks out the Homosexual Lobby, which, like the Left in general, regards its SCOTUS victories as permanent, and pro-family wins like the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision upholding sodomy laws as temporary.

Here’s a quick rundown with links on some of the larger LGBTQ organizations’ hostile statements against Gorsuch; most of these are excerpts (note source links attached to group name). Also note the nuanced, noncommittal statement of the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans on Trump’s nominee:

GLAAD (formerly Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination):

“Neil Gorsuch’s harmful history of discrimination against the LGBTQ community renders him completely unfit to sit on the highest court in the land,” said Sarah Kate Ellis, GLAAD President & CEO. “He has record of advocating for anti-LGBTQ rhetoric or supporting candidates that are in favor of open discrimination against people and families who simply want to be treated the same as everyone else. Gorsuch’s presence on the Supreme Court will affect the law of the land for generations to come – long after Trump is out of office, and will turn back the clock on equality and acceptance.”

LaBarbera: “It would be a YUUGE mistake for Trump to break his pledge to pro-marriage Republican voters who put him in the White House”

LGBTrump? Donald Trump has a long history of pro-homosexual advocacy. He now says–as he did in 2015–that the homosexual “marriage” is “settled” due to the Supreme Court Obergefell ruling –which was eviscerated in a dissent by Trump’s ideal SCOTUS Justice, the late Antonin Scalia. Above is Trump’s 2000 interview with the “gay” magazine The Advocate, in which he suggested adding homosexuality to the federal Civil Rights Act. Read about it HERE. Click on graphic to enlarge.

AFTAH Press Release, November 15, 2016; americansfortruth@gmail.com

CONTACT: Peter LaBarbera or Brad Wallace: 312-324-3787

CHICAGO – AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera called on President-elect Donald Trump to revise his estimation that the Supreme Court has “settled” the issue of homosexual “marriage”–and instead honor his pledge to America’s voters to defend natural marriage against the “shocking” 2015 Obergefell ruling.

[Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH.org) is dedicated to exposing and opposing the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer) agenda. Sign up for AFTAH updates.]

In an interview with CBS “60 Minutes” Sunday, Trump asserted that the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling imposing homosexual “marriage” on all 50 states was “settled” law, and that “gay marriage’ as a political issue is “done … And I’m fine with that.”

That directly contradicts what then-candidate Trump told GOP primary voters in South Carolina last February: that he opposed the “shocking” Obergefell decision and that evangelical voters can trust him to protect real, man-woman marriage. Trump said he favors letting the states decide marriage laws for themselves.

Just prior to the Iowa caucuses, where he was appealing to evangelical voters, Trump said he would like to see Obergefell overturned: “If I’m elected I would be very strong in putting certain judges on the bench that maybe could change things, but they have a long way to go.”

The late Antonin Scalia—whom Trump holds up as the type of Supreme Court Justice he would appoint–ripped into Obergefell in a powerful dissent—saying it was a “naked judicial claim to legislative–indeed, super-legislative–power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.

“[T]o allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation,” Scalia wrote.

AFTAH’s LaBarbera described what is at stake with Trump and marriage: “Many millions of evangelical, Catholic and moral-minded voters trusted Mr. Trump with their votes because they did not see him as just another slippery politician. Now it is up to President-elect Trump to show that he is worthy of that trust by clarifying his defeatist statement on Obergefell.

“America cannot become great again by defying God, and homosexuality-based ‘marriage’ is about as godless as it gets,” LaBarbera said. “Trump needs to do all he can to reverse the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional Obergefell ruling—just as he pledges to overturn Roe v. Wade and abortion-on-demand.