Religious Liberty Under Attack

- February 25, 2014

To view this email as a web page, go here.

Battle Over Religious Liberty
Things are heating up in Arizona. The issue is over religious rights. A bill passed the Arizona legislature last week that would essentially protect businesses and individuals if they refuse service because of their "sincere" religious beliefs. For example, a business that refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding because the owner's religion does not condone homosexuality would be essentially protected from legal recourse. That actually did happen in Arizona, by the way. The bill states, "A person whose religious exercise is burdened ... may assert that violation as a claim or a defense in a judicial proceeding." Is it possible for you to be true to your Christian beliefs while refusing to serve those who do not share your values? On the other hand, is it wrong for the government to force you to provide services for people who do not share your values, regardless of your personal beliefs? Are certain rights above the right of religious freedom? Where do we draw the appropriate lines between discrimination and freedom?

Eric Holder: Don't Obey Local Law
While the debate rages on the role of government and legislating morality, when it comes to gay marriage, Attorney General Eric Holder says that state laws banning gay marriage do not need to be defended. He told state attorneys general yesterday that laws banning gay marriage are discriminatory and therefore need not be enforced. Since when is it Eric Holder's job to decide which laws are discriminatory? Furthermore, this just adds to the pattern of selective enforcement from this administration. They seem willing to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore, completely undermining our institutions and the rule of law.>

Gutting Our Military
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel wants to gut our military. He is proposing cutting our Army, for example, to its smallest size in 74 years, to levels not seen since before World War II. According to Fox News, "The changes reportedly would leave the military capable of waging war, but unable to carry out protracted occupations of foreign territory, as in Afghanistan and Iraq." These cuts are said to take into account the government's budget reductions and political reality. It's hard to believe that's the case when Obama alone is set to increase our national debt by more than all other presidents combined. This tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the Left. They always seem willing to gut the military while expanding every other part of the government, including entitlements. Gutting our military will ultimately come at a high cost, the damage of which will know no end.

Today's "Hot Topic" From the Hannity Forums
I Would Join Chief Justice Robert's Dissent - Posted by Safiel
The decision in Kaley v United States came down today, having been argued on October 16. Issue: Whether, when a post-indictment, ex parte restraining order freezes assets needed by a criminal defendant to retain counsel of choice, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a pre-trial, adversarial hearing at which the defendant may challenge the evidentiary support and legal theory of the underlying charges. Justice Kagan wrote for the majority in favor of Respondent United States, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg and Alito. Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissent, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayer. I concur with the Chief Justice. Giving defendants little to no chance to successfully challenge an ex parte forfeiture action and thereby depriving them of the ability to obtain counsel of their choice without ability of redress is clearly a slap in the face of due process. Unfortunately, I don't see the Supreme Court as likely to be sympathetic to due process.

>>TV Tonight (10PM ET on Fox News)
Senator Rand Paul joins Sean for the latest in Washington.