Bakers Fined $135K Over Wedding Cake Appeal to Supreme Court

 
 
Oct 23, 2018
 

Good morning from Washington, where President Trump's threat to exit a nuclear arms treaty with Russia doesn't sound much like collusion. Peter Brookes assesses what's going on. The Trump administration moves to undo the Obama administration's policy on transgenderism, Fred Lucas reports. An Oregon couple asks the Supreme Court to take their wedding cake case, Kelsey Harkness writes. Where did all the talk of hate speech begin? Kim Holmes traces its leftist roots. Plus: Thomas Jipping on what sort of judges we need, and Ed Feulner on rejecting appeals for political violence.

 
 
 
News
Photo
Lawyers for Aaron and Melissa Klein file a petition asking the Supreme Court to reverse an earlier decision handed down by Oregon state officials that forced them to shut down their family bakery.
Commentary
Photo
"Oliver Wendell Holmes added a twist to the theme of prohibited speech in 1919 when he argued in Schenck v. United States that 'falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater' was prohibited," writes Heritage's Kim Holmes, tracing the history of the concept of hate speech in the U.S.
Commentary
Photo
One problem with the INF Treaty, beyond Russia's violations of it, is China. Beijing isn't party to the U.S.-Russia pact and therefore isn't constrained by any of the arms restrictions set forth on intermediate range missiles.
News
Photo
The New York Times reports that a leaked memo says HHS would define gender "on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable."
Commentary
Photo
Faced with a president who is alleged to be a monster, some on the left claim they have no choice—that they must resort to profane rhetoric and physical confrontation.
News
Photo
President Trump says Russia can't compete with the United States if both countries are willing to build nuclear weapons at the same level.
Analysis
Photo
Read the transcript or listen to the podcast for our interview with The Heritage Foundation's Jim Phillips, who studies the Middle East, about how the U.S. should respond to the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Commentary
Photo
Since 1987, the label "mainstream" has come to simply mean whatever someone finds preferable. In October 1994, for example, The New York Times said that President Clinton's judicial appointments were "well in the mainstream," but, in 2003, said that President Bush's judicial picks were "out of the mainstream."
 
     
 
LOGO-CHARCOAL_75percent.jpg

The Daily Signal is brought to you by more than half a million members of The Heritage Foundation.

How are we doing?
We welcome your comments, suggestions, and story tips. Please reply to this email or send us a note at comments@dailysignal.com.

The Daily Signal
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(800) 546-2843

 
 

Add morningbell@heritage.org to your address book to ensure that you receive emails from us.

You are subscribed to this newsletter as johnmhames@comcast.net. If you want to receive other Heritage Foundation newsletters, or opt out of this newsletter, please click here to update your subscription.

 
-

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

FOLLOW THE MONEY - Billionaire tied to Epstein scandal funneled large donations to Ramaswamy & Democrats

Readworthy: This month’s best biographies & memoirs

Inside J&Js bankruptcy plan to end talc lawsuits