Read more about it here.

The courts have previously ruled that free speech may be regulated inside a school building. On principle, I believe a municipality has some rights to censor the speech of government employees on the job. However in this case it is blatantly discriminatory and I doubt the ruling will stand in the Supreme court.

One word.. disgusting..

Gotta love that Ninth Circuit....

Only a diseased mind could come up with this.

Move over George Orwell. Make room in your grave. Incoming.

A Suspect Class?
Family Research Council's religious liberty panel, held yesterday to a standing-room-only crowd, covered some of the important questions that Christians and all religious individuals and organizations should be asking: What will be the effect on religious institutions in light of the California same-sex marriage ruling?

Will churches and pastors have to worry about the law abandoning their First Amendment right?

The panelists all agreed on one thing: that the legalization of same-sex marriage will have an effect on the religious freedom of those who believe it is wrong.

The homosexual advocate on the panel, who prefers professional and ongoing dialogue on the issue, also admitted that many homosexual activists feel that Christians and other religious entities need to "get over it." Panelists from the Alliance Defense Fund, the Becket Fund, and other religious liberty advocates say that the First Amendment rights of religious Americans are already under fire and in danger of losing even more ground.

In recent years, there have been legal clashes around the country between homosexual activists fighting for forced acceptance and religious organizations who hold that homosexuality is a sin.

In many of those cases, the equality of the homosexual activists prevailed over the rights of religious individuals and organizations. Additionally, the California Supreme Court went one step further and granted homosexuals special legal protection by making them a "suspect class."

Therefore, they will receive the same kind of increased legal protection that confronts racial bias in America. It is a difficult issue and legal scholars are debating what effect all this will have on churches and organizations, including the very likely outcome that churches that refuse to marry (or as the state will view it, "discriminate against") homosexuals, may lose their tax exempt status among other results...

Additional Resources
California Same-sex Marriage: The Impact on Religious Liberty

In my view, just because it's hate speech doesn't mean that the government can censor the speech of private citizens. But just to be clear, this ruling censors the speech of employees, by the employer. It just so happens that the employer is the government. I really don't have a problem with the employer dictating what you can do or say on company time. You're being paid; you will conduct yourself according to the organization's rules. Otherwise, you are perfectly free to quit and speak as you wish.

it is really frightening to watch the pinko white ants chewing away the USA constitution

references tothe family as "hate speach"

I hope thay will strike this shot at the Constitution down before the canker spreads to far and the patient is rendered terminal

There is no such thing as "hate speech". Labelling something as "hate speech" is just a way for a minority group to control the rest of the population. There is such a thing as "hate legislation", though.

Yep, just as soon as I saw the title of the thread a dull bell sound went off in the back of my head that tolled "Ninth Circuit, The most highly overturned court in the land.

And so, an astounding amount of tax cash is to be thrown into the black hole,
known to some as The ABA and ACLU, to slap checks and balances against
the judiciary attempting to challenge it's boundaries of legislation from the bench
YET AGAIN

How nice they have no need to fear a spanking, or banishment to their rooms- without dessert- for repeated offense against the clearly defined rules.

Any MEN in the US care to demand reintroduction of the
"Wait 'til your FATHER gets home!" approach to this latest tantrum
by the Ninth Circuit?

Loss of privileges?
Cut their allowance?
Simply ignore their pleas for attention?
Ground them from the "gay" prom at school?

Disclaimer:
I'm being excruciatingly "civil", yet guarded, with metaphor!
I personally endorse the use of pitchforks, hay rakes, scythes, and torches.
(Fire- on one end of a stick of suitable size to serve as an expedient club. NOT the battery-powered portable illumination gizmos)

Stout rope is always handy to have, um....just in case the need arises to cordon off a "special area" for protesters, for um....for public safety!

Naturally Censored

I would not count on this ruling being overturned by the USSC - which has a history of disgracing itself when it comes to Pandering to the Sick Hatreds and Vile Perversions of the Radical Gender Feminist / Homosex lobby. (See - Romer v. Evans / Lawrence v. Texas...).

Like many pimps for the Pervert Hatemonger lobby - the pseudo liberal leftist of Weimar Amerika's Turkey Baster Creationist Courts have a problem reconciling Science (like DNA) with Pandering (gender is a "perception") to the demands of the Misandry Lobby.

I particularly like the authors assertion that those who love womyn had better get on board with her findings - while no mention of loving male pigs was included.

Still - the Law is as Clear as a coin toss in Weimar Kalifornia: Heads Misandrists Win - Tails the People Lose...

Ohso
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell

The following article provides some more fodder for the debate:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Click Here: Check out "FEMME MENTALE / San Francisco neuropsychiatrist says differences between women's and men's brains are very real, and the sooner we all understand it, the better"

Louann Brizendine's feminist ideals were forged in the 1970s, so the UCSF neuropsychiatrist is aware that some parts of her new book, "The Female Brain," sound politically incorrect...

Male and female brains are different in architecture and chemical composition, asserts Brizendine. The sooner women -- and those who love them -- accept and appreciate how those neurological differences shape female behavior, the better we can all get along.

A man's brain may be bigger overall, she writes, but the main hub for emotion and memory formation is larger in a woman's brain, as is the wiring for language and "observing emotion in others." Also, a woman's "neurological reality" is much more deeply affected by hormonal surges that fluctuate throughout her life.

Brizendine uses those differences to explain everything from why teenage girls feverishly swap text messages during class, to why women fake orgasms to why menopausal women leave their husbands.

So the next time parents scold their daughters for excessive text messaging, consider Brizendine's neurological explanation:
"Connecting through talking activates the pleasure centers in a girl's brain. We're not talking about a small amount of pleasure. This is huge. It's a major dopamine and oxytocin rush, which is the biggest, fattest neurological reward you can get outside of an orgasm."...
Brizendine's goal isn't man-bashing (despite snippets like "the typical male brain reaction to an emotion is to avoid it at all costs").

"There is no unisex brain," Brizendine writes. "Girls arrive already wired as girls, and boys arrive already wired as boys. Their brains are different by the time they're born, and their brains are what drive their impulses, values and their very reality."

Brizendine's book offers a 2 1/2-page appendix on the female brain and sexual orientation, but she doesn't mention transgender folks.

Mass. Senate repeals “1913 Law” to allow out-of-state gays to “marry” in MA using voice vote. Members too cowardly to go on record. Complete cave-in to homosexual lobby by elected body.
(See photos and TV news video). In a frighteningly unified move, the Massachusetts Senate caved in to the homosexual lobby yesterday as it passed the repeal of the “1913 Law”. Showing a grotesque display of cowardice, they used a quick, inaudible voice vote -- instead of the normal and expected roll-call vote -- in order to avoid going on record.

It had to be seen to be believed. Not a single member of the 40-member Senate made a motion for a roll-call vote – or even protested the action. In fact, none of them even spoke against the bill during the debate period, although several spoke for it. It was worse than shameful. The cherished concepts of a representative democracy were nowhere to be seen or heard.

This is not trivial. Repealing the “1913 law” essentially destabilizes marriage laws both in Massachusetts and around the county. The current law prohibits out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if that marriage would be illegal in their home state. Repealing it has been a top priority of the homosexual lobby in order to purposefuly spread legal havoc in other states over homosexual "marriage". (Here’s the language of the repeal bill – S800.) As we’ve reported, national gay groups have poured in money for this, and they’ve hired “the best lobbyists in the State House” to get it done.

It certainly worked this time. Everything involving the debate and vote appeared to have been choreographed by the homosexual lobby. In all our years of pro-family activism, we have never seen a legislative body so spectacularly dominated by the will of a small special-interest group.

Our Senators were well informed about how the public opposes this. We know for a fact that thousands of emails and faxes were sent to the Senator’s offices. And hundreds more phone calls were made to them. But every one of them chose to ignore that.
The "debate" and vote was a total charade, quite obviously orchestraded by the homosexual lobby. Five Senators stood up and spoke supporting the bill, as if by a script, going over the talking points. No one else rose to speak, so the Senate President quickly blurted out “All in favor say ‘aye’ opposed ‘no’. The bill passes.” There were no actual audible “aye's” or “no's”, just a sort of general murmur. And that was it. The Senators immediately went on to their next order of business and most of the spectators left the galleries. But many of us just stood there looking at each other in disbelief.

READ our complete report here
with more photos and TV news video

Intimidation tactics
Along with the homosexual lobbyists and their outside lobbying help, Sen. Diane Wilkerson (D-Boston) was their main "point person." More like an attack dog, she led the charge of intimidation, emotional disinformation, and not-so-veiled threats. As we've reported in the past, Wilkerson (deservedly) came close to being defeated in the last election but the homosexual lobby came in and saved her with money and volunteers.



The first intimidation tactic is that the 1913 law was “rooted in racial bigotry” and therefore anyone who doesn’t agree with the homosexual lobby will be labeled an anti-black bigot. (Wilkerson really pushed this one.)

Is that true? There’s absolutely no proof of that. It’s scare tactic by the homosexual lobby. It certainly has nothing to do with the common-sense application of the law today.

Here’s what the Associated Press said about that controversy:

The genesis of the law remains murky. It was approved at a time when many states barred interracial marriages, although supporters say there's no evidence it was racially motivated in Massachusetts, which began allowing interracial marriages in 1843.

There's no record of the legislative debate on the bill, which raced through the Massachusetts Legislature in three weeks and was quickly signed into law.

It appeared to come out of a nationwide effort to eliminate conflicts among the country's patchwork of laws. But it also came during a time of racial tension, including a scandal over black heavyweight boxer Jack Johnson's marriage to Lucille Cameron, who was white.

The law was rarely enforced until Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2003 that the state could no longer bar gay couples from marrying.

The second intimidation tactic was that there will be a major economic windfall to the state from hordes of homosexuals coming here as tourists to "marry." And thus, being against this means you're against economic prosperity!

Of course, that's all just speculation from a biased government source

Liberty Counsel Holds Joint Press Conference to Address McDonalds’ Anti-Christian Attacks


Chicago, IL – On Wednesday, July 16, at 10:00 a.m., Liberty Counsel will participate in a joint press conference with the American Family Association (AFA), Americans for Truth and the Illinois Family Institute in front of the McDonalds restaurant across from McDonalds' corporate headquarters in Oakbrook, IL. Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel, will address the media.


Recently, the McDonalds Corporation contributed thousands of dollars and joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, a radical homosexual activist organization that pushes the homosexual agenda, including calling for legalization of so-called "same-sex marriage."



In so doing, McDonalds has publicly sided in the ongoing culture war against the majority of Americans who hold traditional family values. For this reason, AFA called for the boycott against McDonalds.


"Unfortunately, McDonalds has chosen to side with militant homosexual activists over people with traditional values," said Matt Barber. "The company has further escalated the controversy by lodging a personal attack against the tens of millions of Americans who support traditional sexual morality and legitimate marriage. While referring to Christians and other people with traditional values,



McDonalds spokesman Bill Whitman arrogantly told the Washington Post that, 'Hatred has no place in our culture,' thereby suggesting that people who support the historical definition of marriage are simply motivated by 'hate.' This insult is highly offensive, and anyone who supports traditional marriage should boycott McDonalds and tell the company why they’re doing so."


Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented, "McDonalds should focus on food quality and safety issues instead of attacking the values held by the majority of people worldwide. Marriage between a man and a woman is the norm throughout the world.



McDonalds' personal attack against those who support the traditional definition of marriage, while siding with a narrow group that promotes a radical redefinition, shows that company executives are out to lunch.



McDonalds might as well change their signs to read 'billions and billions insulted.'"