The LGBT Agenda is pitched by its ideological supporters as an expansion of civil rights, but it becomes increasingly clear that in reality it provides a tool for spiteful sodomites to harass and vilify their real or perceived opponents. The question is whether that is not the true intention.
The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear an appeal from a Colorado baker who disagreed with the notion of same-sex “marriage” who had lost a discrimination case for refusing to create a cake to celebrate such an aberration. Continue reading
With 217-213 votes the House passed a health care bill on Thursday that would repeal and replace major parts of fomer US President Obama’s “Affordable Care Act”. While there is broad consensus in the US on the objective of making health care more affordable, Obamacare was highly controversial because it used “health care” as a pretext for promoting abortion and contraception, making it an obligation for employers, including even faith-based institutions whose professed ethics prohibit such abominations, to finance both.
Today’s vote is an important step forward towards the restoration of liberty of conscience, and a severe blow to the abortion industry. However, the bill still needs to pass a vote in the Senate.
There are various, and diverging, reports in American media that US President Trump will today sign an executive order that would restore the freedom of conscience and religion in the US, a fundamental right that currently is severely curtailed by sweeping so-called “anti-discrimination” rules that are used by sodomites and pro-sodomy activists to harass their fellow citizens, in particular religious believers.
The reports diverge with regard to the scope of the planned order. While some sources say it will be broadly identical to the draft that was leaked in February and has unleashed very aggressive reactions from the sodomy-community, others say it will be somewhat less ambitious. Continue reading
The controversial Commission proposal for a horizontal “Equal Treatment Directive”, also known as “Anti-Discrimination Directive”, apparently fails to convince Frits Bolkestein, a former EU Commissioner for the Interior Market and former leader of the Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (VVD). In an op-ed in today’s edition of the daily De Volkskrant (English translation here), Bolkestein calls for the proposal to be ditched. Not only, writes the Ex-Commissioner, does the proposed measure fail to comply with the Subsidiarity Principle, which is a fundamental principle of the EU, but it also undermines equality rather than promoting it, giving a better standard of protection to Salafists and members of the Moon Sect than to ordinary Dutchmen. In addition, he warns that the directive, if adopted, would be at odds with elementary standards of fairness, reversing the burden of proof and establishing a ‘guilty-unless-proved-innocent’ principle. Finally, he is also concerned that it could be used for frivolous and extortionary litigation, as evidenced by a recent case in Northern Ireland that has made headlines all over Europe. Continue reading
Spain’s Constitutional Court has issued a landmark ruling protecting the conscience rights of pharmacists who decline to sell the “morning after pill”.
The court’s finding was based on freedoms of religion and conscience found in article 16 of the Spanish constitution.
The decision concerned the case of a pharmacist in Seville who was sanctioned with a 3,000 Euro fine by the city council of Andalusia because he decided to not sell the potentially abortion-inducing morning after pill, though local laws obliged him to do so.
As we mentioned in an earlier post, we do not believe that Indiana’s new “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” is a model that should be universally followed. What is rather needed is the restoration of freedom in general, in particular the freedom of contract. The State, of course, is under a specific obligation to treat everybody equally, but free citizens in a free country should have the right to freely choose with whom they want, or do not want, to conclude contracts. This is freedom of choice as we understand it.
That being said, we cannot but express our astonishment at the crusade so-called “liberals” (who are in fact the exact opposite of what they pretend to be…) are waging against the State of Indiana in reaction to the newly adopted law, trying to organize an economic boycott. Continue reading
Given the eagerness with which the European Commission and certain lobbies are pushing for a quick adoption of the controversial proposal for a “General Equal Treatment Directive“, citizens are well advised to inform themselves how such laws are applied in countries where they are already in place.
One interesting question in this context is whether those laws give equal protection to all, or whether they give special privileges to certain pre-ordained “victim” groups. Continue reading