Good news: Part 1


Good news on New Mexico’s abortion front

OneNewsNow reports in a 14 December 2017 article how the New Mexico government will have to uphold the rights of Americans as a probe into abortionaries proceeds.

Amid a federal criminal investigation into a segment of the abortion industry, a New Mexico pro-life group contends upholding the law is far more important than political correctness.

New Mexico Alliance for Life, headed by Elisa Martinez, has been able to confirm through the offices of Congressman Steve Pierce (R-New Mexico) and Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) that two New Mexico entities are targets of a federal probe.

“The University of New Mexico and Southwestern Women’s Options are under criminal investigation by the FBI,” states Martinez, “for the practices of illicit harvesting of infant body parts and unlawful consent forms that were given to women in order to obtain those body parts.”

In 2016, the U.S. House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives forwarded information on possible criminal charges to New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas. And though there have been no indictments in the past year, Martinez contends there is a vital issue at stake.

“It’s extremely important that the rule of law is upheld.” declares Martinez. “No one is above the law, but a lot of folks from the other aisle are quick to defend anything that has to do with the abortion industry.”

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

Of course, this case is only in its beginning stages. Still, it provides good news to those of us who support the right to life.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Judge rejects restraining order against Tastries Bakery in lawsuit over owner’s refusal to bake same-sex wedding cakes

The Bakersfield Californian reports in a 14 December 2017 article how Kern County Superior Court Judge ruled in favor of a Christian cake maker.

Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe denied the state of California a temporary restraining order against a local bakery that refuses to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples.

Lampe ruled Thursday that he didn’t have enough information to make the call.

But the case is scheduled to come back to Lampe on Feb. 2 at a hearing in which Tastries Bakery could be ordered to either make wedding cakes for members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transgender and Questioning community — or stop making wedding cakes altogether.

According to court records, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing petitioned the court to issue a restraining order against Tastries and owner Cathy Miller, prohibiting her from denying service to same-sex couples, as is her practice.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Daniel Piedra, executive director of the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, which is defending Miller, said the government sought the temporary restraining order to force Miller into a tough position.

It would have required her to either make wedding cakes for LGTBQ couples or to not make wedding cakes for anyone, he said.

Piedra said Miller has been required to respond to the state with detailed personal and employment information that answers 40 questions.

Judge Lampe, he said, wants to see those answers before he rules on the restraining order.

The judge, Piedra said, felt both sides had important rights that must be seriously considered prior to taking any action.

According to a press release from the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, “the government wanted a court order to compel Miller to create wedding cakes for LGBT persons even though doing so would violate her sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Charles LiMandri, president and chief counsel for the organization, said in the press release the case was an assault on Christians and accused the state of using surprise tactics to get the court to approve the restraining order.

The case first came about in August when Miller personally refused to make a wedding cake for Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio, the couple said, and their concerns, expressed on social media, triggered a firestorm of debate locally.

One other same-sex couple also said they were denied a wedding cake by Miller.

Miller, at the time, said she loves all people.

But, she said, “My conscience doesn’t allow me to participate in certain activities that are contrary to my biblical beliefs. I pray that we can all come to an understanding so that we can continue to get along.”

(Read more at the Bakersfield Californian)

While this will find challenges in other courts, this is good. As a conservative, I wouldn’t want a gay man to be forced to print t-shirts for the Westboro Baptist Church. On the same note, Christians that object to participating in gay events should not be forced to be part of those events. Don’t be fooled, photographers and bakers have to participate in the event if they provide their product to the event.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

If the Case Deserves a $135K Award to the Lesbian Couple, Why Does The Press Lie


One Lying Headline Starts the Tale

According to the Blaze:

“A Raw Story report published on Friday led with the headline, ‘Oregon bakers weren’t fined over cake — they were punished for sharing lesbian couple’s home address.’ But is that claim true true? The short answer: Absolutely not.

As has been widely reported, Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweetcakes by Melissa, an Oregon bakery, were fined $135,000 in ‘compensatory damages for emotional, mental and physical suffering,’ after they declined to make a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer-Bowman and Laurel Bowman-Cryer. Nowhere in the official order does it say that publishing the complainants’ address led to damages.

In fact, the document makes it patently clear that the judgement was imposed as a result of the refusal, with Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries communications director Charlie Burr telling TheBlaze in a statement over the weekend that the denial of service was, indeed, what led to the $135,000 sum.”

While the address of the lesbian complainants did get published by the one of the cake shop owners, that owner took the post down from Facebook when the mistake was noted.

The Blaze further noted:

“’The address was never a part of the fine. It was a no start issue for them,’ Klein affirmed, though there were initially calls to also fine the bakers over the media interviews that they did in the aftermath of the couples’ complaint; this would have presumably been part of that.

In the end, though, these issues ended up not leading to damages.

‘They asked for $150,000 just for the refusal,’ he said, noting that it was decreased by $15,000 to $135,000.”

In the end, Raw Story ran a retraction that read:

“An earlier version of this article contained a significant error that resulted from failure to distinguish the difference between the agency’s recommendation and the commissioner’s final ruling. The bakers were not, as previously reported, punished for threats by others against the couple, as the agency had recommended. They were ordered by the commissioner to pay damages to the couple for emotional harm caused by their unlawful discrimination.”

The Final Headline Still Misleads

In addition to the retraction, Raw Story changed the headline of the article from “Oregon bakers weren’t fined over cake — they were punished for sharing lesbian couple’s home address” to “Oregon bakers forced to pay $135,000 after sharing lesbian couple’s home address.”

Still, the amended headline implies that the sharing of the address had something to do with the damages awarded.  Therefore, if the Raw Story feels led to lie about the case, how confident are these activists in their cause?