Yesterday's post to this blog centered around an 1895 Supreme Court decision which properly enshrined the legal principle of innocence until guilt can be proven as the law of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika. Back in 1895 the Supreme Court of the United States bore little resemblance to what the Supreme Court of the SDA is today. Today's Supreme Court is an unconstitutional institution that exists mainly for the purpose of engaging in judicial activism by means of the creation of new and immoral laws. I don't know when the Supreme Court became an immoral organization but it was certainly the case that by 1973's Roe vs Wade decision they were over the brink of morality. Making the murder of tens of millions of SDA citizens a legal right by granting women and their government licensed doctors the right to conspire together to murder babies is one of the most horrendous legal decisions ever made.
A somewhat less evil decision, if it is possible to quantify evil in these situations, was the one delivered by the court in 2010 in the Christian Legal Society vs Martinez case. You have probably never heard of that decision. I certainly hadn't until I read a story in the Denver Post about the ongoing shenanigans at the Colorado legislature that referenced it. According to Wikipedia, "Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld, against a First Amendment challenge, the policy of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law governing official recognition of student groups, which required the
groups to accept all students regardless of their status or beliefs in
order to obtain recognition....the Christian Legal Society (CLS), required members to subscribe to a 'Statement of Beliefs' and
refrain from certain proscribed behavior. Hastings denied the CLS
recognition as a student organization.The beliefs and behavior at issue were those of LGBT students; neither
those students, nor those who advocated for them, were allowed to become
The CLS sued, arguing that the university, as a public institution,
could not restrict the group's rights to freedom of speech, association,
and religion; the National Center for Lesbian Rights
represented Hastings Outlaw, a campus gay rights group that joined
acting chancellor and dean Leo P. Martinez to defend the policy."
The CLS case is typical of the behavior we have become accustomed to seeing from radical heterophobic organizations. Although militant homosexual men and women at Hastings College had no desire nor intention of joining an evangelical Christian club, they wanted to make sure that the Christian club could not require its members to be Christians. Live and let live is not a motto that applies when it comes to the hate-filled homosexuals who populate this disgusting land. They make it their goal to seek out and destroy anything that is Christian and they use the coercive power of their god, government, to accomplish that goal. The Supreme Court decision in the Hastings College case was a great victory for them. They managed to make it illegal for a Christian club on a public university to make a Christian profession of faith a requirement of membership. I hope they are proud of themselves. I hope their precious little egos have been protected and they are all filled with enormous amounts of self-love and high levels of self -esteem as a result of their actions. It is probably the case that dozens of Lesbians, Gays, Bi-sexuals and Transvestites ended up not committing suicide as a direct result of the Supreme Court's decision.
I sat down to eat my raisin-filled oatmeal the other morning and was treated to this headline, "Bill on college leader's faith fails." The headline caught my attention so I read on. The story told me that, "A bill in the Colorado legislature that would have allowed religious clubs on the state's college campuses to set rules on faith for its leaders died on a party-line vote in a House committee....Under the Colorado bill, religious clubs would still be required to accept anyone as a member, but it sought to exempt club leaders....Reps Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora, and Dominick Morena, D-Commerce City, said the bill was an attempt to discriminate by using religions, specifically against lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgendered students..."
So let me get this straight. According to the law any type of social club is permitted to form on a public college or university provided the club does not actually exist to serve the people who believe the things the club came into existence for? Furthermore, requiring that a person who wants to be a member actually believe the things the club exists to promote is an act of discrimination that must be criminalized? Even worse, the leaders of these clubs that exist to promote particular beliefs are not required to actually believe the things they are promoting? Has the entire world gone insane?
Let's change the name of the club for a minute and see what happens. What if the club was not the Christian Legal Society but was the Government Worshiping, Christian Hating, God Despising Militant Lesbian Association, or GWCHGDMLA, for short. In fact, that club already existed at Hastings College. It was called the Hastings Outlaw and it was a group of militant lesbians who clearly consider themselves to be outside the boundaries of the law. How do you think the Hastings Outlaw club would respond if I showed up and informed them that I was going to run for club president? A straight Christian male wants to run the militant lesbian club. Do you think they would approve? What if I demanded the right to make a campaign speech at each club meeting and my campaign speeches consisted of nothing but reading Bible quotes condemning homosexuality? Do you think those perverts would be praising the Supreme Court decision then?
It gets even more absurd. A men's group dedicated to growing petunias is now legally required to admit women. A women's group dedicated to bad-mouthing men is now legally required to admit men. A co-ed group dedicated to growing potatoes now has to also agree to grow cauliflower. The local speech club has to admit the mute and the local bird-watching group has to admit the blind. In those two cases there would be additional Amerikans With Disabilities Act rules that would have to be followed as well. Somehow the blind would be made to see and the mute would be made to speak. Praise government for its wonderful abilities! I wonder if the association of wheel-chair bound humans is now required to admit the walking? It should be if the law is to be enforced consistently and without discrimination. Black student groups exist all around the country. Are they required to admit the Welsh? Could I, as a Welshman, run for president of a black student group and, if elected, make it my first action to either change the name of the club to the "White Welshmen" or shut the club down? The law requires that all of the things I have written here be allowed to take place. Everyone has gone insane and the Supreme Court is leading the charge to madness.
The newspaper article quoted a person in student government who was in favor of the state legislators' decision to quash the bill who said, "The bill seeks to limit leadership opportunities available to some of my friends...by funding clubs that discriminate against them." This brilliant future career politician also said, "religious groups are welcome to form but they should not be allowed to discriminate..." Well then I say that the National Pedophilia Association should be allowed to form a club and the leader of that club should advance the cause of man-boy sexual relations. If the student leader considers that to be too discriminatory, the club should also allow for sex with animals. If that is still too restrictive, sex with inanimate objects should be included as well. In fact, let's just go to with the principle of sex with everything, anytime and anywhere. Of course that is going to conflict with the Right to Not Be Raped Club that is meeting just across campus. My oh my, how are we going to resolve all these conflicts? One thing is for certain, when special interests are involved and when those special interests are using the coercive power of government to force people to bend to their will, the use of common sense will never occur.