Kentucky passes religious-freedom act [A State Law passed in 2013 Judge Bunning ignored]

Overriding Gov. Steve Beshear’s veto by overwhelming margins, the Kentucky house and senate have passed religious-freedom legislation. The Catholic Conference of Kentucky supported the measure.

The short law reads:

Government shall not substantially burden a person's freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A "burden" shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.

RE: The “substantial” qualifier is a weasel word, and is completely unnecessary. It gives any lawyer the opening to construe “substantial” any way he wants, and a leftist court will side with the Marxists every time.

_____________________________

OK, let’s see if changing the wording will help...

Government shall NOT BURDEN a person’s freedom of religion.

Will that prevent any lawyer from weasling out of it?

They can always argue that doing your job is NOT A BURDEN to your freedom of religion. No one is preventing you from going to church, or going to Bible studies or serving as a Deacon or Elder.

And because you are acting on behalf of the state, it is not a reflection on you.

Here’s my point — a lawyer will do whatever he will do to make the INTENT of the law look different.

How do you think Justice John Roberts was able to read “EXCHANGE ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE” to make it look like “EXCHANGE ESTABLISHED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT” for the Afforable Care Act?

He rationalized. Same way any lawyer will rationalize a law to his liking.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”

Unfortunately the Judiciary has ruled that those paid by the federal, state, or local government are automatically considered to be agents of the state. Such individuals as as elected leaders, school board members, school administrators, teachers, county commissioners, judges, and anyone employed in state and local government,lose their Constitutional right to express their moral and religious beliefs, while on the job, and in some cases even off the job. Morality is subsequently removed from all public life.

The moral basis for our laws has been removed, and with it the right of all individuals to express their beliefs, except as determined by the Judiciary. We have in place on the national level a leadership, and those who follow them, made up of the intelligentsia elite, who through a screening process,select and place those with their “politically correct” ideals into positions of power.

This group, once it removed religious expression from the above group, now seek to remove all religious expression from the public square. All this predicated upon a statement in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a church to assure that church that there would be on infringement upon their free exercise of religion.

We now have had two Attorney Generals in a row that refuse to enforce the laws passed by Congress, and a Supreme Court, the majority of whom are products of the screening system, that has taken a direct stand against the First Amendment, and is aiming at the Second Amendment.

This Administration and Judiciary believes and enforces the idea that “Rights” come from the government, and intentionally forget that the Constitution was written to guarantee individual right against the excesses of government. The Intellectual Elite must destroy the basic belief of our Founding Fathers that we have one king, God, and that all rights come from Him, and that government is intended to serve the people, not to rule them.

[[The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act]]

This is what the government WILL say

“The supreme Court ruled that there is no compelling reason to deny gay people their ‘civil right’ to marry, therefore, all state laws that ban gay marriage are unlawful, (or something similar to this), so the government is compelled to act In the interest of gay people in order to protect their ‘right’ to marry, and religious objectors are violating their rights when they refuse to issue marriage licenses”

5 liberals on the supreme court have ruled that gay people have a constitutional right to marry- (Not sure how they come to this conclusion regarding the ABOMINATION of homosexuality, yet refuse ot allow all the other ABOMINATIONS of other deviant sexual perverts)- Now the federal government steps in under the guise of ‘protecting people’s constitutional rights’ (while IGNORING the constitutional rights of religious people)

We are In a lawless situation here- Where federal judges throw Christians in jail for NO VALID REASON- since the federal government nullified Kentucky law, and did NOT create a law protecting their beloved gay community, kim Davis violated NO laws since there weren’t any to violate!

(posted too soon)

BUT the federal government WILL state that there is a ‘law’ that was violated- that the constitution was violated (now that 5 liberal SC judges decided gay marriage is a right worthy of constitutional protection)

The problem is that any lawsuits brought by Christians will go all the way to the supreme court, and we’ve already seen that the supreme court is NOT interested in the actual constitution, and are making up a new one as they go

The ONLY recourse we really have is IF enough states band together and REFUSE to comply with an unconstitutional ruling by the Supreme Court- Congress sure isn’t going to assert themselves and DEMAND that they be given the chance to vote on new law- like he law requires, and the GOP sure as hell aren’t goi9gn to support Christian’s constitutional rights

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.