Most LBGT Want to Live and Let Live

Behind the HIGH PROFILE cases suing businesses over services to same sex couples, is big money.

This money is trying to change laws through the courts. Destroying families in the process.

Get this straight: Gay weddings don’t outweigh free speech

 | August 27, 2019 02:21 PM

The Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals defended the First Amendment last week, and effectively also took a stand against forced labor.

Once again, the putative dispute involved same-sex wedding ceremonies. And once again, a federal court had to remind state officials that people remain free to choose not to participate in private events. Freedom to abstain is a basic right, period.

It should worry people that the political left seems so willing to conscript labor in order to enforce its version of cultural correctness. Even in this case, one of the three judges on the Eighth Circuit supported the conscription. That judge, Jane Kelly, is badly mistaken in wanting to curtail the rights of Americans. Federal courts must continue to quash these efforts at compelled expression and forced servitude.

In the first paragraph of the controlling decision, Judge David Stras explained the case succinctly: “Carl and Angel Larsen wish to make wedding videos. Can Minnesota require them to produce videos of same-sex weddings, even if the message would conflict with their own beliefs? The district court concluded that it could and dismissed the Larsens’ constitutional challenge to Minnesota’s anti-discrimination law. Because the First Amendment allows the Larsens to choose when to speak and what to say, we reverse the dismissal of two of their claims.”

This should go without saying. It should be obvious. Creating a video is an expressive act. It is in every other instance protected by the First Amendment. Moreover, as noted above, the Larsens do this as a commercial enterprise. It is a hired service. Apart from public accommodations such as inns and restaurants that provide basics of life such as food and shelter, commercial enterprises are free to withhold their labor for any reason other than discrimination against a constitutionally protected class of citizens (such as a racial or faith group).

People desiring wedding services are not a protected class. Yes, in Minnesota, homosexuals are a protected class, but the Larsens serve homosexuals gladly and without discrimination. They just draw the line at same-sex weddings. A wedding carries with it a specific meaning to people of traditional faith. It has done so several millennia. The First Amendment protects not just expression, but also the exercise of faith.

A Muslim has every right to refuse to serve a Jewish wedding. A Jew has every right to refuse to serve a wedding of neo-Nazis. A devout Catholic has every right to refuse to serve a wedding of two previously married people whose marriages have not been annulled by the Church. So why should the Larsens’ case be any different?

Leftists are great at saying “live and let live,” until somebody tries to live in a way they don’t like. They are unwilling to let traditional Christians mind their own business and live the way they want. The leftist hypocrisy is almost as bad as its disregard for others’ basic rights. Almost as bad, but not quite. Those basic rights include the right to be hypocrites.

Thankfully, the Eight Circuit panel ruled that they can’t be hypocrites at the expense of someone else’s time, effort, and beliefs. So should every other court that hears such cases.


WalMart Was Forced to Move on Guns and Ammo

A lot of people died at the WalMart. A lot of pressure, people may have been thinking it’s unsafe to shop.

So the money won out. You can’t blame the store, the company is caught in a mess.

Sadly, more and more restaurants, and businesses continue to move to gun free. That’s doing two things.

More gun free zones, with groups of people, and fewer guns where a good guy with a gun can stop some carnage.

So the guns being restricted, by CEOs and stock holders.

Over all Freedom loses. We’re trading our personal defense for safety.

It’s very hard to see what the end of this trend will be.

We continue to do this to ourselves, and we become conditioned to moving away from guns in the hands of people.

The AGENDA has been successful, to a point, with this latest rash of gun incidents.

Piece by piece, we are losing our means of personal defense.

America is decades from being gun free, it looks like for the moment, the AGGENDA is winning.

For those of us so inclined, continue to carry openly, where possible, carry concealed, and keep your skills honed.

Gun Background Checks Are ALREADY in place…

In my sate of Tennessee, private gun sales happen with a casual transfer to a person who pays .

Gun shows are private sales for this purpose.

Many of us selling guns to individuals, will require I.D., a picture of the gun serial number, and a picture of , usually, a driver’s license.

I warn people to allow the picture of the license, and picture of the gun serial number, or buy from someone else.

That’s just me, many will hand the gun over, after payment, period.

What You Need to Know about Background Checks for Guns

There are several ways to buy guns in the US. You can buy them from a licensed retail outlet, a gun show, online, and through a private sale.

Background checks are only required if you purchase a gun through a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL), which includes retailers (anyone from Walmart to mom and pop shops) and some individuals. You do not need to undergo a background check if you buy a gun online, through a gun show, or through some private sales. You can check the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to see FFLs in your state.

Many states also have additional laws about gun background checks, so be sure to check them before purchasing a gun.

History of Gun Background Checks

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed in response to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. This act prohibited certain people from buying guns, such as fugitives, people convicted of crimes that were punished by a prison sentence of a year or more, substance abusers, and people convicted of domestic violence crimes.

The 1968 act also required retailers and individuals selling firearms to obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and meet certain requirements.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (commonly known as the Brady Law) was later passed in 1993 after press secretary Jim Brady was shot during an assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. The Brady Law requires all FFLs to run background checks on people purchasing guns, through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

How a Background Check for Guns Works

If you decide to buy a gun from an FFL, you have to fill out a 4473 Form (also called a Firearms Transaction Record). After you fill out the form, the person selling you a gun will run your information through NICS, which is maintained by the FBI.

Running a background check through NICS takes about 30 seconds. If there is nothing on your record that prohibits you from buying a gun, you can go ahead with your purchase. You will not be allowed to purchase a gun if something in your record disqualifies you.

Under the Brady Law, if there’s something in your record that needs further investigation, then the FBI has three business days (not including the day they run your initial background check) to get back to you. If the FBI doesn’t either approve or deny you after three business days, then you can go ahead and buy a gun.

What Disqualifies You from Buying a Gun?

According to the FBI, you cannot purchase a gun if you…

  • Were convicted of a crime that carried a sentence of more than one year, or a misdemeanor that carried a sentence of over two years
  • Are a fugitive (i.e. there’s a felony or misdemeanor warrant for your arrest)
  • Are an addict
  • Are diagnosed mentally ill, which can include being involuntarily committed, found not guilty by reason of insanity, or found unfit to stand trial
  • Reside in the US illegally
  • Are dishonorably discharged from the military
  • Had a restraining ordered issued against you (i.e. found guilty of harassing, stalking, or threatening a partner or the child of your partner)
  • Were convicted of domestic violence (i.e. convicted of using or threatening to use a deadly weapon against a spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, etc.)
  • Have renounced your US citizenship

What Else Do You Need to Know About Background Checks for Guns?

It’s important to note that in addition to federal laws, each state also has its own gun background check laws. Make sure you check your state’s laws about who can own a gun and what the background check process looks like.

If they say, ‘I’m gonna shoot up a mall’, contact someone.

Usually, there are warning signs in the weeks leading up to a mass shooting.

Authorities don’t know how to use the information, as they are the clean up crew, after the fact.

They can’t move, in these cases, because there is no provision for them to act.

Violent speech, that includes statements of harm, is often not understood to be threats.

It can be difficult to sort from euphemistic speech, phrases like, ‘I’m going to kill him.’ ‘I’m going to punch his face.’ and ‘I’ll put a hurt on him.’

Language reading is difficult, when you don’t know how the rough speech should be interpreted.

So… after the cops are taking names, and the ambulances are taking victims to Emergency Care, someone says, ‘He was talking about shooting people last Tuesday.’

At this point in our culture, what can be done?

If you see a threat on Social Media, report it. If you receive a threat of harm, report it. If a neighbor is violent and uses language that includes harm to others, report it.

People will abuse the ‘If you see something, say something,’ rule.

The authorities, many times, can only go so far, as verbal threats are common.

Much of everyday language is euphemistically violent.

Violent language, and violent behavior, in the presence of guns, is always a reason to at least report the situation.

No Name. No Photo. No Notoriety. IT’S A MATTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY The quest for notoriety and infamy is a well known motivating factor in rampage mass killings and violent copycat crimes. In an effort to reduce future tragedies, we CHALLENGE THE MEDIA – calling for RESPONSIBLE MEDIA COVERAGE FOR THE SAKE OF PUBLIC SAFETY when reporting on individuals who commit or attempt acts of rampage mass violence thereby depriving violent like minded individuals the media celebrity and media spotlight they so crave.

Not a fan of Guns, I am a fan of defending myself.

Texas gun laws: Weapons will be allowed in churches and on school grounds

Texas shooting leaves 5 dead and at least 21 injured

A series of new firearm laws will go into effect in Texas on Sunday just hours after a shooting left five people dead in the western part of the state.

The laws will further loosen gun restrictions in a state that’s had four of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in modern US history. They will make it easier to have guns just a month after a shooter stormed a Walmart in El Paso and killed 22 people.

Here are the sweeping firearm laws going into effect:

Weapons on school grounds

House Bill 1143 says a school district cannot prohibit licensed gun owners, including school employees, from storing a firearm or ammunition in a locked vehicle on a school parking lot — provided they are not in plain view.

Marshals at schools

House Bill 1387 loosens restrictions on how many armed school marshals a school district can appoint.

Guns in foster homes

House Bill 2363 allows some foster homes to store firearms and ammunition in a safe and secure place for personal protection. Proper storage must be followed, the bill says, including putting firearms and ammunition together in the same locked locations.

Weapons in apartments

House Bill 302 bans homeowners or landlords of rental property from prohibiting residents from lawfully possessing, carrying, transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition in the property.

Handguns during a disaster

House Bill1177 prohibits residents from being charged with a crime for carrying a handgun while evacuating from a state or local disaster area.

Firearms in places of worship

Senate Bill 535 clarifies the possession of firearms at churches, synagogues or other places of worship. It allows licensed handgun owners to legally carry their weapons in places of worship — and comes nearly two years after a gunman killed 26 people at Sutherland Springs church.

“We have learned many times over that there is no such thing as a gun free zone. Those with evil intentions will violate the law and carry out their heinous acts no matter what,” state Sen. Donna Campbell, co-sponsor of the bill, said in a statement. “It makes no sense to disarm the good guys and leave law-abiding citizens defenseless where violent offenders break the law to do great harm.”

The bill will make things clearer, she said.

The existing statute is confusing and clunky when it comes to clearly stating the rights of licensed Texans to carry on the premises of a church. This bill provides clarity of the Legislature’s intent to treat churches in the same manner as other privately owned establishments in Texas.”

While nut cases with guns will continue to turn their anger and anguish on others. Often committing suicide by Cop, and gaining notoriety by their name being in the news feed after shootings.

We remain with a 20 minute window to defend or run, until the police arrive.

SO… Do we just stuff our jackets into bleeding bystanders gaping wounds?

Do we cover our loved ones with our bodies as shields, until the bullets stop?

No, we legally train, and mindfully practice with a firearm.

We store our guns behind secure doors and safes, when we don’t control them.

We seek help for those who are violent, and threatening harm.

Carry your gun EVERYWHERE. At no time will many of us stand helpless while a nut splatters people around with bullets.

Many of us know that the solution is imperfect, but we know that minutes are life, when the shooting starts.

A voice of reason…Free Speech

This is the property of Blaine Adamson, Foxnews.

Blaine Adamson: I am at the center of a lawsuit that is about everyone’s freedom of speech

By Blaine Adamson | Fox News

Before their message hit my inbox on a Saturday morning, I’d never met Diane and Kathy, a same-sex couple who own a New Jersey promotional print shop specializing in LGBT-themed apparel. But their message couldn’t have come at a better time.

Diane and Kathy wanted me to know that I wasn’t alone. No doubt, that was something I needed to hear right then. During the weeks leading up to that day, I’d been sued because I had declined on behalf of my print shop, Hands On Originals, to print shirts with messages that violate my faith.

Along with the lawsuit itself, there was plenty of negative publicity directed my way. Even my city’s mayor had voiced his opposition to me, and my relationship with some of my regular customers was suddenly strained. It was a difficult season. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone, and Diane and Kathy wanted me to know they wouldn’t either.

But there was another reason Diane and Kathy reached out to me, and why they’ve publicly advocated for me since. They understood that, even though we may not see eye to eye on any number of issues, our freedoms travel together. After all, if I can be forced to violate my conscience at my print shop, who’s to say that they won’t be next?

Like Diane and Kathy’s business, Hands On Originals is a promotional printing company. We’ll work with anyone, regardless of who they are or what belief system they have. But we don’t print all messages.

In fact, from 2010 to 2012, we declined over a dozen orders because of the messages we were asked to print, including a couple from area churches — one of which depicted Jesus sitting in a bucket of chicken. I know it was a lighthearted message, but at the end of the day, I felt that it was disrespectful to my Savior.

In early March 2012 — a few weeks before Diane and Kathy contacted me — I spoke with a customer who wanted shirts promoting a local gay pride festival that summer. As the customer told me the design and wording he had in mind, it became clear to me that we weren’t going to be able to print those shirts. But as I told him at the time, I wanted to make sure he was taken care of, so I offered to send his order to a company I knew would print the shirts for the same price I would have charged.

Hands On Originals is a promotional printing company. We’ll work with anyone, regardless of who they are or what belief system they have. But we don’t print all messages.

Instead of accepting my offer, the group organizing the Pride festival filed a complaint with the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission. The complaint from the group — which ended up getting its shirts printed by another print shop free of charge — accused me of refusing to work with LGBT customers.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Again, I work with all people, no matter who they are. I both serve and employ gay people. In fact, we’ve printed materials for a lesbian musician who played at that very same Pride festival.

But none of this has stopped the government from pursuing its case against me. I and my Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys have spent the past seven-plus years in and out of court as I defend myself against a government that is bent on forcing me to print messages that violate my

My latest stop was the Kentucky Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in my case on Aug. 23. If the government has its way, I will be required to print messages that violate my faith.

While it’s hard for me to even imagine it, that could force me to have to choose between following my faith and continuing the promotional work that I love — a career that for decades has provided not only for my family but also for the families of the more than 30 people we employ from diverse backgrounds.

People don’t surrender their freedom of speech when they choose to make a living by printing messages. That’s clear to me. It’s clear to Diane and Kathy, who have supported me because they understand that it’s not just my freedom at stake, but theirs too. And it should have been clear to the government as well.

The Kentucky Supreme Court now has the chance to make that clear to everyone. If it does, it can ensure that business owners who serve everyone, like I do, are not forced to print messages that violate their beliefs. That’s a message Diane, Kathy, and I — and countless others who make speech for a living — would sure like to hear.


Is gun ownership a right?Frank Abair,

People freely move about, people seek employment, they choose where to live. They hold opinions, they openly discuss what they believe.

People have access to water, and the means of acquiring food and supplies to live their lives.

People own property, and they own the means to secure their property, and their personal safety.

These are not ‘rights’, as in the sense of a govt. saying you have permission to do these things.

These are things that the govt. is not allowed to make decisions about, on your behalf.

These rights, and others are ‘inalienable’ rights, rights that are present without govt. permission.

So… a right can be an existing condition, which government never granted. A right can be an allowed activity granted by government.

Means of acquiring food and securing the Western Expansion, and personal defense, where facilitated with firearms, including pistols.

The usage of firearms in our American culture predates our govt. Firearms were among the means to secure our current govt.

Ownership of firearms, was a given, the govt. is restricted from acting against this right.

The govt. is not responsible for defending you, as stated in court proceedings. You are responsible for securing your person and property.

Your responsibility and right to secure your person and property has never been granted by govt.

This right, among others, has existed prior to our current govt.

Explaining the Electoral College.

Answer to America is so proud of its democracy and freedom. Why is it content with the Electoral College which allows people from different states to have uneven voting power? by Thomas West

Answer to America is so proud of its democracy and freedom. Why is it content with the Electoral College which allows people from different states to have uneven voting power? by Thomas West