Posted on 07/26/2008 7:44:28 AM PDT by Pinkbell
On Wednesday the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a short per curiam order, in which it agreed with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania that the state legislature violated the Pennsylvania Constitution when it added "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to Pennsylvania's "ethnic intimidation" law.
Eleven Christians of the evangelical group Repent America were arrested due to that same law in 2004 for reading the Bible and singing hymns at Outfest, a homosexual rally. Though the case was eventually dropped, Repent America filed legal action in 2005 against the act, citing its unconstitutional nature.
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania agreed last November that the law was unconstitutional and struck it down. On appeal the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania sided with the Commonwealth Court, saying on Wednesday: "The order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED for the reasons ably set forth in the opinion of the Honorable James Gardner Colins, which opinion is adopted as that of the Supreme Court."
In the Commonwealth Court opinion Justice Colins observed that the court struck down the law because the provision violated Article III of the state Constitution, which prohibits a bill's alteration during its passage through the legislature, if the bill's original purpose is changed.
The bill started as a measure against agricultural vandalism, and was changed by the state legislature into a hate crimes bill designed to make it illegal for anybody to protest public homosexual activities and celebrations. The law was used to persecute anybody who stood in the way of the homosexual agenda, redefining peaceful protest by Christians as hate crime.
Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and attorneys with the Foundation for Moral Law, who, along with attorney Aaron D. Martin, represented the Christian evangelists from Repent America, applauded the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for its ruling.
Judge Roy Moore remarked on the case, saying, "We are very happy that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled in our favor to stop the Governor and a group of corrupt politicians from sneaking a 'hate crimes' bill through the Pennsylvania legislature. Preaching to homosexuals about the sin of sodomy should not be made a 'thought crime' in Pennsylvania or any other state."
Michael Marcavage, director of Repent America and a petitioner in the case, also expressed his relief that the Supreme Court had agreed that the hate crimes law was unconstitutional.
"Having been arrested, jailed and charged with a 'hate crime' for preaching the Gospel, I am elated that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling in striking down Pennsylvania's expanded 'hate crimes' law," he said.
"The methods used by the Pennsylvania legislature in passing the 'hate crimes' bill were extremely devious and yet another chilling example as to how far politicians are willing to go to silence Christian speech that they would violate our own state Constitution to do it. In a nation that is becoming increasingly hostile toward Biblical Christianity, we remain vigilant as the Pennsylvania legislature will most likely attempt to pass another 'hate crimes' bill and are continuing to educate the American people on the significant dangers of such laws."
I would hope that such laws would be ruled unconstitutional simply because they violate the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal abuse (for lack of a better word) under the law.
I.e., as long as only straight whitey Christians (males) are persecuted under the law even when other people in other groups could also be persecuted, the law is unconstitutional.
My son is marrying a great gal from Pennsylvania in two weeks. We were very pleased to discover her family is conservative. Their favorite hobby is trap shooting. The more I learn about the state, the more I like it. I think we might just win Pennsylvania in November.
Sounds like they won on a technicality (how the bill was modified) rather than the principle (Christian’s right to speak against the sin of homosexuality).
“The law was used to persecute anybody who stood in the way of the homosexual agenda,..”
Like the Boy Scouts?
Hate crimes certainly seem to violate that to me.
If I get 20 years for a crime and someone else gets 10, that isn't equal treatment.
But it's early Saturday so may not be up to snuff yet ;)
I'm taking LifeSiteNews to task for not presenting the other side. My email to them:
Hi,I'll post any response here.Where is the other side's views on this article:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08072502.html
I'm very pleased with the court's decision. You have two quotes from people who agree with the decision. Where are the quotes from the other side? What happened to balanced news?
upchuck
South Carolina
The power of the homosexual lobby across the nation is truly frightening. Speak against this aberrant behavior and you are a criminal!!! The unconstitutional nature of such a ridiculous claim should be obvious—a slam dunk. But all it takes will be a few leftist, activist judges and bang, there goes our 1st amendment right. We had all better take full advantage of Heller while we are able. Be prepared, just like the evil, soon to be jailed Boy Scouts.
Like Phillie is doing to the Cradle of Liberty Scout Council?
Applauding the courts for actually using common sense, logic and following the Constitution of Penna. It is about damn time!!!!!
Unless you are queer or a union thug, Philly is the Coffin of Liberty
Which brings up an interesting question. Philadelphia is evicting the Boy Scouts from their headquarters because they say that the law forbids the city from supporting any organization which discriminates, legally or otherwise. If homosexuals can't be included in the hate crime laws then can they be excluded from the discrimination laws as well?
Could open a new legal point to use in the battle with the “City of ‘Brotherly Love’.”
PA is such a Democrat/Liberal/Socialist/Progressive/Marxist/Leninist state that anything Conservative is a very uphill battle.
Good report.
Two points should be made:
1) The legislators who passed the law and the governor who signed it should be jailed/fined for conspiracy to deny people their constitutional rights.
2) ON TO COLORADO!!!!!
Not necessarily.
Think about it. It was "tacked on" to an agricultural bill.Why?
This "game" was discivered long ago by manipulators and crooks, always to dishonest and destructive ends. It should have been slapped down the first time it was tried, but either it was not discovered or not challenged. First a trickle, then a torrent of such new "laws" have been with us ever since.
The point is that such subterfuge (tacking on horrible laws onto other totally unrelated laws) is usually done because the proposed law had little or no chance of passing otherwise. If the main law is important enough, needed enough or emergency legislation, "we'll deal with the other later" is assumed to never happen.
Voters and rational citizens (myself among them) reasonble conclude that if the law was "snuck in" the first time, the odds are that the proponents knew that the majority would oppose it. Rest assured that any revival of it in the full light of day will get the attention that it deserves, and fail.
This "some are more equal than others" legislation, must cease. Most state constitutions forbid it as a basic principle.
We are either equal or we're not. And dead is dead, regardless of other victim pathologies involved.
Never underestimate the Philadelphia machine. If we could just trick New Jersey into annexing Philadelphia.
Might this decision have any ramifications re: the guy who is suing Zondervan because he says the Bible injures him with its anti-homo instruction? Just a thought.
I think you have it exactly backwards. It is unconstitutional at the other end. It creates a class of "aristocratic" victims, whose health and life is worth more than a normal citizen. That is, on principle, expressly forbidden by the national Constitution, and virtually all states'.
I hear you. I was just encouraged by my future daughter in law, the recent court ruling described in the article and the Democrat Primary. Maybe I am just getting irrationally exuberant, hoping that those Jesus Freaks, clinging to their guns, will vote for Mccain over Obama, no matter what their party affiliation.
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.