Human Rights v. Civil Rights before the Supreme Court, Again

americanthinker.com ^ | 10/21/2019 | Deborah C. Tyler

[rktman]

Because human rights are an expression of divine love, they are in no way amenable to coercion; however, they can be temporarily suppressed by man's law. Human rights pertain to the freedoms to love God and each other in family, community, and nation. They are the rights people are most willing to die for.

Civil rights are based upon extrinsic and changing aims in the enterprises of the world. They are granted by men to each other in law to make the substantial transactions of life just and fair according to temporal viewpoints. Civil rights are dependent upon and conditioned by history, culture, and politics. Civil rights may be conceived in noble intentions, but they invariably devolve to promote the rights of culturally favored groups and restrain the rights of disfavored groups. Therefore, the exercise of civil rights can bring satisfaction to some but suffering to others.

[rktman]

Pretty sure the duh-mocrats are seeing the "suffering to others" part as a good thing. Just, not for them.

[Retain Mike]

Here is the letter I send annually in May when the ruling was made. I like the article and may do some word-smithing.

Gay Marriage Ruling

The June 2015 gay marriage ruling means equal legal protection excludes tens of millions of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim believers who consider classical scholarship finds homosexual relationships separate people from God. The Bible continually speaks of the character, identity, and purpose of God; identifying Him as masculine and humans as feminine in relation to Him. After creating all things, He created the covenant of heterosexual marriage to example the unconditional love relationship He desires with humanity. Without disturbing the spiritual quality of marriage, equal protection could have been maintained by civil contract with the elegant, endless expressions legislators enjoy.

The First Amendment says and used to mean, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….”

We are familiar with the term “speech or expression’, which seems an innocuous expansion of the above amendment. However, “expression” enables a nearly unbounded multi-billion dollar pornography industry.

Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion stated, “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to advocate and teach the principles that are so fulfilling and central to their lives and faith”. Such language severely restricts religious freedom by excluding “free exercise thereof”.

The country has so departed from first principles that a woman can express herself in the adult film industry, but cannot operate a bakery and exercise her religious convictions by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

The Formal End to Judeo-Christian America http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2015/06/30/the-formal-end-to-judeochristian-america-n2018986/page/full

Wayne Cordeiro https://www.facebook.com/pastorwaynecordeiro/posts/10153325310351210

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GAY MARRIAGE http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf