Refusing to service Gay Wedding, Washington florist ready to take religious liberty case to SCOTUS

Hotair ^ | 02/17/2017 | Ed Morrissey

[TalBlack]

For later.

[Amendment10]

“It’s wrong for the state to force any citizen to support a particular view about marriage or anything else against their will,” Stutzman’s attorney, Kristen Waggoner, wrote in a statement issued after the ruling. “Freedom of speech and religion aren’t subject to the whim of a majority; they are constitutional guarantees.”

Attorney Waggoner needs to be more specific about constitutional guarantees imo.

More precisely, when the states ratified the 14th Amendment (14A) they obligated themselves to respect the rights that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect, 1st Amendment-protected religious expression in this and related cases.

”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Patriots need to get Pres. Trump and USAG Sessions up to speed with the unconstitutional abridgement of enumerated constitutional rights by pro-LGBT activist states so that they can put a stop to the politically correct, pro-LGBT momentum that these states helped to foster, corrupt Congress’s refusal to exercise its 14A powers to legislatively strengthen the constitutionally enumerated rights of citizens with religuous convictions also contributing to this momentum.

“14th Amendment, Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

And speaking of the corrupt, uniparty Congress …

Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!

Remember in November ’18 !

Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.

Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist justices off of the bench.

Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.

Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.

Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.

• “Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

• ”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

• ”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

[Morpheus2009]

If it is outside of the United States, they will not care.