http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/17/how-the-lawyers-plan-to-stifle-speech-and-faith/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

How the lawyers plan to stifle speech and faith

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Last week the American Bar Association (ABA) changed its model ethics rules for lawyers, prohibiting attorneys from engaging in speech or being a member of any organization — even churches — that holds traditional views on marriage, sexuality and other issues. It now goes to each state’s courts for consideration, which must emphatically reject Model Rule 8.4 as an unprecedented threat to religious liberty, both for attorneys and their clients.

The ABA adopted Model Rule 8.4, which makes it unethical — and thus something for which a lawyer could lose his or her license to practice law — to “discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.”

---

The rule’s official comments sweepingly interpret discrimination “related” to practicing law to include “verbal conduct” and “business or social activities.” Anything a lawyer says to another person — whether speaking in church or over dinner — sharing his viewpoints on same-sex marriage, transgenderism, Black Lives Matter or illegal immigration, would enable any hearer to file a complaint with the state bar authority.

Indeed, a lawyer’s church membership and worship activities are “social activities.” Churches that are evangelical, Roman Catholic or numerous other faiths (such as Orthodox Jews), have official doctrinal positions that marriage is between one man with one woman and that God purposefully creates each person with a fixed biological sex. Many churches also have certain views about socioeconomic issues. A liberal activist could file a complaint based solely upon such membership or participation, or even casual discussions over coffee.

The speaker could then be punished by the state’s bar, possibly losing his or her law license. Even if the complaint ultimately fails, the effects are devastating. Any person can file an ethics complaint against a lawyer. Any plausible complaint can precipitate a formal investigation by a state supreme court, requiring the lawyer to spend thousands of dollars on legal representation, attend hearings, and create a permanent public record that the lawyer was officially investigated for potentially unethical conduct. Bar complaints are toxic to any lawyer’s business and career.

The ABA is a private organization with 400,000 members; most of America’s 1.3 million lawyers are not part of the ABA. But while licenses to practice law are granted by each state’s judiciary, most state bars fashion their ethics rules after the ABA’s model rules, or adopt ABA rules outright.

A lawyer who loses a license can no longer earn a living, either in private practice or working for a law firm or company performing legal work. This fuses economic and social issues. Nobody should want to ban any productive adult from being economically self-sufficient; everyone needs the ability to work at a job to support his or her family.

Nor do we want to destroy any citizen’s constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and religion, or for people of faith to go unprotected when religious or moral values are threatened because lawyers fear to represent them.

Frighteningly, the ABA leaders’ statements verify that they understand — and intend — the ramifications of Model Rule 8.4. President Paulette Brown advocates that the ABA must prevent “bias” in ways that go far beyond current law. Committee member Drucilla Ramey insists bar authorities go “to the top of the legal profession” to “incentivize” attorneys to change their views and speech on these issues, views and speech often informed by attorneys’ religion. All this, despite committee testimony that such a rule has “little relation to concerns” arising in most lawyers’ offices, could be “used tactically against someone inappropriately,” and will “have a chilling effect on something that has always been in the best traditions of the bar: representing minority views and unpopular positions or clients.”

The purpose of our legal system is to ensure freedom. Popular speech rarely needs legal protection. The law protects dissenters’ right to disagree with governmental orthodoxy. It must not become a weapon to oppress those dissenters.

We must launch a nationwide campaign encouraging each state’s judiciary to reject such a requirement, and litigate in federal court if necessary. State supreme courts and state bars are government actors, bound by the First Amendment rights of free speech, freedom of association, and free exercise of religion. This rule grossly violates all of those fundamental rights.

The ABA’s un-American censorship regime is beyond draconian; it coerces conformity regarding religious and political beliefs on a level unprecedented in American history. It borders on fascism, and must be explicitly repudiated.

• Edwin Meese III was the 75th attorney general of the United States. Kelly J. Shackelford is president and CEO of First Liberty Institute.

Sent from my iPhone

HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN (HRC): Do Kids Thrive Through Sex With Adults?

As difficult as it may be, please read this to the end and take action as indicated. The avalanche of perversion is a real life horror story in our own back yard. 

http://barbwire.com/2015/01/09/0640-kids-thrive-sex-adults/

Do Kids Thrive Through Sex With Adults?

Sex-crime-tolerator, the Human Rights Campaign, the largest homosexual lobbying group in the country, is moving into first place in disseminating “LGBT” propaganda to children. HRC will sponsor “Time to Thrive” over the weekend of Feb. 13-15 in Portland, Oregon. It’s a conference for educators who want kids to believe they were born homosexual or born in the wrong sex body. The Time to Thrive objective is for kids to maintain that confusion and somehow “thrive” while embracing these behaviors as identities that pose no threat to their future well-being.

I would wish them good luck with all that, but instead, I hope they fail. Because in failing, these kids may actually have a chance to thrive in real life, not in the disturbed imaginations of “LGBTQ” adults exploiting and yes, corrupting kids.

HRC’s brazenness is almost beyond belief: a conference about and with minors, in Portland on Valentine’s Day weekend, following a sex crime scandal in that city involving one of its leaders, Terrence Bean. Yet this is the movement that parades its sin like Sodom, even when youth are involved, so we should not be surprised.

Will HRC pull out its “All Love is Equal” slogan once again? And does HRC include sexual “love” between adults and children in its definition of equality?

The conference features “gay” and “transgendered” speakers, some as token representatives from prominent organizations. It’s co-sponsored by the increasingly radical National Education Association and the American Counseling Association. Do most members of these groups realize what their dues support?

In the city of Portland, the most prominent local Human Rights Campaign representative, Terrence Bean, was arrested in November along with another adult male for third-degree sodomy with a 15-year-old boy whom they apparently met through the iPhone app Grindr, a “gay” hook-up site featuring obscene homosexual posts.

Will Grindr be among the exhibitors at the “Time to Thrive” conference? I’m not kidding. These folks have a real different approach to child welfare than most of us.

Predictably, HRC has issued no statement denouncing Bean’s alleged actions. He is a prominent “gay” activist and Democratic Party fundraiser, cozy with Obama, and also, amazingly, one of the co-founders of the Human Rights Campaign. He has served on the board of the HRC Foundation, sponsor of the conference, although it appears Bean has just been quietly removed from HRC board listings.

Bean also has a background in the “gay porn” industry. You can’t make this stuff up.

One would think that prior to such a conference, HRC would clarify that their vision of “thriving” for youth who identify as homosexual does not include sex with adults. The organization remains stunningly but predictably silent.

Sponsored From Around the Web

There are 100 free registrations for youth to this conference for students as young as 13, while the adults pay up to $249 each. In the face of HRC’s silence about Bean, the conference should be monitored closely by local law enforcement.

Helping children change genders is one of the topics to be covered. “Beyond Bathrooms:  What You Can Do For Your Transgender Students” will be presented by TransYouth Family Allies. Another discussion will focus on youth prostitution, called “survival sex.” The homosexual lobby is generally okay with “sex work” as they call it, as long as it’s not forced.

During the youth program on the final day of the conference, kids will get advice from the Portland homosexual “Q Center,” where kids from 12 to 24 are welcome, because, you know, 12 -year- olds have so much in common with 24- year -olds. Like most of these “gay” community centers, it’s not part of a school and accountability is always a problem. Who’s watching to ensure these kids are not hooking-up with adults?

And HRC itself will make a conference presentation entitled, “HRC Research:  What’s It Like Growing Up in America if your Gender Isn’t Male or Female?” Since there are no such individuals, this will either be a silent time for the audience, or another nightmarish fairy tale spun by the sexual anarchists.

Do we need any other reasons to cry “foul” over a gathering like this?

But there’s more. Also among the speakers at this conference, defying sound science, will be a representative from the Centers for Disease Control, and the topic will be, “Act Against AIDS:  Harnessing the Power of Partnerships and Social Marketing Campaigns to Address HIV/AIDS Among LGBT Communities.”

So it’s now “LGBT communities,” according to the scientists at CDC? This capitulation to pink politics seems to imply there are in-born identities of homosexuality and gender confusion, yet the CDC’s own HIV/AIDS surveillance transmission category designation of “male-to male sexual behavior” (MSM), not identity, reflects the truth.

So, let’s get this straight, so to speak. One hand of the federal epidemic-tracking agency is amassing statistics based on reality, while another is a sponsoring partner of a conference from a group helping to fuel the epidemic? The CDC seems now unfortunately to be enabling, not controlling, the spread of HIV and AIDS. Some functions of the CDC have become de facto arms of homosexual advocacy and taxpayers are funding it.

America can mandate tasteless school lunches to curb child obesity if it’s a project of the First Lady, so why can’t we mandate that the predominant message students receive about HIV is “NO ANAL SEX”? The reason is the “gay” lobby, starting with the Human Rights Campaign.

But still the U.S. has over 30,000 new cases of HIV infection each year among males who engage in homosexual contact. Many of those affected are under 30 and the incidence among this younger segment is increasing. The effects of promotion, perhaps? No one is born homosexual — no research substantiates this desperately-desired claim of “LGBT” advocates. Why can’t we reveal this to America’s kids, to give them a chance to change and leave this sinful, dead-end lifestyle?

It’s quite discouraging sometimes to see how far “gay” promotion to vulnerable kids has gone, how much money these people have, and how many supposedly respectable names are behind it.

Yet if we keep speaking out, these pretenders will be exposed. Some of the folks involved in “Time to Thrive,” to be fair, are probably quite convinced they are doing what’s right. But any who believe homosexuality is fine, that it’s inborn, or that gender change is ever justified, have already doomed the kids they advise.

The Lord will help us overcome this if we ask for His guidance, dig in and stand up against evil.

Call:

1. Your congressional representative to object to the CDC’s involvement

2. The Hilton Hotel Portland for hosting this child-corrupting event.

3. Speakers and their organizations. Ask why they are aligned with such an inappropriate, deceptive conference including kids. Go here for more information.

Teacher to Student: If You Don’t Support Gay Marriage, Drop My Class

http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/teacher-student-dont-support-gay-marriage-drop-class/

Teacher to Student: If You Don’t Support Gay Marriage, Drop My Class

What has happened to freedom of speech in this country? Students who oppose gay marriage are homophobic, according to an audio recording of a Marquette University instructor who went on to say that gay right issues cannot be discussed in class because it might offend homosexuals.

Students who oppose gay marriage are homophobic, according to an audio recording of a Marquette University instructor who went on to say that gay right issues cannot be discussed in class because it might offend homosexuals.

I reached out to the 20-year-old student at the center of this outrageous episode and the story he tells should serve as a warning to anyone who thinks religious schools are safe havens for open discourse.

The story was first reported on a blog run by a Marquette University professor and was picked up by the good folks over at The College Fix.

The young man, who asked not to be identified, explained what happened when his ethics instructor, Cheryl Abbate, led a conversation in “Theory of Ethics” class about applying philosophical theories to modern political controversies. There were a list of issues on the board – gay rights, gun rights, and the death penalty.

“We had a discussion on all of them – except gay rights,” the student told me. “She erased that line from the board and said, ‘We all agree on this.’”

Well, as it so happened – the student did not agree with instructor Abbate.

So after class he approached the instructor and told her he thought they should have discussed the issue of gay rights. He also recorded their conversation — without her permission.

“Are you saying if I don’t agree with gays not being allowed to get married that I’m homophobic?” the student asked.

“I’m saying it would come off as a homophobic comment in this class,” the teacher replied.

“Regardless of why I’m against gay marriage, it’s still wrong for the teacher of a class to completely discredit one person’s opinion when they may have different opinions,” the student said.

Abbate disagreed.

“There are some opinions that are not appropriate – that are harmful – such as racist opinions, sexist opinions,” she said. “And quite honestly, do you know if anyone in the class is homosexual?”

The student said he did not know the answer to her question.

“Do you not think that would be offensive to them if you were to raise your hand and challenge this,” she asked.

At that point, the student told the instructor he had a right to challenge that – “that’s my right as an American citizen.”

“Actually,” the teacher replied, “You don’t have a right in this class especially [in an ethics class] to make homophobic comments.”

The student retorted that the comments were not homophobic.

It is sad we have come to expect this from the gaystopo. It seems that freedom of speech and expression doesn’t always apply to you if you oppose certain groups.

Advertisement

LGBT BULLDOZES ITS WAY INTO SMALLTOWN AMERICA

"Consider the case of Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene Flowers, who is being sued by the state of Washington. "

http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/14/time-protect-religious-liberty-marriage-debate/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell

Protect Religious Liberty in the Marriage Debate

For years, a central argument of those in favor of same-sex marriage has been that all Americans should be free to live and love as they choose; however, does that freedom require the government to coerce those who disagree into celebrating same-sex relationships? A growing number of incidents demonstrates that the redefinition of marriage and state policies on sexual orientation have created a climate of intolerance and intimidation for citizens who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and that sexual relations are properly reserved for marriage.

Now these citizens are facing a new wave of government coercion and discrimination. State laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity are being used to trump fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.

Consider the case of Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene Flowers, who is being sued by the state of Washington. In March 2013, she met with long-time customers who asked her to arrange the flowers for their same-sex wedding ceremony. Stutzman felt that she had to decline because of her “relationship with Jesus Christ,” and her belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. While she was happy to sell and arrange flowers for any other occasion (the same-sex couple were happy costumers of hers for nine years), she  didn’t want to use her artistic skills to help celebrate a same-sex wedding ceremony.

As Stutzman explains:

I think most artistic people—especially painters—put their hearts into their arrangements.  It’s part of them, it’s part of who they are. And I think that’s the same thing with a florist.

A month later, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed suit against Stutzman, contending that she had violated the state’s sexual orientation law. The state of Washington is seeking a $2,000 fine and a court order forcing Barronelle to violate her conscience by using her artistic talents to celebrate a same-sex relationship.

>>> Read More “Protecting Religious Liberty in the State Marriage Debate”

Stutzman is not the only small business owner whose religious liberty is at risk. As we note in a new Backgrounder, “Protecting Religious Liberty in the State Marriage Debate,” she is joined by other families across the country who are being hauled into court for their belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Cake makers, photographers, family bakeries, and adoption agencies, among others, have faced penalties and lawsuits for working in accordance with their faith.

This shouldn’t happen in America. Part of the genius of the American system of government is its commitment to protecting the liberty and First Amendment freedoms of all citizens while respecting their equality before the law. The government protects the freedom of citizens to seek the truth about God, to worship according to their conscience, and to live out their convictions in public life. Likewise, citizens are free to form contracts and other associations according to their own values.

State and federal policy should respect Americans’ ability to live and work in accordance with their beliefs. Even in states where marriage is redefined, government should not coerce individuals and organizations to violate their moral or religious beliefs about marriage. Although Americans are free to live as they choose, no one should demand that government compel others into celebrating their relationship. And Americans should continue to work for laws that reflect the truth about marriage. If marriage is redefined, attempts to marginalize the view of marriage as one man and one woman will only increase.

For citizens like Barronelle Stutzman, the consequences are becoming apparent. Read more about it here.

LGBT BULLDOZES ITS WAY INTO SMALLTOWN AMERICA

"Consider the case of Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene Flowers, who is being sued by the state of Washington. "

http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/14/time-protect-religious-liberty-marriage-debate/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell

Protect Religious Liberty in the Marriage Debate

For years, a central argument of those in favor of same-sex marriage has been that all Americans should be free to live and love as they choose; however, does that freedom require the government to coerce those who disagree into celebrating same-sex relationships? A growing number of incidents demonstrates that the redefinition of marriage and state policies on sexual orientation have created a climate of intolerance and intimidation for citizens who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and that sexual relations are properly reserved for marriage.

Now these citizens are facing a new wave of government coercion and discrimination. State laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity are being used to trump fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.

Consider the case of Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene Flowers, who is being sued by the state of Washington. In March 2013, she met with long-time customers who asked her to arrange the flowers for their same-sex wedding ceremony. Stutzman felt that she had to decline because of her “relationship with Jesus Christ,” and her belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. While she was happy to sell and arrange flowers for any other occasion (the same-sex couple were happy costumers of hers for nine years), she  didn’t want to use her artistic skills to help celebrate a same-sex wedding ceremony.

As Stutzman explains:

I think most artistic people—especially painters—put their hearts into their arrangements.  It’s part of them, it’s part of who they are. And I think that’s the same thing with a florist.

A month later, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed suit against Stutzman, contending that she had violated the state’s sexual orientation law. The state of Washington is seeking a $2,000 fine and a court order forcing Barronelle to violate her conscience by using her artistic talents to celebrate a same-sex relationship.

>>> Read More “Protecting Religious Liberty in the State Marriage Debate”

Stutzman is not the only small business owner whose religious liberty is at risk. As we note in a new Backgrounder, “Protecting Religious Liberty in the State Marriage Debate,” she is joined by other families across the country who are being hauled into court for their belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Cake makers, photographers, family bakeries, and adoption agencies, among others, have faced penalties and lawsuits for working in accordance with their faith.

This shouldn’t happen in America. Part of the genius of the American system of government is its commitment to protecting the liberty and First Amendment freedoms of all citizens while respecting their equality before the law. The government protects the freedom of citizens to seek the truth about God, to worship according to their conscience, and to live out their convictions in public life. Likewise, citizens are free to form contracts and other associations according to their own values.

State and federal policy should respect Americans’ ability to live and work in accordance with their beliefs. Even in states where marriage is redefined, government should not coerce individuals and organizations to violate their moral or religious beliefs about marriage. Although Americans are free to live as they choose, no one should demand that government compel others into celebrating their relationship. And Americans should continue to work for laws that reflect the truth about marriage. If marriage is redefined, attempts to marginalize the view of marriage as one man and one woman will only increase.

For citizens like Barronelle Stutzman, the consequences are becoming apparent. Read more about it here.