Tag Archives: same-sex marriage


According to politifact.com, Occupy Democrats is an advocacy group that was created to counterbalance the Tea Party and to give President Obama and other progressive Democrats a Congress that will work with them to grow the economy, create jobs, promote fairness, fight inequality, and get money out of politics. It sounds good, doesn’t it?

Occupy Democrats also has a Facebook page, and most of my liberal Facebook friends are fans of the page.

Of course, I often see posts where my liberal FB friends have shared memes from the Occupy Democrats Facebook page, and those memes are almost always wrong about everything. Here is another example.

On July 17, 2015, Occupy Democrats shared a meme on Facebook stating: “House Republicans just passed a bill that makes it legal for single mothers to be fired by their employers.”

House Republicans did not pass a bill. It was only introduced.

According to Politifact, the meme was shared more than 60,000 times, suggesting a lot of people found the news outrageous. Politifact determined through a cached image of Occupy Democrats’ website and a Huffington Post article that the meme’s underlying beef was with the First Amendment Defense Act, HR 2802, introduced by Republicans on June 17.  HR 2802 was a conservative response to the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage.

At the time of the meme, the bill had not been passed by the GOP led House. Rather, it had only been submitted to a committee for consideration.

Some Americans saw the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage as a potential affront to their religious beliefs under the First Amendment.

The authors of the First Amendment Defense Act attempted to address how the court’s decision could affect religious institutions in a situation that came up during oral arguments. Justice Samuel Alito asked in April whether a religious school could lose its tax-exempt status if it opposes same-sex marriage, and the U.S. solicitor general, who was arguing for same-sex couples said, “It’s certainly going to be an issue.”

The First Amendment Defense Act mentions this exchange in its text and proposes that it should be illegal for the federal government to impose tax, grant or benefit sanctions on organizations that oppose same-sex marriage because of religious or moral convictions.

Since the bill does not mention women at all, where does the concern for single moms losing their jobs come into play?

Politifact goes on to indicated that the part which worries some people is section 3(a), which reads: “Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief of moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.”

Emily Martin, vice president and general counsel of the National Women’s Law Center, pointed to the last part about sexual relations being reserved for the marriage of one man and one woman. The wording “can absolutely” be applied to women who are pregnant outside of marriage, she said.

The introductory clause “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” Martin said, seems to indicate that FADA would overrule other existing laws on this issue.

Usually, when an individual feels that she has been discriminated against, she has to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The agency would then investigate the concern and give a ruling or provide the complainant with a “right to sue.”

However, Martin argued that, in an extreme scenario, it’s possible the EEOC would not have jurisdiction in cases under this bill since the FADA specifically forbids the federal government from taking discriminatory actions against a person.

Samuel Estreicher, director of the Center for Labor and Employment Law at New York University’s Law School, says he would not read the bill as repealing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which protects against sex discrimination). Still, he said it could use some clarification.

The bill’s primary sponsors in the Senate and the House say the bill is not supposed to target single mothers. In a phone interview, Representative Raul Labrador (R) from Idaho, said the First Amendment Defense Act deals exclusively with possible federal government actions against employers that do no support same-sex marriage. The Federal government would not be able to use tax or other federal sanctions, such as withdrawing benefits or tax-exempt status, against employers who oppose same-sex marriage. The federal government would not be able to use tax or other federal sanctions, such as withdrawing benefits or tax-exempt status, against employers who oppose same-sex marriage.

Labrador also said that the bill does not address employer-employee relationships, and if an employee felt that she was discriminated against, she would still be able to seek recourse through employment protections through the EEOC or Title VII. Labrador then indicated that he would make the bill clearer.

Politifact indicated that it did reach out to Occupy Democrats, but did not hear back.

In their conclusion, Politifact indicated that there were big flaws with this claim. According to some quick googling, the bill has never gotten out of committee. Thus, stating that House Republicans just passed a bill… is a lie. Furthermore, the bill does not legalize the firing of single mothers. Instead, it deals with discriminatory actions that the federal government should take against religious institutions that oppose same sex marriage. Politifact rates the claim as false.

To this conservative political blogger, this claim is more than false, it is ridiculous. I can’t really connect the dots. Furthermore, in most states, an employer can fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all. When you sign on as an employee, the contract that you sign indicates that both the employee and the employer have a right to terminate the contract.

Having said the above, even though the employer doesn’t have to give the employee a reason for termination, such an action is rare. Companies that did this often would get an unwanted reputation.

Note: This will be the last post in my series illustrating the lies, half-truths, and out of context statements often made by Occupy Democrats. However, I will continue to monitor this site and may report on them in the future.



Kim Davis, a county clerk in Ashland, Kentucky was sent to jail on Thursday, September 2, for contempt after insisting that her conscience would not allow her to follow a federal judge’s orders to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. U.S. District Judge, David Bunning indicated that her good faith believe is simply not a viable defense.

Since being arrested, there have been numerous opinions set forth regarding Ms. Davis. The liberals, of course, want her destroyed and will stop at nothing to do it. Conservatives are split. Ms. Davis is an elected official and cannot be fired. According to Judge Bunning, she took an oath and an oath means something. That something is that she must obey the laws of her county, her state, and her country.

On the other hand, when she ran for office and was elected, did she have any inkling that laws would be put in place that would directly conflict with her religious beliefs? Her job is her livelihood and should she be forced to give up her livelihood because of such a conflict? For Kim Davis’ scenario, we have a very slippery slope. If she was employed by a private sector company, she could perhaps work something out with the company so her job duties would not be in conflict with her faith.

In a country where religious liberty is supposed to be a guaranteed freedom and the country is approximately 85% Christian, the Supreme Court has upheld gay marriage, with homosexuality, a sin, according to God’s holy word.

When asked about Mrs. Davis’ situation, White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, declared that no public official is above the rule of law. Well, what about our current president who has lied on countless occasions and violated the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, on many occasions? Congress, not the current president has the power to make rules in matters of naturalization. Congress, not the current president has the power to make rules regarding captures on land and sea.

And Hillary Clinton, who abandoned four Americans to die in Benghazi, Libya, was in violation of the War Powers Act. Both Hillary and the current president then like about the origin of the attack.

According to former Congressman, Colonel Allen West, Kim Davis went to jail simply because she was exercising her First Amendment right, which no five activist judges can deny, disregard, or denigrate. It’s her First Amendment right that cannot result in her being disparaged, and certainly not arrested. And if the President of the United States can himself float above the rule of law, then how can one arrest Kim Davis for embracing the rule of law, her First Amendment right.

Colonel West goes on to wonder when we start seeing pastors carted off to jail for refusing to perform same-sex marriages. The lesbian mayor of Houston has already tried by demanding sermons of pastors be surrendered. And of course, let’s not forget the bakers, florists, pizzeria owners and photographers that are being fined by the state and getting death threats by the “tolerant left.”

After having written the above, as Christians, we are to follow God without regard to anything else. Just follow him. He will take care of us and show us the way. God never promised us a “rose garden” while we are here on earth. He did promise us forgiveness of our sins and eternal life if we believe in him, his son, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

Sometimes when we have questions and are seeking the answers, we find them quickly without having to go to God, even though it was God that put the answers right in front of us. Sometimes when we can’t readily find the answers we’re looking for, we do go to God. God’s law trumps any secular laws from any governments or any man/woman here on earth.

We should be concerned that Mrs. Davis, being jailed, is the first incident in the history of the United States that someone has been jailed for their political beliefs. Will it be the last? I can’t answer that. Christians, though, are being persecuted and disparaged every day in America. Fines have been levied against those who are refusing to accept the “law of the land’s” rulings on same-sex marriage. In other words, those who support same-sex marriage are attempting to destroy those who hold a different belief.

Mrs. Davis, as a Christian, should follow the Lord, disregarding all outside influences. As Christians, so should we.



On August 24, liberal publication, Mother Jones, ran an article outlining things that the current president has done after January 2015 when he officially became a lame duck president. Of course, liberals think these things are great. The following is a discussion of five more of these items.

The current president successfully argued in favor of same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court: He did not. How can Mother Jones tell such a whopper? Of course he was against same-sex marriage when he was campaigning, but has now flip-flopped on the issue. The same-sex marriage ruling by the Supreme Court has put many Americans in direct conflict with their faith. We all know the story about the baker who would not bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. Instead of simply finding another baker, the couple, with the support of liberals, took steps to destroy the baker’s business. I have also seen some liberals calling for the firing of folks working at court houses who refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Americans shouldn’t have to choose between their livelihood and their faith. This ruling is a scourge.

The current president has put in place economic sanctions on Russia that have Vladimir Putin reeling: In December 2014, the current president said, through a spokesman, that he would sign newly passed legislation expanding measure intended to cordon off large Russian state firms from Western financing and technology while also providing $350 million in arms and military equipment to Ukraine as it battles a pro-Russian insurgency in its eastern regions. According to the New York Times, the president was not in favor of this legislation, but Congress passed the measure without opposition, making a veto politically untenable.

The current president pressured the FCC to approve net neutrality rules: According to thehill.com, a House appropriations bill released Wednesday would block the Federal Communication Commission from implementing its net neutrality rules until the courts weigh in on the issue. The rules, adopted earlier this year and supported by the current president reclassify Internet providers as utilities, and would prohibit broadband and mobile carriers from selectively blocking or slowing Web traffic. The rules also reclassify broadband as a regulated common-carrier service, instead of treating it as a lightly regulated information service, as the FCC has done for the past decade.

This government overreach measure is going to be tied up in the courts for a while. I wouldn’t exactly call this an accomplishment by the current administration.

Issued new EPA coal regulations: On Monday, June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court blocked one of the Obama administration’s most ambitious environmental initiatives, an EPA regulation meant to limit emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants.

Industry groups and about 20 states had challenged the EPA’s decision to regulate emissions, saying the agency had failed to take into account the punishing costs its rule would impose. This is from the New York Times.

This was certainly not good for the middle class/working class. Thank goodness the highest court in the land has blocked it. However, on August 3, 2015, the current president and the EPA announced the Clean Power Plan – a historic and important step in reducing carbon pollution from power plants that takes real action on climate change. Here we go again…war on the middle class/working class.

Issued an executive order on immigration: In June Judges Jennifer Walker Elrod and Jerry Smith dealt a significant blow to the current president’s executive actions on immigration. The judges will also play key roles in deciding whether the controversial programs are legally sound. This is a lawless executive order that is being held up in the courts.

The above is more of this president’s attempt to destroy the middle class and make it difficult on small businesses.