Safe Mode: On
A Loss For Liberals = A Win For The US Constitution

An appeals court ruled the state of Montana violated a church's First Amendment rights to encourage its members to support traditional marriage.

The ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the state's determination that the church was an "incidental political committee" because members promoted and signed petitions supporting traditional marriage, and the pastor also encouraged it.

The complaint against Ferry Road Baptist Church of East Helena was sparked by a complaint from a homosexual activist group, the court ruling noted. The Alliance Defense Fund took up the fight for the church by filing a lawsuit in 2004 after the state issued its ruling against the church.

"Churches shouldn't be penalized for expressing their beliefs. They should never be forced to forfeit their free speech rights just because the government decides to enact unconstitutional laws requ

-

Added: Mar-3-2009 
By: MarkusMarone
In:
News
Tags: 1st Amendment, Free speech is only free if it is liberal free speech
Views: 8177 | Comments: 20 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • Great. I really do mean it. Get the State out of The Church's business. Now it's time to get the Church out of the State's business.

    Posted Mar-3-2009 By 

    (5) | Report

    • Agreed

      Posted Mar-3-2009 By 

      (1) | Report

    • A church's minister has the OBLIGATION to steer his "flock" in the direction that his church teachings dictate.

      The govt is BANNED by the Constitution from interfering in CHURCH matters - but NOT vice versa.

      The First Amendment (you progressive socialist liberals will ignore this in plain English) states:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

      If you cannot understand this, then you ARE an ignorant leftis More..

      Posted Mar-3-2009 By 

      (2) | Report

    • Yep, the minister can steer his "flock". Even tell them which way to vote. That's free speech. However, advocating for an issue is one thing, advocating for a candidate is another, and the IRS will tax the organization as a political, not religious entity.

      And you conveniently miss the first part of the first amendment, as many others do: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

      Establishment does not only imply the physical manifestation of a More..

      Posted Mar-3-2009 By 

      (1) | Report

  • Take that, bitches.

    Posted Mar-3-2009 By 

    (3) | Report

    • Are we to be provoked by your sign? You make it plain in your argument that you are not a believer of any faith. And that is fine. Many of us believe differently. That is why the US is so great. But you will argue 'tolerance' and have none for those of faith. Oh well.

      Posted Mar-3-2009 By 

      (-1) | Report

    • I don't think it's about those of us with no faith not 'tolerating' those that have it, we are simply returning the favor for thousands of years of violence and 'tolerance' by religious people simply for not believing in your magical allegory.

      I love how you are supporting the truncation of rights of a group based on YOUR faith, which goes against everything you claim makes this country great, then act like you are the victim.

      The freedom of choice is just that, a choice. You don't have to l More..

      Posted Mar-3-2009 By 

      (0) | Report

    • comet you ruined your whole statement by saying that we should stop "fundamentalist bigots". But do those people not have the same right as you to say what they feel? Your being just like the people you don't like, intollerant and hateful of something you don't agree with.

      Posted Mar-3-2009 By 

      (0) | Report

    • huh? My whole point was that while I don't like or agree with them, I am not out there making sure that their christian children can't marry other christian children just because my magic book doesnt say it is ok, thats all. They try to limit what others do based on THEIR belief, but we just want people to have a choice to NOT be forced to do what they believe is right.

      Atheists only want equal rights, that means if you are a christian thats fine just don't expect the govt. to use tax money t More..

      Posted Mar-4-2009 By 

      (0) | Report

  • One for the good guys!

    Posted Mar-3-2009 By 

    (2) | Report

  • its funny that the radicals have to shop out their cases to the 9th circuit, because all the other courts will tell them to get their trash the fuck out of their court.

    Posted Mar-3-2009 By 

    (2) | Report

  • I am beginning to think that if the true Democrats don't wake up the Socialists will control their party if they don't already.

    Posted Mar-3-2009 By 

    (1) | Report

  • This isn't a loss for liberals, this is a loss for those people that want to spend their lives together regardless of their sexual orientation and receive the same benefits as same sex couples.

    Posted Mar-3-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • One thing I noticed, it seems like most people who associate or consider themselves liberals are defending to their death's other religions in the world, but when it comes to Christianity, its suddenly bad. I think its just because they are surrounded by it, but since all the other religions are new to them, they think they are hip and cool. Well Jesus is the coolest, so give him a chance too!

    Posted Mar-3-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Who cares about equal rights! Right Cons?

    Posted Mar-3-2009 By 

    (-2) | Report

    • Dude, church wants to keep marriage as a church thing. You can get "married" in court you know. Its a civil union, just not in a church.
      You want to make it seem as if they are taking rights away.

      Posted Mar-3-2009 By 

      (3) | Report

    • I don't think I've ever read a half way coherent/intelligent response from you ever.

      It's always, LMAO @ libs, f**k you libs, commies, other name calling. Are you really that incapable of making any points without resorting to childish behavior?

      Posted Mar-3-2009 By 

      (0) | Report