ReopenNH - We are all Essential

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves

Our reward for having the engine of the economy shutdown is promises of more money to bail out those impacted by the shutdown. Money from where when there’s little to no productivity to tax? No worries. The experts are on it. Just nod and smile under your mask. Don’t forget to bleat!

Read more

NYC Bans Words, Landlords Lose More Rights

Another bastion of liberalism leftism has decided to infringe on your first amendment rights and your property rights, shockingly, under the guise of Civil Rights.  The new guidance from the Civil Rights Commission in New York City mandates landlords to rent, sell, or lease to illegal aliens. Whoops, can’t say “illegal aliens.”  That’s outlawed too. NEW … Read more

Buffer zone repeal supporters

Unenforced Buffer Zone Law Remains on the Books

The New Hampshire House voted “inexpedient to legislate” this morning on a bill to repeal the buffer zone law giving abortion providers authority to determine access to public property around their facilities. The tally was 228-141 for the ITL motion.  See the roll call at this link, noting that since the motion was “inexpedient to … Read more

Masterpiece Cakeshop Case: Yes, It Was Narrow

The Colorado baker who chose not to be involved in providing services for a ceremony that violated his religious beliefs prevailed in the recent Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission decision at the Supreme Court. The vote was 7-2, and the result was much closer than the score indicates.

How can a 7-2 Supreme Court decision be narrow? If I had a nickel for every social media post along those lines in the past few days, I could cover this blog’s expenses for a good long while. I’m even hearing the question from people who should know better.

It wasn’t the vote that was narrow. It was the decision. The point on which the seven Justices agreed was that the baker hadn’t gotten a fair shake from the Civil Rights Commission. That’s it. That’s enough for now, to be sure, but the narrowness of the decision is fair warning that this was not a First Amendment landmark.

Read more

Why Just One?

Question: If refusing to let one man “marry” another man violates his or their ‘civil rights’ then why is it not a violation of said same civil rights to then refuse to let one or both of them marry a second, third or forth man?

Share to...