South Carolina BBQ Restaurant Chain Refuses to Serve Blacks Claiming Religious Objection

SC Restaurant Owner Refuses To Serve Blacks, Cites Religious Beliefs

July 2, 2014
By Manny Schewitz

In South Carolina, a BBQ restaurant owner (Maurice’s Piggy Park BBQ) claimed that he was within his rights to refuse service to blacks based on his religious beliefs. In the case brought before the Supreme Court, Maurice Bessinger stated that his religion required him to keep black people from eating in his restaurant, although he was perfectly OK with taking their money, so long as they ordered their food to-go.

The attorney representing the petitioners suing Piggie Park also addressed in court the “First Amendment religious privilege claim that petitioner asserted that his religion required him” to deny service to black customers.

“I’m just a fair man. I want to be known as a hard-working, Christian man that loves God and wants to further (God’s) work throughout the world as I have been doing throughout the last 25 years.” (Source)

And now for you who actually took the time to read the story instead of basing your outrage solely off a headline before sharing with an ALL CAPS blurb of “SEE? I TOLD YOU THE SOUTH WAS FULL OF RACISTS!!!”, this case was

Here’s what the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision ~REALLY~ means

In essence, here’s what today’s SCOTUS ruling in the Hobby Lobby case means:

We’re good with Sharia Law as long as it’s for business purposes.

Think about that next time someone’s favorite religious nut job goes to court.

Because of extremist, right-wing religious radicals, women are again being relegated to second class citizens, WITHOUT full rights and being further  victimized by having access denied to birth control/oral contraceptives – i.e., Ortho Novum 777, progesterone, estrogens, etc. – NOT abortion.

Those medications also treat other diseases exclusive to women, including polycystic ovarian disease, endometriosis, amenorrhea/ dysmenorrhea, etc.

The question before the court was this:

“At issue here are regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), which, as relevant here, requires specified employers’ group health plans to furnish “preventive care and screenings” for women without “any cost sharing requirements,” 42 U. S. C. §300gg–13(a)(4). Congress did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered; it authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration, a component of HHS, to decide.”

One’s private personal religious beliefs should never be on trial.

Yet now, because of extremist right-wing radicals, the door is now opened wide to mandate any employee of a “closely held” multi-national corporation, to FORCE them to adhere to THEIR religious beliefs… even when it jeopardizes their health.

Any well-read, well-studied Christian should be familiar with

Medgar Evers, Bob Dylan, Taylor Swift & Scott Beason walk into a voting booth…

Medgar Wiley Evers (July 2, 1925 – June 12, 1963) was an African-American civil rights activist from Mississippi involved in efforts to overturn segregation at the University of Mississippi. After returning from overseas military service in World War II and completing his secondary education, he became active in the civil rights movement. He became a field secretary for the NAACP. Evers was assassinated by Byron De La Beckwith, a member of the White Citizens’ Council. As a veteran, Evers was buried with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery. His murder and the resulting trials inspired civil rights protests, as well as numerous works of art, music, and film.

June 12, 2013, marked the 50th anniversary of Medgar Evers’ death in Jackson, Mississippi.

Bob Dylan’s music on Medgar Evers was recently featured on NPR’ afternoon news program, All Things Considered.

As the guest spoke, it occurred to me that the primary difference between this era, and the era of the late Civil Rights leader is that the exceeding majority of today’s youthful musicians are out for the almighty dollar, rather than speaking their hearts and minds for the causes of truth, justice, and the American way.

It’s all about the money.

And according to some, there is perhaps no better representative of the “me” generation than Taylor Swift.

Historical Racist Promotional Image – Citizen’s Council of Greater New Orleans, Inc.

Not being familiar with the body of Miss Swift’s work, I must rely upon interviews with her, and from remarks by those whom are familiar with her work. And it seems that there are many who utterly despise her work, for no other reason than that “practically every song she sings is about herself.”

And in defense of Miss Swift, regarding her work, she has said, “I’ve been very selfish about my songs. I’ve

Growing America’s Middle Class and Increasing Profitability

Some time ago, a friend shared an unsolicited comment about “ObamaCare” before all the ruckus over it had reached the SCOTUS. He had observed about a fellow he knew and described as “a snaggle-toothed Tennessee hillbilly,” whom had joined the United States Army. He observed that the fellow had some health needs, among them poor dentition and the need for corrective lenses. Upon his enlistment, he noted that the fellow was given proper healthcare, and all of his needs – food, clothing, housing, and healthcare – was provided by the United States government.

“Now, why did they do that?,” he asked rhetorically.

Answering his own question, he said quite simply, “because they know

Thoughts on Veteran’s Day 2012

This oath – and its variants which I have also taken – is one I have never, and shall never forswear:

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

That is a bond about which most will never know. I did so, because it is the good, just, right, honorable and proper thing to do. It still is, and always shall be.

Yes, I am

Alabama’s Two Greatest Problems: Ignorance & Apathy

Not too long ago, I asked someone – just an average person, someone unknown to me – what they thought were Alabama’s two greatest problems.

Their amazing response was “I don’t know, and I don’t care.”

Naturally, that was the correct answer.

The problem was, that those were the problems – ignorance and apathy.

Of course, that

Finally! Alabama is Top in the Nation in something other than football.

The only problem is, that – true to form – it’s in something bad.

The reader will recall that Alabama is the state where Lilly Ledbetter was screwed over by a bunch of men where she worked for Goodyear Tire and Rubber in Gadsden, by not being paid the same amount of money for doing the same amount of work, and then was denied her day before the United States Supreme Court, which then gave rise to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.

Of her case, United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote:

Lilly Ledbetter was a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber’s plant in Gadsden, Alabama, from 1979 until her retirement in 1998. For most of those years, she worked as an area manager, a position largely occupied by men. Initially, Ledbetter’s salary was in line with the salaries of men performing substantially similar work. Over time, however, her pay slipped in comparison to the pay of male area managers with equal or less seniority. By the end of 1997, Ledbetter was the only woman working as an area manager and the pay discrepancy between Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts was stark: Ledbetter was paid $3,727 per month; the lowest paid male area manager received $4,286 per month, the highest paid, $5,236.

Face it: Alabama has a poor track record when it comes to equality.

Voted NO on Civil Rights.

The infamous Alabama HB-56, aka the “Hammon-Beason Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act,” which virtually makes being an Hispanic illegal.

Voted NO on Equal Pay for Equal Work.

What is Alabama’s major malfunction?

—

Alabama‘s pay gap between men and women among largest in nation, study says

Published: Thursday, October 25, 2012, 2:09 PM Updated: Thursday, October 25, 2012, 2:11 PM

By Alex Walsh | awalsh@al.com

National Women’s Law Center

Alabama is home to the eighth-largest gap between what men and women earn, according to the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC).To compile its rankings, the NWLC looked at two figures for each state: the median annual wage for all male workers in a state, and the same figure for females. In Alabama, the median salary is $42,951 for male workers, and $31,862 for female workers, a difference of 25.8 percent.

Across the U.S., the median annual wage is $48,202 for men, and $37,118 for women, a 23 percent difference.

This research suggests that, across the state and nation, women have less economic opportunity overall, says Kate Gallagher Robbins, a senior policy analyst for the NWLC. The data is

Americans Love/Hate “ObamaCare”

Does that surprise anyone?

People don’t like being told what to do.

They naturally buck against any system – no matter who or what – that tells them what to do, or how to do it. And yet, we know that civil society abides by rules and regulation which govern every aspect of our lives from the cradle to the grave. We must abide by rules as we grow. In fact, we’re introduced to regulation and rules by our parents who punish us when we disobey them. To hear “NO! Don’t do this, do that this way,” are all common in childhood.

But hopefully, we outgrow childhood and transition through that elongated period of pseudo-adulthood called the “teenage years,” and successfully become responsible adults, and abide by laws, rules, regulations galore… ranging from civic laws, to employer policy, procedure and more. And then, we make more laws, rules, regulations, policy and procedures. It’s a never-ending cycle.

The gist of all, is that by following rules and regulations, we demonstrate personal responsibility, and accountability to others. And rarely is that ever an impediment to progress, or a harm to our neighbor.

So naturally, when we hear or see of someone having a knee-jerk reaction to anything, we can almost immediately discount most – if not all – of what they say, simply because of their radical overreaction. And so it is with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), which is often misnomered as “ObamaCare.”

The PPACA actually contains more policy and regulation of Big Health Insurance companies‘ egregious practices than it does anything else.

For example,

• It is now illegal for Health Insurance Companies (HICs) to deny coverage based upon “pre-existing conditions” for children and adults.

• It is now illegal for HICs to charge women more for health insurance than they do men.

• It is now illegal for HICs to refuse payment for services rendered by physicians, hospitals or pharmacies simply because the insured person inadvertently forgot to dot an “i” or cross a “t” on an application.

• It is now illegal for HICs to use the majority of healthcare insurance premiums to pay for overhead expenses including executive compensation, stockholder payout, overhead office expenses, advertising, or any other expense UNRELATED to the delivery of healthcare. Now, they must use 80% of premiums to pay for healthcare.

• It is now illegal to deny family coverage for a child simply once they reached aged 18. HICs are now required to continue coverage to children up to age 26 if they are still enrolled in school.

Page 6 from “Assuring Affordable Healthcare for All Americans,” by Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D., The Heritage Foundation, 1989, ISSN 0272-1155

 

—

Most Americans oppose health law but like provisions

(Reuters) – Most Americans oppose President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform even though they strongly support most of its provisions, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Sunday, with the Supreme Court set to rule within days on whether the law should stand.

Fifty-six percent of people are

FaceBook jokes aside, are there GENUINE dangers in Social Media?

Slowly, but surely, there is a resounding “YES!” which is beginning to reverberate throughout the nation, in response to that question.

Recently, news reports have emerged that FaceBook‘s lawyers are seeking a way around the “Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998.” Mr. Zuckerberg’s opposition to COPPA is well-known. In a May 2011 interview with CNNMoney writer Michal Lev-Ram, when asked how he would deal with COPPA, said “Because of the restrictions we haven’t even begun this learning process. If they’re lifted then we’d start to learn what works. That will be a fight we take on at some point.”

[Ed. note: The COPPA may be read here: http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/coppa1.htm]

That federal law, in essence, forbade (that is, made illegal) any effort by an online entity from collecting personally identifying information from children.

And, true to form, there will doubtlessly be laws enacted, and court cases decided that deal with issues of commerce, privacy, First Amendment rights, and other certain freedoms that we as people freely exercise.

Doubtless as well, those pushing the limits will be corporations – those “artificial” persons, which – according to the United States Supreme Court – also have the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as any real person.

And then again, there’ll be the TEA Party/Republican radicals that scream “too much government, too much regulation, smaller government, less regulation – let the free market decide!”

In essence, not only have you already become a commodity that is bought, sold & traded (think “slavery” – yes, I’m dead serious), but you will soon no longer have any rights to control the invasive eavesdropping/electronic surveillance/stalking that the companies perform against you while you peruse their websites or use their software. Suffice it to say, the information they collect about you is not yours, but rather theirs.

And just so you’ll be aware, this FaceBook problem is not exclusively limited to the United States.

Before closing this commentary, I’d like to let readers know that there are several good browser add-ons that assist privacy efforts. Among them are “HTTPS Everywhere” – by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and “DNT+” – by Abine. Of course, Aurora by Mozilla/Firefox is a more secure browser than either Microsoft Internet Explorer, or Apple’s Safari.

I encourage you to also read the Consumer Reports article on FaceBook privacy which follows this item.

—

ADDENDUM Tuesday, 26 November 2013:

F.B. (Fluff Busting) Purity (FBPurity.com) is an anti-spam, browser extension / add-on that lets you clean up and customize Facebook. It filters out the junk you don’t want to see, leaving behind the stories and page elements you do wish to see. The list of story types that FBP hides is customizable to your taste. It alters your view of Facebook to show only relevant information to you. It removes annoying and irrelevant stories from your newsfeed such as game and application spam, ads and sponsored stories. It also hides the boxes you don’t want to see on each side of the newsfeed.

—

Wising Up to Facebook

June 10, 2012, By BILL KELLER

WHAT’S the difference, I asked a tech-writer friend, between the billionaire media mogul Mark Zuckerberg and the billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch?

When Rupert invades your privacy, my friend e-mailed back, it’s against the law. When Mark does, it’s the future.

There is truth in that riposte: we deplore the violations exposed in the phone-hacking scandal at Murdoch’s British tabloids, while we surrender our privacy on a far grander scale to Facebook and call it “community.” Our love of Facebook has been a submissive love.

But now, not so much. In recent weeks it seems the world has begun to turn a jaundiced eye on this global megaplatform. While that may not please Facebook’s executives, it is a good thing for the rest of us — and maybe for the future of social media, too.

The recent history of the Facebook phenomenon has been a serial bursting of illusions.

Most conspicuously, there was the

The Irony of the Death: The first nails in the coffin of DOMA were all done by Republicans.

The stinking irony of the whole matter is that the folks who are primarily responsible for the federal death of DOMA is that…

they’re REPUBLICAN.

So who’re your hypocrites?

Who’re your radicals now?

—

In Defense of Marriage

Editorial
Published: June 2, 2012

The federal appeals court ruling last week that struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act did not say whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, but the decision sets the stage for what will almost certainly be a Supreme Court showdown over the unfair treatment of gay people and their families.

The ruling on Thursday by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, based in Boston, marked the first time a federal appellate court had ruled against the 1996 law, which excludes same-sex couples from federal benefits accorded heterosexual married couples. (like being allowed to filed joint tax returns and to receive Social Security survivor payments).

The case was heard by two judges nominated by Republican presidents and one Democratic nominee. It involved married couples in Massachusetts, which is among the handful of states where gay couples may lawfully wed. The marriage law was being defended by lawyers hired by the Republican majority in the House after the Obama administration finally acknowledged that it was unconstitutional and decided to stop defending it in court.

The panel’s key finding was that there was no “demonstrated connection” between the law’s hurtful treatment of same-sex couples and “its asserted goal of strengthening the bonds and benefits” of heterosexual marriage. It also said another rationale for the law — that it preserves scarce federal resources — was simply not true.

We were disappointed that the panel declined to

Tilting with the wind? Is the SCOTUS driving America back to Jim Crow?

As I’ve said before, some folks often say they want to “take America back.”

Problem is, they never tell you how far back they wanna’ go.

Before Civil Rights?

Before Suffrage?

While you may not be a religious person, there is a lesson in the Scripture that addresses “going back” – and we all know we CAN’T go back, it’s impossible.

The book of Ecclesiastes, chapter 7, verse 10 says, “Don’t ask, “Why were things better in the old days than they are now?” It isn’t wisdom that leads you to ask this!” (GWT)

We can’t go back in our childhood, we cant’ go back to yesterday, yesteryear or back in time in any way. We all move forward. We are meant for FORWARD travel. It should seem obvious from even natural observation.

That’s why we have eyes in the FRONT of our face, rather than in the rear.

—

Retired federal judge blasts direction of U.S. Supreme Court

Published: Sunday, May 20, 2012, 5:45 PM
Updated: Monday, May 21, 2012, 7:05 AM
By Thomas Spencer — The Birmingham News

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama — Once a guardian of civil rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has been rolling back those protections, said retired U.S. District Judge U.W. Clemon this evening, delivering the keynote address at the 2012 Law Enforcement and Civil Rights Conference presented by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute.

Clemon, who in 1980 became the first black federal judge in Alabama, said since the 1986 appointment of William Rehnquist as chief justice, Supreme Court rulings have gutted the core of landmark decisions such as Brown v. the Board of Education, the landmark ruling that declared school segregation to be illegal. The Voting Rights Act, Clemon said, “has almost been interpreted out of existence.

“With the rise of the Rehnquist court, our wall against the flood became the flood itself. We have seen, in the past quarter century, civil rights on the scaffold.”

The conference,

Thinking of Liberty, Freedom, Rights and Responsibilites… and not so much about Ted Nugent

Some may not be familiar with Ted Nugent nor the “Motor City Madman” antics for which he became renown… or infamous, take your pick.

Certainly, there are things about which many of us are passionate, and hold dear – among them, family, freedom, and for some, firearms.

While by no means am I anti-gun, I am anti-nutcase. To be explicit, the reader should understand that what I mean to express by that sentiment, is that no one takes the ramblings of a madman seriously, and to be taken seriously, one should not behave or carry on as a madman. When on one hand someone appears civil, well-spoken even erudite, then later appears obscenely venomous, vitriolic, rude, crude and perhaps even diabolical, then it causes one to wonder if there is some degree of mental instability present, such as – for example – schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

Individuals with such mental defect are automatically excluded from, and denied firearm ownership.

Since 1968, federal law has forbidden firearm ownership to those whom are declared mentally unfit. However, the problem with that has been twofold, which means that first and foremost, a court must first

Mitt Romney’s American Business Plan

The campaign for this year’s November general election is promising to be fairly nasty, particularly given that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that UNLIMITED MONEY can go to the candidates.

Further complicating matters is that the GOP‘s default candidate du jour – Mitt Romney – has flip-flopped so many times on so many issues that, were he to move into the White House, he’d turn it into the Waffle House.

Beware the man who can look you straight in the eye and tell you a lie, and continue telling it, and then, lie about telling a lie.

—

Mitt Romney’s business plan

by Richard Cohen, Aspen Daily News Columnist
Tuesday, April 16, 2012

Among the attributes I most envy in a public man (or woman) is the ability to lie. If that ability is coupled with no sense of humor, you have the sort of man who can be a successful football coach, a CEO or, when you come right down to it, a presidential candidate. Such a man is Mitt Romney.

Time and time again, Romney has been called a liar during this campaign. (The various fact-checking organizations have had to work overtime on him alone.) A significant moment, sure to surface in the general election campaign, came during a debate held in New Hampshire in January. David Gregory, the host of “Meet the Press,” turned to Newt Gingrich and said, “You have agreed with the characterization that Governor Romney is a liar. Look at him now. Do you stand by that claim?”

Gingrich did not flinch. “Sure, governor,” he started off, and then accused Romney of running ads that were not true and, moreover, pretending he knew nothing about them. “It is your millionaire friends giving to the PAC. And you know some of the ads aren’t true. Just say that straightforward.”

Me, I would have confessed and begged for forgiveness. Not Romney, though — and

Day 3: SCOTUS hears final PPACA case arguments

It’s not looking good for the petitioners.

And to give Mr. Paul D. Clement his props, he has a phenomenal presentation, and has a wonderful presence, has a very rapidly keen response to the Justices questions. He is definitely on top of his game. However, as good as his performance may be, it is my opinion that his arguments will not sway the court.

Mr. Clement was formerly Solicitor General of the United States 2004-2008.

The Court heard arguments today, Wednesday, March 28, 2012, on the Severability issue and Medicaid issue of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act cases.

QUESTION PRESENTED:

1. Does Congress

SCOTUS, PPACA & American Healthcare: Links from Days 1 & 2

Naysayers, conservative political pundits and Obama “haters” of all stripe – Radical Republicans, TEA Partiers, White Supremacists, Neo Nazis, et al – have vilified and unified against already-enacted federal legislation that foremost, regulates practices by the Health Insurance industry, such as denial of coverage for children born with certain health conditions, denial of coverage for women with breast cancer, cancelling coverage in the midst of medical treatment, exorbitantly raising premium rates without actuarial justification, denying payment for covered services deemed medically necessary and rendered by qualified physicians or others, and more.

Such practices have been rightly demonized and justly described as onerous by almost everyone, even by the most staunch conservatives. So it remains a great mystery why so many are seemingly straining against what they denigrate as “ObamaCare.”

At least two elements of the law – the so-called

Day 2: SCOTUS hears PPACA argument

As I’m writing, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has concluded Day 2 of oral argument in the unprecedented three days of arguments on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

Hear the oral argument

Gerald Dial, Alabama State Senator, Wa$te$ Taxpayers’ Time & Money Writing Religious Law, Readying Federal Fight

Some folks just want to “out-Jesus” each other.

It’s as if they attempt to demonstrate by their actions that they love Jesus more than someone else… especially and particularly if they make efforts in the public square.

Christ called such behavior a type of hypocrisy, warning that such prayers were already answered – but not by the Almighty, but rather by humans – because that’s who they chose to pray to. “And when you pray, be not like the pretenders who like to stand in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets to pray, that they may be seen by the children of men, and truly I say to you, they have received their reward.”

Truly, I say to you, dear reader, this type behavior disgusts me more than I have words adequate to describe.

Not only that, but the ninnies and nincompoops demonstrate that they have absolutely nothing better to do, and are not about the people’s business, but rather are about their own private agenda. They’re wasting time and money on worthless things. They’re neither visionary, nor reactionary.

They’re just plain, old, STUPID.

Every damn one of ’em.

Besides, if I wanted live under some religious law, I’d move to a country where that crap went on.

Idiots all.

It’s time Alabama voters had a recall law, because many of ’em would be. At the very least, we should place term limitations upon them, just like we did upon the office of the governor.

Supporters say proposal could allow Ten Commandments to be displayed on state property

Published: Tuesday, March 06, 2012, 5:35 PM     Updated: Tuesday, March 06, 2012, 6:12 PM

By David White — The Birmingham News

MONTGOMERY, Alabama — Some state senators said a bill passed by a Senate committee today would change Alabama’s constitution to say, in effect, that

A Short History of “Privacy” in American Jurisprudence

Privacy

[Note: This entry was originally entitled “Privacy,” and was transferred to this site, having previously been posted by me on Monday, May 3, 2010 at 2:57pm.]

“Privacy” is a relatively new term in American jurisprudence, and public dialogue. Former US Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, an AL native, wrote against “privacy” in his dissent in Griswold v Connecticut.

The development of our right to privacy emerged, interestingly enough, from Griswold v Connecticut, a 1965 Supreme Court Case which challenged the state’s 1879 criminalizing of a married couple’s use of contraceptive devices. Appellants were the