The Democratic Party Would Like to Abolish the Constitution
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry told Breitbart News Daily on Thursday that the “Democratic Party would like to abolish the Constitution” to further its political ideology.
Jeff Landry first discussed Louisiana Gov. Jon Bel Edwards, whom Landry argues has pushed his agenda through executive fiat rather than through legislation. Landry, however, has stopped his executive encroachment through various lawsuits as attorney general.
Landry told Breitbart News Daily, “The governor embarked on the same establishment style politics and the fact that he started to govern via executive fiat. One of his first executive orders was basically to create a protected class for the LGBTQ population. It was something that the Louisiana legislature had rejected a number of times. It was completely problematic and was based upon a test, and not an objective one. So we took him to court, and we won, we took him to court, and we beat him in the district court. We beat him at the appellate level and the state Supreme Court.”
“Executive fiat is not part of our democracy,” Landry added.
Landry continued, “We have a legislative branch that creates the law and the executive carries it out. When it works in that fashion, America works.”
The Louisiana attorney general then cautioned that he remains distraught by the left’s attacks against Americans’ right to bear arms.
Landry told Breitbart News Daily, “I am very concerned about the attacks on the Second Amendment by the Democratic party. Absolutely if they had the chance, they want your guns. They would love to confiscate the guns of law-abiding Americans.”
The Louisiana conservative then suggested that the Americans are beginning to understand that freedom works and subsequently the left is freaking out.
“People are beginning to understand American freedom again,” Landry argued. “I think the left is understanding that we got this going the right way. We’re going down the path of socialism and communism which is exactly what the Democratic Party stands for.”
Breitbart News Daily hosts Alex Marlow and Matthew Boyle then mentioned Thursday night’s live town hall event, the “Masters of the Universe: Big Tech vs. Free Speech and Privacy,” in Louisiana on Thursday night.
Landry contended, “At the end of the day the Democratic party would like to abolish the Constitution and get rid of the Bill of Rights that just infringes on their political ideology.”
Facebook’s reputation plummeted after reports revealed that the data analytics firm Cambridge Analytica used the social media platform to gain access to the personal data of more than 50 million users. A recent Reuters poll suggests that only 41 percent of consumers trust Facebook to comply with American privacy laws.
“It was perfectly fine for Barack Obama to do the same thing,” Landry explained.
Landry concluded, “The fact that all of the data was used that Google and Facebook openly shared it to the Obama campaign. But all of a sudden, when conservatives or the Republican party has an opportunity to access that data and win with it legally, it’s problematic.” http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/04/05/exclusive-louisiana-ag-jeff-landry-the-democratic-party-would-like-to-abolish-the-constitution/
Tags
Who is online
70 visitors
The article is a stinking, steaming pile of horseshit. There is nothing true about it. It was written just to make truly stupid and ignorant people get excited and riled about lies about Democrats about things that they supposedly want to do that they do not. Unfortunately there will always be people so moronically stupid enough to believe it.
That kinda goes without saying if the article is seeded by our friend HA!
Holy shit, they are on to us m'lads and lasses! Quick, everyone meet at the pre-arranged fall-back position (Stinky's Bar on the corner of Church Street and Redemption Drive) to discuss strategy. And as always, the last person too drunk to walk a straight line pays the tab.
Come on ! I had to pay last time...
Well next time, don't be late. And if you are, remember that it takes at least 3 double-shots to catch up to everyone else.
And I paid for the taxi AGAIN!!!!
Next time, spring for two, ya cheapskate.
When I got home, I was wearing someone else's underwear, and two left shoes, neither of which was my own.
Some people can walk a straight line?
And some people can't walk a straight line even sober. (grin)
Steaming pile of offal said article is. Bashing liberal, what else is new under the sun.
Bashing liberal, what else is new under the sun.
Because you know he's right! The only thing that is not new is the bashing of Trump and the GOP every day, all day.
No he is not. I am a liberal and I do NOT want the constitution abolished. Sorry, try again.
Since Trump lies and makes idiotic decisions on a daily basis, trashing him is second nature for intelligent folk.
Bashing far right wing fascists is the American way. We fought WWII for that very reason.
Aren't we supposed to defend the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic?
That must explain why they keep losing in court.
THAT is a matter of opinion! In MY Trump and his immediate band of cohorts constitute a very dangerous group of domestic enemies to he Constitution that must be overthrown as quickly as possible before their EPA does even more damage to even more of our country deserts and insults even more of our allies and Trump hands even more of it over to Putin. Starts a Trade War we can not win and will result in a massive recession and likely leads us to a war in Korea just to cause a distraction and take of the front pages that he fucks women by the dozen while married, pays them off to cover it up and then lies about it! To say nothing of it being obvious that Putin is blackmailing him and until we find out what he is blackmailing him with then Putin has Trump and America by the balls!
That the GOP won't impeach or convict Trump says everything you need to know about them.
The Democratic Party Would Like to Abolish the Constitution
Okay I'll bite: Do you really believe this nonsense?
I'll bite. Were Obama's EO's Constitutional? Were Gov Edwards EO's Constitutional?
Chew on that for awhile.
Yum!
Actually was commenting that no one wants to do away with the Constitution (perhaps Mr. Trump might care to), therefore rendering the title nonsensical, which it is in my opinion.
I don't know where you've been, but you have to say that it surely seems like the Democrats want to do away with the Constitution. Let's start with California: They have passed laws to thwart the Federal government from carrying out Immigration laws within the borders of California. That is in direct violation of Article I Section 8 Clause 4 and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI Clause 2). Then, you have Oregon's governor trying to flaunt the Supremacy Clause and Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 by her refusal to accept an order by the President to call up Oregon's National Guard for aiding in protecting the border as per Title 10 of the US Code. Then, you have all the states that legalized Marijuana for any reason, which violates the Supremacy Clause. Then on top of that the many illegal attempts to create gun control in violation of the Second Amendment.
Sounds more like a State problem rather than a National one.
I see you ignore all the attempts at gun control, which is National, and the support California's government is getting from other states for their stance against the Federal laws. And, the fact that many states have legalized marijuana despite it still being a class 1 illegal drug in Federal law.
How exactly does anyone flout the US Constitutional when they disagree of Donald Trump?
Why haven't we been arrested or fined because of our disapproval of Trump?
So intelligent, educated, informed realists thwart ignorant right wing fascist agendas? Go figure.
Those of us who hate trump do so because he brings it upon himself by being a compulsive liar, an ignorant fool as to the job and a piece of lard with low morals and a larcenous bottom line. Just looking at his obviously sick body and mind makes me shudder.
And, where is the evidence that violating the law and the Constitution is the right thing to do? Every politician that has supported the idea of Sanctuary Cities or States has pushed a violation of the Constitution. If you are for the Constitution and for the Bill of Rights, then you must be FOR ALL OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS. So far, I have not seen any reach for powers beyond what is provided by the Constitution and the Law by Trump. I have seen the overreach for powers beyond what is granted in the US Constitution by the state governments that have legalized marijuana in violation of Federal law, refusal to allow National Guard troops being sent to the border by my governor, California refusing to cooperate with immigration law, and all the calls for gun control. Violating the law and the Constitution for no good reason other than political reasons, which is the case in all of those things I listed, is pure evil. So, you admit to supporting actual evil because you want to protest a perceived evil, correct?
LOL. There's nothing unconstitutional about sanctuary cities.
You mean nothing other than his statement that the government can take your guns and we'll worry about due process later, or his irrational attempt to ban transgender folks from the military, or his irrational and xenophobic attempt to ban Muslims from immigrating?
So far your buddy hasn't fared very well in the courts thanks to the US constitution.
This is directed to all above:
I must remind you, that according to the new CoC, no sweeping generalizations are allowed. Please be specific about what you are addressing, and not name calling.
Read Article VI Clause 2, which states that Federal law takes precedence when laws conflict.
Please tell me where he had a Muslim ban in anything other than campaign rhetoric? The travel ban he had that the left characterized as a Muslim ban, only affected less than 14% of the majority Muslim countries in the world. How is that a Muslim ban?
Until recently, like the last decade, transgenderism was considered a mental disease by the Psychiatric community. Which would actually be a medical discharge from the military.
Until someone actually takes the idea and makes it into legislation, his idea about taking guns is a non-story and a non-issue. If someone wrote a bill about it, then I would oppose it. I oppose the similar legislation that was put together here in Oregon and became law.
Ummm.....the only relevance the supremacy clause has here is that the feds not the states enforce immigration law. The states have no enforcement obligation or duty in that regard and they're actually prohibited from doing so under the constitution, per US v AZ. While a state can chose to assist the feds in that enforcement they have no obligation to do so.
The reality is that sanctuary cities and states have perfectly legitimate concerns in this area - they know that the entire community benefits when undocumented persons don't have to fear local cops if they report a crime.
Feel free to ask the courts which have repeatedly ruled against him on this very issue. Maybe your hero shouldn't have used such xenophobic rhetoric when he was pandering to his bigoted base? Or maybe he and his henchmen should have put a little thought into the issue before he issued blatantly unconstitutional executive orders......orders which he's had to rewrite several times now (at least) because they were so incompetently drafted?
.
What it shows is that not only is Trump completely illiterate about US law and the US constitution on the most basic level, but it also shows that his instincts are totalitarian and that he has no respect for due process or civil rights.
.
I'm not sure what "transgenderism" is but that's no longer the case is it? That's what knowledge and science and facts will do, so I can see why conservatives generally oppose such things. In fact the APA, AMA and all other relevant medical organizations have condemned Trump on this issue (and so has the DOD as well as the DoD-commissioned study by Rand). In fact a few days ago the AMA said the following:
.
By the way so far the courts have completely blocked your buddy on this issue thanks to the US constitution. No surprise whatsoever that the Trump regime has refused to say where they got the "advice" which informed their anti-trans policy, given that it has no rational basis. My guess is that it came from the bible-babbling bigot who sits in the VP's chair.
That changed years ago because being transgendered is not a mental illness. Apparently, conservatives only support WASP heterosexual/CIS troops.
What is it about gender identity that so bothers conservatives? People are afraid of what they do not a understand and when they are afraid they tend to stigmatize those who are different as a way to fight back against change. Is it the fact that you do not understand basic concepts of human sexuality or do transgendered people scare you because they question what it means to be male or female? There is a possibility that conservatives have cross-gender feelings and the public openness of trans' people makes it more likely they the subject will be discussed, which conservatives are not likely to want.
That is a matter of opinion. In the opinion of our State Courts we are not Constitutionally required to help the Federal government enforce Federal Immigration laws. It's an issue of States Rights and the Federal of Government is free to take us to court over it. But they won't because they will lose.
But Randy, it's not going to the California state courts. This one will go direct to the US Supreme Court (disputes between States and the Federal Government get the fast track). How do you think the Supreme Court, as constituted at present, is going to rule?
See US v Arizona for a clue; the court balance hasn't changed since that ruling. The states have no obligation to help the feds enforce immigration law or any other federal law for that matter, and the states are actually prohibited from enforcing immigration law on their own. The most they can do is respond to requests for assistance from the feds, and only if the state chooses to do so.
It means she's much more popular than Trump since she won the popular vote.
what it tells me is she was unpopular in enough states to give the electoral vote to her opponent.
That definitely speaks to a problem in our electoral college but it says nothing about her popularity with the public compared to Trump's. The bottom line is that millions more Americans voted for her and your buddy Trump continues to be the least popular President in US history, or at least since scientific polling began.
Are the secret plans for that civil war on Breitbart too? I hope it starts on a Sunday.
That wouldn't be my picture choice for what makes America great.
My picture would be of the born again cultists sitting in their church, armed to the teeth, as a true testament to their faith.
More horse manure from such a reliable "news" organization.....
the avg person on the left does not want to abolish the constitution.
those who give those people marching orders do want to abolish the bill of rights at least in part if not the whole.
ya see... serfs are not allowed to talk back or fight back... this is standard procedure for tyrannical pricks
the moral of the story is simple.
people who attack our bill of rights, even in part, can not be trusted one bit.
If that is true then why is it the liberal ACLU defends the right to do exactly as you say?
the aclu, like the avg democrat voter, does not want to limit our rights
the "people who are currently running the democrat party" would love to abolish or at the least would limit our rights.
Cheers
What constitutional rights do Democrats want to limit or abolish?
Please list them.......
1.)
2.)
3.)
I am a dyed in the wool leftist socialist liberal and I don't want to abolish any parts of the Constitution. So the premise of this "article" is a lie.
Id like to add to the Bill of rights, especially the 1st and strengthen the 4-through the 8th.
I want to add an equal rights amendment that makes the equal proection clause of the 14th even stronger.
Repealing Citizens United and ending all private money in politics is a good start.
The UN Declaration of Human rights is a good start.
add? what you really mean is limit the 1st to only the bits you like.
enough said
The 9th and 10 far from the most important, except to members of the TEAparty who still have a hard-on for Ayn Rand and libertarian nonsense.
The 1st and the 4th-7th are the most important in my eyes. Capital punishment needs to be abolished by amending the 8th.
Please feel free to guess what my ideas about adding to the 1st Amendment would be.
I'll make a cup of tea while I wait.
Sorry, we can't have a butthurt clause.
sounds unconstitutional to me
More mindless rwnj projection.
Hate to break it to some but the constitution is fluid. That is why there are amendments.
too funny...
try passing an amendment and then tell us how fluid it is.
Amendments do pass. Women vote now. Drinking was stopped. Then started again. Black people vote. 18 year old's vote. It changes. Amendments do pass. It is liquid. It is a living breathing thing.
try... amendments did pass
hint: that was then. this is now.
today? there is no way 3/4ths of the states will back any amendment produced by the left = simply not happening.
remember this?
and that was under the most leftwing administration of our lifetimes. the likes of which, (thank god,) none of us will ever see again in our lifetimes.
but hey, just for fun. try it. give it another shot, let us all know how it turns out.
Well if we focus on educating the deplorable's children the next generation might actually understand civics, facts and reality and will vote the worthless GOP out of office. As it is now with the low and no education bigots who support Trump I agree, any positive change cannot happen.
I find it an interesting fact that those tiki torch wielding, confederate flag waving, MAGA hat wearing white supremacists who came out to support Trump and block the removal of a confederate monument are continuing the white supremacist traditions of their ancestors the confederates who actually did tear up the US constitution and wrote their own. And if you know any actual US history you would know what those worthless bigots founded their constitution on.
"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions —African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization."
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." - Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander Stephens
So who is really more likely to try and abolish the constitution? The same bigots from the same States that tried it before.
Apart from the explicitly racist intent you mentioned there's also this bit of Christian Sharia which is completely absent from the US constitution: "... invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America. "
I wonder if that proves that the Christian "god" is a racist or proves that it isn't because those worthless bigots lost?
It's also amusing that the scope of the ban on bills of attainder and ex post facto laws was dramatically narrowed to just any law "denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves". LOL......it looks like in the Confederate States of AmeriKKKa the bible-babbler's noble effort to keep Terri Schiavo's pudding brain experiment going would have succeeded. Seems like conservatives and bible-babblers haven't changed one bit in over 150 years.
People from both parties have fought for and against slavery, the only consistent is that those who defended slavery considered themselves conservatives, trying to conserve the status quo of slavery. Most of those who fought against the status quo, whether Republican or Democrat, considered themselves liberals fighting for equality. Today we see the same lines drawn, conservatives fighting for their right to discriminate against minorities, LGTBQ Americans and immigrants while liberals fight to protect minorities, LGTBQ Americans and immigrants.
The constitution is what sets us apart from virtually every other government on earth as it attempts to protect the rights of the minority from the abusive will of a majority. There is no reason liberals and progressives would want to abolish the constitution. Only conservatives want to push Christian sharia type laws, discriminate against law abiding tax paying Americans simply because they don't share the conservatives religion or views on who consenting adults are allowed to love and want to take away women's right to choose what's best for their bodies and families would want to abolish the constitution that protects those Americans rights.
Liberals were abolitionists. It was the southern conservative (Dixiecrats) that defended slavery and continued to do so after the war. There were also Republicans that opposed Lincoln.
When do you plan to learn that the platforms of the parties have evolved in the past 175+ years since they were formed?
The existence of the US Supreme Court's power of judicial review guarantees that it is a living document because how they interpret it to keep the country viable changes with both time and societies opinions and needs. The US Constitution would have been irrelevant before the US Civil War if it were otherwise.
Telephone, radio, telegraph, TV and the internet could not have been envisioned in 1790 when the Constitution was being argued so if we go by a literalist interpretation of the 1st Amendment they could not exist. We would only have the right of protected speech in person and it written letter, but that would not work in the age of technology.
The idea that art is protected free speech was a later idea when they accepted the legal opinion that art is free speech in a visual wordless medium.
I disagree. I said nothing about left wing amendments! I said: Amendments do pass. Women vote now. Drinking was stopped. Then started again. Black people vote. 18 year old's vote. It changes. Amendments do pass. It is liquid. It is a living breathing thing.
We must teach our children in civics in school that the Constitution can be amended and that they have the power to do it for very important causes. Not Left or Right, but for American causes!To tell them that it is impossible is to teach them a lie. Far to many men and women died for the Constitution's creation and for it's protection to teach them that one of the most important parts of it is dead just because some people are cynical about it. The Amendment process is very much alive and it's still possible to Amend the Constitution depending on the Amendment. Difficult, yes, but that is how it's supposed to be, but certainly not impossible! Never impossible!
I did.
the point?
write that down. it will be on the test.
legalizing weed has a chance. nothing else does... LOL
That will not happen as long as Congress is controlled by the GOP and Jeff Sessions is the Attorney General. Pharmaceuticals, police/prison and other corporations that would be hurt if weed is legal own many more members of Congress than libertarians and liberals.
the states can pass an amendment without congressional and presidential approval
( never been done before... does not mean "can not be done" )
Cheers
Well, this may not be the absolutely dumbest article I've ever read on NT-- but it certainly does come close to it!
So where in the party platform is that little tid bit?
That's a very good point.....if you read the GOP platform it does reveal that they oppose equal protection of the law and want LGBT Americans to be treated as 2nd-class citizens.
Not in this case given that there's a clearly stated policy difference which is evident in how party members vote and campaign on these issues. To claim otherwise is both false and ignorant. The Dems support equal rights for all Americans while virtually all Republicans vehemently oppose that.
i haven't heard of that - is that in the DNC platform ? i know in the RNC platform it stated they'd like to reverse the SCOTUS ruling for same-sex marriage, so i guess in the conservative's eyes that means LGBT are second class citizens or less, right Heartland ?
from: https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf
now i'm sure you'll show me in the DNC platform where it supports your statement, right Heartland ?
You'll only hear crickets on that one....
Interesting.....maybe you should tell your conservative buddies in the GOP to change their platform so it doesn't seek to deny equal rights to certain minorities, and to expel members who oppose equal rights for all Americans?
Or would that cause the GOP to lose all of its bigoted base?
What constitutional rights have TEAparty members, business owners, gun owners and evangelicals Christians been denied by anyone?
Do evangelical Jews and Muslims also enjoy the same rights as evangelical Christians?
Actually we only consider Koch owned far right fascist tea party members to be bad for America.
Remind you of anybody?
When do you plan to answer the question that I posed to you and other conservatives in 10.1.8? What constitutional rights have Democrats, liberals or progressives taken from you?
I have to wonder if you are serious when you make these insane claims of persecution, or if this is just another way for you to bump thought strawman threads back to the top of the tracker?
so far that's all that i've heard - which speaks volumes for the policies that that particular poster supports. I guess being in the "heartland" and conservative means you think LGBT citizens should be second class citizens or less
Discrimination in a public business is not and never has been a constitutional right. Maybe he should sell the business and go work for a church that shares similar religious views.
The baker always has his right to believe in god and live as he chooses. He chose to open a business that serves the public, so he cannot now claim that his religious beliefs are a reason to ignore the law and discriminate. The baker has been given multiple avenues of he refuses to serve all people equally but those aren't good enough for him because he wants to weaponize his faith to discriminate in a public business.
A cake is not part of the wedding so it has no religious significance. Can he prove that the gay couple was not Christian?
A bakery is a secular business and the fact that it is incorporated separates the business owner from the business so he cannot claim that he operates a religious bakery.
He can dress as a monk or even the Pope and take a 2-hour break to attended religious services while he bakes the cake h so his religious views are not in any way infringed by the state forcing him to serve all customers equally.
The speech of that cake belongs to the customer who designed it, and not the baker whose job it is to reproduce the cake as the customer designed.
If we give him this religious exception to the secular law then where does it end? Can a man kill someone and claim he has a religious exception to being prosecuted because of the Old Testament teaching of an eye for an eye? Religious beliefs are not and cannot be an exception to secular law because of someones devout religious beliefs. We would have a violent theocracy without the Bill of Rights protections if that happened.
Refusing to sell a wedding cake to an LGBT couple when he sold wedding cakes to heterosexual couples is discrimination. If he made custom wedding cakes for heterosexual couples then he must do the very same for LGBT customers, despite his religious beliefs. If his religious beliefs are threatened by treating others equally then he has the problem and not his customers. Your attempt to create loopholes to hide behind is noted.
Protecting the secular constitutional rights of others from religious discrimination is not taking your religious rights away because discrimination is not one of your religious rights.
This decision is Bakersfield will be overturned. The judge willfully ignored state law that protects LGBT customers.
CA law requires full and equal provision of all goods and services. If part of her business is making custom cakes for the general public then the bigoted baker cannot refuse to make a custom cake for Jews, Italians, blacks or gays despite her nutty and bigoted religious views.
Maybe you should read the state's public accommodation law before you comment? After all you *claim* to live in CA......shouldn't you learn how your own state's laws work?
Jefferson will never exist because neither California or Oregon will allow parts of their states to be analyzed by a bunch of libertarians. The state that is created would be a taker state with no supportable industry, other than pot farming and timber.
Get over it.
California and Oregon won't let it happen. Jefferson is DOA, so just accept it and move on to another conspiracy theory.
The idea of Jefferson is anti-tax so where do they get the necessary tax income to manage a state from? You can fund a state with bake sales and donations. Idaho is a taker state. Nebraska is funded by Omaha and Lincoln and not the rural areas.
Bummer for the judge that his ruling will be reversed, eh? Religion has never been a valid excuse to violate any law, and SCOTUS ruled 50 years ago that religion can't be used as an excuse to ignore a public accommodations law. They've also noted that: "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
Religious belief is not and has never been an exemption to secular law. We could not have a country with equal religious rights for all people if that was possible.
The GOP does oppose individual rights for those in a minority. Conservatives opposed LGBT marriage because of their relgious belifs, they oppose equal religious rights for Muslims and other minority religions/atheists, and the conservatives side with the baker when he discriminates in public business by refusing to equally serve LGBT couples in the same manner as heterosexual couples. Conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose in favor of their own religious rights.
Conservatives need to understand that their own relgious beleifs do not determine the secualr rights of other people. Minorities do not have to ask permission to exercise their equal rights, despite the wishes or belifs of the WASP male majority.
Sure it is - in fact the GOP platform clearly states that it opposes equal civil rights for LGBT Americans.
Do you ever tire of creating strawmen? Your arguments are weaker than wet tissue paper. I am on the verge of abandoning having any conversation with you because of your logical fallacies. You are either intentionally ignoring facts or you are intellectually unable to construct a logical argument because of your emotions which appear to override any logical ability you may have.
Conservatives are not pro-life because their concern for the welfare of that child ends as soon as it is born, unlike if they were pro-life they would support the policies to guarantee that child has what it needs to be healthy and live a productive life. The fact that conservatives also support the death penalty is proof that they are not pro-life.
Nobody is pro-abortion because if they were then they would essentially get pregnant just to have an abortion but that doesn't happen. Liberals are pro-choice because we believe that it is only the women's decision whether to carry the child to term and not the government, any man or the religious belief of other people.
Your lack of an logical argument is very obvious, despite your apparent disapproval of my previous statement.
Logic is a cruel taskmaster that I am required to obey.
His decision was the opposite of well reasoned, despite your agreement with it. That judge is a county judge who is pandering to the conservative base that he needs to be reelected. He is willfully ignoring the state level LGBT protection law because even he knows in his heart that his decision will be overturned on state supreme court appeal. A person's religious beliefs do not exempt them from obeying secular laws.