Passengers were safely evacuated after a JetBlue flight returning from Chicago skidded off the runway at Logan Airport in Boston on Thursday, Fox News reported. No injuries were reported, but the incident is still under investigation.
"Safety is JetBlue’s top priority. We will conduct a full investigation of the incident and will work closely with the relevant authorities to understand the cause," the company said in a statement to Fox News Digital.
The aircraft had already safely landed but rolled off the runway onto the grass. The Federal Aviation Administration shut down the busy international airport for a time during the investigation, but later reopened.
Tom Kinton, the former CEO for the Massachusetts Port Authority, described a likely scenario. "It appears it went in at a low speed, the grass doesn't seem to be torn up, indicating that it was a very controlled speed that went in there, but clearly lost steering for some reason," Kinton said.
As CBS News reported, the pilot reported steering problems to air traffic control. "Yeah, so we had no steering on this runway here," she is heard telling the control tower in a recorded transmission.
While it could have been so much worse, it was still an unsettling scenario for unsuspecting airline passengers. Chicago resident Adam Glick said it was his "first real plane scare," but was grateful everyone was okay in the end.
"The pilot said she lost full control of the steering wheel, which is very alarming," Glick said. "You never know, something could have been worse," he added.
Another man on the plane similarly reported feeling worried as the plane pulled to the left after landing. "At first, no one really seemed super worried, it felt like a smooth landing," Drew Behmoiras said.
"But we fully went left, veered off the runway while we were still at full speed. Everyone's OK, thank God. Definitely not flying JetBlue for a while," Behmoiras said.
This latest incident comes on the heels of a catastrophic Air India crash that also happened on Thursday. According to The Hill, the plane took off from Ahmedabad headed for London when it crashed into a nearby building shortly after leaving the runway.
One survivor reportedly remained while another 241 perished in the fiery crash. "Most of the bodies have been charred beyond recognition," local state police official Vidhi Chaudhary said.
The survivor, Vishwashkumar Ramesh, was taken to an area hospital where he was examined by doctors. "He was disoriented with multiple injuries all over his body. But he seems to be out of danger," Dr. Dhaval Gameti told the press.
While the two are unrelated, it only adds to the uneasiness that some feel around air travel. Whether it is pilot error or equipment failure, neither crash does the airline industry's reputation any favors.
Aviation accidents have the potential to be anywhere from minor to catastrophic, as demonstrated by the two incidents that happened on the same day. The airline industry has work to do to maintain safety as its top priority.
In a move that has sparked discussions nationwide, President Donald Trump signed a law nullifying California's policy intended to phase out gas-powered vehicles by 2035.
This Trump decision to end the mandate is receiving applause from auto industry leaders, who consider it a win for both manufacturers and consumers alike, as Breitbart reports.
Trump conducted the signing ceremony in the East Room of the White House on Thursday. This legislative action effectively rescinds California's future ban on new gasoline vehicle sales. Attendees of the ceremony included high-profile figures from various sectors of the automotive and energy industries.
Support from industry leaders has been immediate and enthusiastic. Chris Spear, President and CEO of the American Trucking Associations (ATA), voiced his approval, marking the end of what he called "crippling" and "detached-from-reality" policies. The presence of ATA's leadership in support of the legislation underscored the potential economic impact on the trucking industry from the original mandate.
API President and CEO Mike Sommers also lauded the legislation as an effort to allow Americans the freedom to select vehicles according to personal preferences and needs. According to Sommers, the law restores a sense of certainty that consumers and businesses had been lacking under the previous regulation by California.
One of the prominent voices in the corporate sector, General Motors (GM), echoed similar sentiments. GM emphasized that the law aligns emissions standards with the current market realities, thereby enabling greater consumer choice in vehicle types. GM's statement highlighted the desire for a consistent national standard to maintain competitiveness and support ongoing investments in innovation.
During the ceremony, Trump expressed his determination to protect America’s automotive industry from what he described as overreaching state regulations. He criticized California's regulatory approach, mentioning that it influenced multiple states and created difficulties for manufacturers making cars to suit dual standards.
"With the stroke of his pen, President Trump is restoring certainty," said trucking industry advocate Chris Spear, indicating the broader implications for the trucking industry’s operational stability. This sentiment was reflected across different sectors substantially influenced by this legislative reversal.
Trump voiced his overarching goal to prevent any single state from setting regulatory precedents for others. By dismantling the so-called California mandate, the President contended that nationwide uniformity in emission standards and vehicle sales regulations could be achieved.
The new law significantly impacts both economic and environmental planning across the United States. Opponents might argue that this decision could delay progress towards reducing carbon emissions, while proponents see it as reinforcing economic growth and consumer freedom.
Industry experts emphasize that allowing gas-powered cars to remain part of consumer choice reflects current market demands and realities. With the potential end of California's stringent targets, manufacturers feel more equipped to cater to market dynamics without being constrained by singular state mandates.
Following the president’s remarks, industry stakeholders reiterated their commitment to environmental improvement while balancing economic interests. Aligning emission standards nationally remains a road map that they believe will ultimately foster innovation.
The legislation marks a pivot back towards supporting conventional automotive options alongside the development of alternative energy vehicles. For companies like GM, it equates to an opportunity to provide a broader array of vehicles without the limitations of stringent state-centric restrictions.
President Trump concluded the event by reasserting that the decision symbolized a balanced approach, aimed not at dismissing environmental sustainability but at pacing it with economic realities. This legislative turn, according to supporters, positions the U.S. auto industry for robust future growth and customer alignment.
Critics of California's former mandate maintain that the new law will aid in stabilizing both logistics and freight industries nationwide. By leveling regulations, businesses from coast to coast may find it easier to navigate the complexities previously imposed by differing regional standards.
President Donald Trump shared the "surprising" reason Elon Musk turned against him in a bizarre public meltdown that Musk has since said he regrets.
Trump suggested that his alliance with the Tesla CEO fractured over electric vehicle policy -- with Trump saying he was surprised Musk didn't raise his concerns on the campaign trail.
Trump signed a resolution Thursday that overturns California's electric car mandate, which would phase out all gas-powered cars in the state by 2035.
In comments during the signing, Trump said he was surprised Musk endorsed his campaign in the first place, given Trump's public opposition to the mandate.
“This has been there from day one [that] we’re going to abolish the EV mandate. And Elon still endorsed me,” Trump said.
“Honestly, he never ever spoke to me about that. And I used to say, ‘I’m amazed that he’s endorsing me because that can’t be good for him," he went on.
Trump said he brought it up with his "friend," and the Tesla CEO told him that he had no issue, as long as all electric car companies would be treated the same.
“And I once asked him about it… He said, ‘Well, so long as it’s happening to everybody, I’ll be able to compete.’ It was a very interesting answer. I thought it was a very honest answer.”
It seemed that everything was "cool," Trump said... until it wasn't.
"I said, 'That's very cool. It's very good.' That was my answer. After that, he got a little bit strange… over much smaller things," Trump recalled.
When he suddenly turned against Trump last week, Musk cited concerns with the federal deficit, ripping Trump's reconciliation bill as a "disgusting abomination" -- but the vicious nature of the insults that followed pointed to something personal.
Trump reacted, mostly, with restraint as Musk called for Trump's impeachment, took credit for his election win and claimed, without proof, that Trump is implicated in the Epstein files.
As their relationship unraveled in public, the president expressed disappointment that Musk did not object to the "Big, Beautiful Bill" sooner, with Trump accusing Musk of being upset that the bill removes electric car tax credits.
"I'm very disappointed because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here, better than you people," Trump said in the Oval Office at the time. "He knew everything about it. He had no problem with it. All of a sudden, he had a problem."
Musk has since expressed regret for his erratic meltdown, but the president doesn't seem to be in a big hurry to reconcile.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Some Ram pickups have the throaty clatter of a diesel motor, just like those found in those Big Brother 18-wheelers. Next best is the growl of a big V-8.
But the iconic HEMI motor was eliminated from the 2025 Ram 1500 lineup, apparently part of the company's obeisance to the green ideology.
But it's coming back.
A report in the Daily Mail confirms, "The brand's top boss apologizes for killing the grunting 5.7-liter powerhouse."
"We own it. We got it wrong. And we're fixing it," explained CEO Tim Kuniskis of the Ram brand.
His comments are appearing in ads.
With the thunder of the V-8 in the background, he states, "You hear that? That's our HEMI. And it's saying, 'We're back.'"
Truck sales are among the most profitable divisions for car makers in America, and Ram for years raked in the cash with its powerful full-size units.
Stellantis, owner of the brand, originally moved to smaller engines to meet emissions standards imposed by various regulations.
"Last year, the company said it would replace the V-8 with a more efficient and powerful V-6 — but the swap also stripped away some of the brand's signature brashness. Fans hated the move," the report explained.
In fact, sales slumped 18%, prompting the comeback plan.
Kuniskis said he actually expects the HEMI to represent 25% to 40% of Ram 1500 sales in 2026.
"Data be damned — we raise our flag and let the HEMI ring free again!" he said.
Stellantis also owns Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Opel and Peugeot.
The public dispute between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump has taken a new turn as Musk expressed regret over his earlier criticisms of Trump’s policies.
The tension, primarily revolving around Trump's tax and budget legislation, saw a shift following recent communication efforts spearheaded by high-ranking officials.
Elon Musk, the billionaire CEO of SpaceX, made headlines Wednesday by offering a partial apology on social media regarding his previous comments about President Trump. These comments had added fuel to an already volatile dispute focused on Trump's fiscal agenda. Musk’s online statement marked an attempt to mend the strained relationship with the president following days of discussions.
This move to calm tensions followed a direct phone conversation between Musk and Trump on Monday evening. The dialogue opened with Musk's vocal criticism of Trump's controversial tax and expenditure package, which has drawn a range of opinions over its potential to increase the federal deficit. As someone concerned about governmental budget strategies, Musk publicly voiced his concerns, which sparked friction with the administration.
Earlier in the negotiation process, on Friday, Musk engaged with both White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Vice President Vance. The involvement of these key figures suggested a concerted push to find common ground and reduce the discord. With Vice President Vance's participation—a Musk ally who Musk inspired to pursue the vice presidency—the conversation indicated a step towards reconciliation.
The increasing pressures around the discord were further emphasized by Musk's company, SpaceX, holding substantial federal contracts potentially vulnerable due to the ongoing conflict. Musk's critical remarks about Trump, coupled with his assertions about having influenced Trump’s election, had paved a challenging path for resolution.
Despite the initial hostility, Trump showed a willingness to de-escalate the situation. The president, who had initially threatened to revoke governmental contracts for Musk’s SpaceX, later signaled his appreciation for Musk’s gesture of diplomacy. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt communicated Trump's receptive outlook, noting his appreciation for Musk's statement.
The New York Times, meanwhile, initially reported the private exchange between Musk and Trump, which contributed to the subsequent public developments. By detailing the late-night conversation, the prominent media outlet shed light on the potential thawing of their icy relationship.
Behind the scenes, however, there lurked personal elements complicating the professional landscape. Trump, reportedly more personally disappointed than angered, regarded Musk’s sharp criticisms as a betrayal of their relationship. A Trump confidant suggested Musk's public "I'm sorry" could improve relations, but also warned that things might never be the same.
Adding a layer of complexity to the feud was Trump’s suspicion about Musk’s rumored drug use—a claim Musk vehemently denied. Trump’s longtime associate reflected on the president’s views about abstinence from substances, describing Trump’s unwavering stance on remaining sober as a pillar of his character judgment.
Musk's response to the drug-related accusations was a strong denial aimed at invalidating such claims. He emphasized his presence in numerous public and private engagements each week, suggesting the impracticality of substance misuse given his visible lifestyle.
The intricate narrative of political, professional, and personal dynamics surrounding Musk and Trump's relationship showcases ongoing challenges and efforts at finding equilibrium. From SpaceX's federal dealings to debates over fiscal responsibility, both parties seem to be re-evaluating the basis of their interaction.
As this saga continues to unfold, the implications for key players like Vice President Vance and SpaceX stand as critical factors. Musk’s willingness to apologize indicates a strategic recalibration that acknowledges both the benefits of governmental goodwill and the consequences of estranged political ties.
While the public and private reconciliatory signals suggest a shifting trajectory, the intricate web of disputes and alliances ensures more developments may lie ahead. For now, Musk's apology marks a pivotal moment in what has been a high-profile conflict.
Only time will tell if this step toward resolution will yield a lasting improvement in relations or serve merely as a temporary truce in a complicated relationship.
President Trump signed a resolution on Thursday that targets California's unprecedented ban on gas-powered cars.
The move prompted an immediate legal challenge from Governor Gavin Newsom (D), who has maintained California's place as a trendsetter in far-left policymaking on issues like climate and immigration.
California's first-in-the-nation ban was approved in the more favorable regulatory climate of the Biden era. Trump has pledged to end Biden's "Green New Scam," putting California's climate regime on the chopping block.
The ban would require all gas-powered cars to be phased out in the nation's most populous state by 2035. Trump revoked a waiver that the Biden administration granted that allows California to set stricter emission standards than those set by the federal government.
Trump called California's EV mandate a "disaster" that "would effectively abolish the internal combustion engine, which most people prefer."
Republicans in Congress had approved the resolution that Trump signed in May, using a procedure under the Congressional Review Act.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents major carmakers, applauded Trump’s move.
“Everyone agreed these EV sales mandates were never achievable and wildly unrealistic,” John Bozzella, the group’s president and CEO, said in a statement.
While Democrats hold up electric vehicle mandates like Newsom's as pioneering moves to tackle a warming climate, opponents say they eliminate consumer choice and threaten a reliable technology - the internal combustion engine - prematurely.
Trump's move was swiftly challenged in court by Newsom and attorney general Rob Bonta (D), who accused Trump - who recently deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles without Newsom's approval of an "all-out assault on California" that will result in greater pollution.
"Trump’s all-out assault on California continues, and this time he’s destroying our clean air and America’s global competitiveness in the process,” Newsom said in a statement.
"And this time he’s destroying our clean air and America’s global competitiveness in the process,” Newsom said in a statement. “We are suing to stop this latest illegal action by a president who is a wholly owned subsidiary of big polluters.”
Trump has taken similar efforts to target pioneering environmental policies like New York's congestion pricing, which is meant to discourage people from using passenger vehicles.
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (R) accused President Trump of revoking his invite to the White House' annual picnic, calling the move "petty" and vindictive - although Paul was in fact included.
Paul has been a thorn in Trump's side lately, targeting the "Big, Beautiful Bill" over concerns with deficit spending. The Kentucky senator has called for the funding on immigration enforcement - Trump's signature agenda item - to be slashed by $75 billion.
The libertarian senator, known for his contrarian streak, said he "lost respect" for Trump and accused him of being "petty."
“I like Donald Trump, but when they want to act this way, it’s where they begin to lose a lot of America who just wonders, ‘Why does everything have to descend to this level?’” Paul added.
The exchange marks a new low in the relationship between Trump and Paul, who notably opposed Trump's emergency declaration for his border wall in his first term, with Paul citing small government principles.
“The level of immaturity is beyond words,” Paul told CNN. “It’s just incredibly petty... I’m arguing from a true belief and worry that our country is mired in debt and getting worse. And they choose to react by uninviting my grandson to the picnic. I don’t know. I just think it really makes me lose a lot of respect I once had for Donald Trump.”
The senator suggested the invite might have been revoked without Trump's knowledge, pointing to a "paid influencer campaign" involving immigration hawk Stephen Miller, who has been one of the most vocal defenders of Trump's bill, principally because of its massive hike in immigration spending. Paul's main objection to the bill is its increase in the debt ceiling, although he has raised broader criticisms.
"We can cut the proposed border funding in half, from $150 billion to $75 billion, and still secure our border and protect the American people," he wrote on X this week.
Trump can only afford a few defections on the Big, Beautiful Bill, which narrowly passed the House in May and is expected to face more changes in the Senate.
The president has slammed Paul's opposition to the bill, calling the senator "crazy" and an obstructionist who "never has any practical or constructive ideas."
In a Truth Social post, Trump denied that Paul was uninvited, saying "of course" Paul and his "beautiful wife" were included. Trump said it would not make sense to exclude Paul, since Trump is still trying to win his vote.
“He’s the toughest vote in the history of the U.S. Senate, but why wouldn’t he be? Besides, it gives me more time to get his Vote on the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill, one of the greatest and most important pieces of legislation ever put before our Senators & Congressmen/women,” Trump said.
Another Republican critic of Trump, Rep. Thomas Massie (KY) - who Trump has called a "grandstander" - also said he was not invited to the lunch.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrat Sen. Alex Padilla, from California, has been forcibly removed from a press conference featuring Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for heckling.
The video shows multiple security officers restraining Padilla, then removing him from the room.
He shouts, "Hands off!" after being moved through double doors that partition off an entry area from the news conference room. Earlier, he is heard saying, "I'm Sen. Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary."
The Hill reported Padilla's office did not immediately respond to questions, but Noem confirmed she would visit with him.
"When I leave here, I'll find him and visit and find out really what his concerns were. I think everybody in America would agree that that wasn't appropriate, that if you wanted to have a civil discussion, especially as a leader, a public official, that you would reach out and try to have a conversation," she said.
She continued, "For instance, I have left voicemails for Gov. Newsom wanting to have a conversation. Has he returned them? No, he hasn't."
The strident encounters have developed as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have conducted raids across Los Angeles as part of their work to deliver warrants and make arrests in a probe of criminal cartel activity, including money laundering.
However, activists supporting illegal alien criminals and their presence in the U.S. have responded with riots over the president's overall agenda to secure the border, deport illegal alien criminals, and more.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new state law recently signed by Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte will eliminate "onerous regulations" for homeschooling families.
"For Montana families who homeschool, HB 778 is more than just a policy update, it's a shift toward recognizing and respecting the unique nature of home education," explained Traci Taylor of Mix 97.1. "By cutting unnecessary red tape and clearly separating homeschools from nonpublic schools, the law supports educational freedom while still ensuring students get a solid education."
A report at LifeSiteNews explains the plan repeals the demand that homeschool parents keep immunization records for their children and submit them to officials.
It also explains that family homes are not required to meet the same health and safety codes as school buildings. Further, it makes homeschoolers and private schools separate categories.
The report noted about 3.1 million students were homeschooled in the United States as of 2022. On average, the National Home Education Research Institute pointed out, they scored on average "15 to 25 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests."
While home schoolers sometimes face little regulation, a common tactic among leftists is to create rules specifically for them, especially among those radicals who hold the mindset that children actually belong to the state.
Radical sexual, diversity and racial ideologies long have been a major concern for parents regarding the content of public school classrooms and libraries.
A recent development has been for extremists to impose transgender ideologies on schools, insisting that boys be allowed to change clothes and shower with girls.
Those factors have been pushing the number of homeschoolers up each year.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Just a day after America's largest Protestant group, the Southern Baptists, called for the Supreme Court to overturn the same-sex marriage "right"-creating Obergefell decision, the legal team already working on that project issued a statement that the ruling, biased because at the time two justices had publicly advocated for the creation, is "vulnerable."
The decision, unleashed on Americans in 2015, had no connection to, or foundation in, the U.S. Constitution, the dissent from the bare 5-4 majority said. In fact, although it cites the 14th Amendment, that doesn't mention marriage. The Constitution doesn't mention marriage, meaning that the issue legally needs to be left to the states, under the 10th Amendment.
It is lawyers with Liberty Counsel who have fought for years already against the imposition of the leftist, radical, and anti-Christian ideology.
"As the 10th anniversary of the 2015 Obergefell opinion approaches on June 26, 2025, where 'five lawyers' on the U.S. Supreme Court abused their duty to interpret the Constitution and invented a so-called 'right' to 'same-sex marriage,' there is one legal case that could challenge it," the team explained.
The case involves former Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis, the first victim of this disastrous opinion, who was sent to prison for six days for refusing to issue marriage licenses while waiting for a religious accommodation.
The organization said besides the Southern Baptists' actions, there already is a growing consensus to overturn the opinion, even support from the high court.
"In his concurring opinion in Dobbs that overturned Roe, Justice Thomas stated that the rationale the High Court used to reverse abortion rights should be the same in overturning other court-established rights, such as 'same-sex marriage,'" Liberty Counsel said.
And lawmakers in at least four states have introduced resolutions calling for Obergefell to be overturned.
Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver said, "The U.S. Constitution provides no foundation for 'same-sex marriage.' Obergefell was wrongly decided whereby the Court created a right that is nowhere to be found in the text. We will petition the U.S. Supreme Court because Kim Davis' case underscores why the High Court should overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. Obergefell threatens the religious liberty of Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman."
Liberty Counsel's case is Davis v. Ermold, in which Davis, a former Rowan County Kentucky clerk has been held personally liable for not issuing a "marriage" license to David Ermold and David Moore.
On release of the radical Supreme Court ruling, Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses, instead referring same-sex duos to other locations, and never blocked any person from getting such a document.
Since the ruling violated her personal religious beliefs, she was awaiting a procedure that would protect her constitutional rights with an accommodation.
"However, she became Obergefell's first victim serving six days in jail, and now has a $100,000 jury verdict levied against her personally. Adding to that amount, the judge tacked on $260,000 in attorney's fees and costs, for a total of $360,000," Liberty Counsel said.
The ruling from the 6th Circuit denied her request to throw out the verdict, but it cited the dispute as a case of "first impression," "meaning that Davis presents a novel or unique question of law which the courts have not settled," a question Liberty Counsel now is presenting to the Supreme Court.
In fact, does the First Amendment protect Davis from liability for damages for "hurt feelings" that erupted as state laws abruptly were trashed without any guidance on procedural changes.
"By taking the case, SCOTUS can do two things – affirm religious freedom for all people and also correct the Obergefell mistake by overruling the 2015 opinion. SCOTUS can return the religious and governmental institution of marriage back to the states in similar fashion as it did when it found no right to an abortion in the Constitution in the 2022 Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade," Liberty Counsel said.
It was Chief Justice John Roberts who wrote, at the time: "Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent."
And Justice Samuel Alito said, "To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has [previously] held that 'liberty' under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.' And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights."
Justice Clarence Thomas said, "In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court read a right to same-sex marriage into the Fourteenth Amendment, even though that right is found nowhere in the text. Several Members of the Court noted that the Court's decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. The Court has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have 'ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'"
Liberty Counsel pointed out that a majority of those leftists who fabricated same-sex marriage, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, no longer are on the court.
The SBC resolution is, On Restoring Moral Clarity through God's Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family," calls for the overturning of "laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God's design for marriage and family."
It seeks "laws that affirm marriage between one man and one woman, recognize the biological reality of male and female, protect children's innocence against sexual predation, affirm and strengthen parental rights in education and healthcare, incentivize family formation in life-affirming ways, and ensure safety and fairness in athletic competition."
The dissent to Obergefell had warned it would be used to attack the religious rights of Americans, and it has.
For example, officials in just one state, Colorado, have gone to the Supreme Court twice already trying to impose a state-adopted religious belief, which is anti-Christian, on its residents.
Officials there, led by homosexual Gov. Jared Polis, first tried to punish a Christian baker for declining to promote anti-Christian beliefs with his work. The state lost at the Supreme Court, and got scolded for its "hostility" to Christianity. The same thing happened when Colorado officials tried to force a Christian web designer to promote anti-Christian religious beliefs with her work.
Incredibly, officials in that state, after costing taxpayers millions of dollars in legal fees for their ideological warfare, have gone to the Supreme Court yet a third time, this time trying to impose their religious beliefs on every counselor in the state.
At the time of the Obergefell ruling, same-sex marriage was illegal in many states.
The pro-marriage Mass Resistance organization said, "The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was passed by a slim 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices. It has caused immense societal havoc across the country. States have been forced to ignore their legitimate laws and constitutional amendments regarding marriage. Governments, businesses, and even schoolchildren have been forced to accept same-sex 'marriage' – and by extension homosexual behavior – as normal, under pain of punishments, fines, and even imprisonment."
The problem with that ruling?
"The First Amendment guarantees free speech, freedom of assembly, religious liberty, and the right to petition government for redress of grievance. By forcing same-sex 'marriage' on the country in this way, Obergefell challenged all those rights," the group reported.
"In order to invent a previously unknown constitutional 'right' to same-sex marriage, the 5-4 majority of activist Supreme Court Justices used a strategy concocted by the LGBT lawyers. They redefined the Fourteenth Amendment to allow them to effectively change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to 'two people who love each other,'" the group reported.
But the 14th Amendment actually states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," and does not mention marriage.
The Obergefell promoters at the time also cited "substantive due process," which is not in the Constitution.
The decision was biased because two justices, Ruth Ginsberg and Elena Kagan, who joined in creating the new right, already had officiated at same-sex weddings, indicating they had a clear bias in favor.