August 23, 2017

Native Americans say grizzly bear decision violates religion

The Native American plaintiffs argue that trophy hunting for grizzly bears goes against their religious and spiritual beliefs. The lawsuit filed June 30 asks a federal judge to rule that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must consider the Native Americans’ beliefs and consult adequately with them before removing grizzly protections that have been in place since 1975.

“He is our relative. For us Bear Clan members, he is our uncle,” Ben Nuvamsa, a former chairman of the Hopi Tribe in Arizona, said Wednesday. “If that bear is removed, that does impact our ceremonies in that there would not be a being, a religious icon that we would know and recognize.”<<<Read More>>>

Note: Dr. Charles Kay says about this article: “This is all bull[pucky] !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!—————Tell me then, where did all those bear claw necklaces that are mentioned in historical journals and today displayed in museums come from???????———also see my article on Lewis and Clark’s wildlife observations———just about the only place grizzlies were found was in buffer zones between tribes at war—-that is to say, hunting by Native Americans controlled the ABUNDANCE AND DISTRIBUTION of grizzlies in North America—-the idea that native people did NOT hunt bears is totally absurd !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!——–——–Charles

And James Beers writes:

Dr. Charles Kay is 100% right on target.

That said, I would observe all this grizzly bear love BSmythology about wolvestribes helping USFWS stock wolves in defiance of state authorities, and now mandatory incorporation of tribal say-so’s into USFWS “burn and destroy” Listings under the ESA are simply expressions of “partnering” between USFWS bureaucrats, environmental radicals and Tribal governments.

This has many dimensions:

  1. Furthering Tribal claims and precedents and expanding aura of legitimacy both on and OFF Tribal Lands, thus giving Tribal governments increasing authorities in growing segments of rural America is a given attitude among many Tribal members in rural America.

 

  1. Like fish netting, wolf killing, cabin break-ins, fish selling, night shooting and other such law violations going unprosecuted and unpunished throughout much of rural America when involving Tribal members again both on and off Tribal lands by Local, State and federal law “enforcers” from officers to prosecutors and judges; stopping any grizzly bear management or harvest makes attacks on humans and losses to private property more likely and more devastating thus further driving many non-Tribal Americans off the land and out of small towns.

 

  1. This grizzly pagan myth, like Tribal help to USFWS and environmental radicals introducing wolves, and Tribal help to interfere with any wolf and now grizzly control are seen by many Tribal governments as clearly vacating more and more of rural America as livestock production, rural safety, decreased game herds and generally declining economies and Local government authority all suffer as human attacks and depredations increase, rural land values go down and more non-Tribal American rural residents disappear.

 

  1. Much of the reason for this successful legitimizing of Tribal animosities against non-Tribal Americans can be traced to the McCain-Feingold scam law that reputedly “cleaned up and reformed campaign finance” except it exempted Tribal “contributions” (called “lobbying money” when contributed by non-Tribal Americans).  Combine this bit of “special exemption” with all the Casino appeals (Millions of $’s) to US Senators especially to license a casino for this Tribe or that Tribe plus all the Tribal lobbying to NOT grant a license to that Tribe for a Casino that will compete with our Tribe and you have a witches brew of corruption, the Washington “swamp”, angry Tribes, politicians, bureaucrats, and radical environmentalists that all together puts Macbeth’s witches to shame.

 

  1. Federal bureaucrats that envision controlling and/or owning most of rural America; state bureaucrats that seem comfortable with being federal assistants; radical environmentalists that manipulate these bureaucrats like Edgar Bergen manipulated Mortimer Snerd; and University professors that live off of grants are all seen as benign future neighbors by the Tribes since they can push them all around more and more as time goes by.  The grizzlies, like the wolves and “protected” mountain lions, will eventually replace hard-working, innovative and vibrant communities with a few government offices and “law” enforcers aimed only at non-Tribal Americans. Protected and unmanaged Grizzlies, Wolves and Cougars will:

 

–      Kill the dogs of the non-Tribal members,

–      Kill the livestock of the non-Tribal members,

–      Kill the game of the hunters,

–      Destroy the economies of the non-Tribal rural Americans,

–      Cause human deaths and injuries that will make rural life more and more unsustainable, especially for the elderly and the young.

 

  1. As rural America becomes a wasteland of enormous intense destructive fires(due to no timber management); as desirable wildlife disappears (thanks to predators); and as deadly and dangerous wildlife increasingly goes unmanaged (thanks to bad laws and ideologue bureaucrats): the bureaucrats will sit at their desks in this “New Normal” world estimating how long to retirement; the professors will begin wondering why a nation Trillions in debt no longer funds wildlife research for things of no economic or social benefit; the politicians will harvest their millions of unreported lobbying money; non-Tribal Americans will pour millions into the Casinos for Tribes to continue the dissolution of rural America; and radical environmentalists will continue churning out documentaries and magazines full of dire predictions about this and that critter that demand you send them money before it is too late, etc., etc.  While non-Tribal Americans scoff at this, many Tribal communities and governments see this as not only likely, but inevitable.

 

Expanding Tribal Lebensraum (German for – additional territory considered, especially by Nazi Germany, to be necessary for national survival) and exemption from any US law is the Tribal Utopia these pagan animal myths are intended to advance and the radicals, bureaucrats and politicians are only too willing to accept them and use them without question because they believe what makes the Tribes happy will only make them happy by lining their pockets and providing retirement behind walls paid for by lobbying $’s, promotions and bonuses received for chirping these dastardly duets about pagan sacred this and pagan sacred that to advance hidden agendas that are no more than 800# gorillas all around that we all pretend aren’t there.

Now, let me get this straight.  If,

“The Native American plaintiffs argue that trophy hunting for grizzly bears goes against their religious and spiritual beliefs. The lawsuit filed June 30 asks a federal judge to rule that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must consider the Native Americans’ beliefs and consult adequately with them before removing grizzly protections that have been in place since 1975. He is our relative. For us Bear Clan members, he is our uncle,”

Then how come we cannot have a manger scene in a park?  How come you can’t mention the Bible in school?  How come we have all these nutty and Draconian rules barring our religious expression and this agency, and these plaintiffs get all this extra-legal protection???  Somebody call the ACLU (halloo, anyone out there?) and throw the whole pack of them in jail or at least treat them like Judge Moore of Ten Commandments fame or those Right-to-Life folks that exposed the barbarity of Planned Parenthood and were treated worse than many terrorists.

Jim Beers

9 July 2017

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

 

Share

“Religious” Tolerance? Nah, Normalizing Lunacy

Recently the Maine Legislature passed a bill that would permit a small cult that calls themselves Quakers to NOT wear the blaze orange that hunters have worn for years that has proven to save lives. According to the Quaker cult, their “religion” disallows them to wear “bright clothing.”  Therefore the Legislature, in their infinite wisdom, and God knows they are amply endowed, passed a bill that exempts them from wearing the orange in exchange for wearing “bright” red. This, of course, is insanity at its finest, but then again aren’t we now living in a post normal society where we have normalized lunacy? The reality is nobody recognizes the lunacy….because it is all “normal.”

Here’s further proof. A man in Arizona has been allowed to have his drivers license photo taken of him wearing a metal colander on his head. “This subjugated monotheistic religious minority believe a giant, omniscient spaghetti monster that lives in the sky created the universe and has complete control of its fate.”

Perhaps out of “respect” for these lunatics – and I’m also referring to the lunatics who pass bills and allow such nonsense – this “free” country should mandate that at least one day out of the year everyone wear “bright” red and a metal colander on their head.

I have two words for all of them…..but I won’t print it.

Share

Political Censorship Gives MDIFW Pause to Come Up With Definition of “Red”

This country is ruled by censorship and fear! It’s called political correctness and that involves something called “religion.” And because one tiny sub-sector, of a sub-sector, of a sub-sector of a group who prefer to call themselves “religious” and their “religion” prohibits them from wearing “flashy” clothes, they want the State of Maine to change the law that requires hunter orange mandates, for public safety reasons, in minimum amounts for hunting in the Maine woods, to satisfy their “religious” beliefs.

According to George Smith’s article, there appears to have been but two issues (or that’s all Mr. Smith chose to report) involved with the recommendation for or against this bill – safety and the definition of “red.”

I expressed my opinions about this subject last week.

It should be a no-brainer about safety. If outdoorsmen and safety experts, as has been done for over a decade now, subscribe to the promoted talking points of how much safer hunter orange (a minimum standard luminescent orange color highly visible even in questionable amounts of daylight) is over any other clothing, then the issue of its requirement should not become one of religion…should it? One can understand the government forcing people to murder unborn babies as a violation of a “religious” or moral belief, but to participate at the risk of endangering, not only the Amish, but the risk of causing confusion where years of training and adapting to hunter orange and “identifying a target” seems a bit silly to me. And where does the liability on the issue fall? One would rationally conclude that the wearing of “flashy” clothes might be something not permitted, for many of the same reasons Pagan worship practices many outrageous things include “flashy” statues, idols, clothing, etc., when an Amish person goes out in public, not into the woods to hunt.

One might even make argument that if one believes God gave man the dominion over animals and therefore hunting is allowed by a religious order, then perhaps there is something wrong with the religious order banning “flashy” clothing and not the law that has been crafted for public safety.

If my “religion” was so important to me that I can’t bring myself to wear hunter orange so that I can participate in hunting deer in Maine, I think I would give up hunting during the time I had to wear “flashy” clothing. Either it is that important or it’s not.

So now, to further this idiotic nonsense of political correctness and perpetuate the fear of some sort of reprisal from the “religions,” state law makers are now going to try to pass the buck (no pun intended) and come up with a definition of “red” in hopes they can use that as an escape goat.

So tell me! How much more absurd can our society become attempting to turn their backs on the one and only Creator of all things, in order to appease the Satanic worship and idiosyncrasies of a group choosing to call themselves “religious” in order to reap the benefits of political correctness’es preferred treatments and special privileges?

Perhaps the State of Maine should consider the below photograph as a great example of what they can require of Amish hunters, while at the same time appeasing the “rights” of many other groups and not running the risk of offending them.

*Update* – I forgot to mention when I wrote this an hour ago, that, according to Smith’s article, when asked about how wardens would enforce the Amish exception, he wrote: “if a warden did issue a summons for not wearing orange, the hunter would have to prove in court that his religion prohibited him from doing so.”

Information available here is very lacking. But suppose such an Amish Exception becomes law. Do the Amish then have a preferred privilege over someone who might belong to another “religious” sect that also prohibits “flashy” clothing? Will the Amish, if caught wearing “red” instead of what’s required by law, have to also go to court, at their expense, to prove their innocence? The other question of importance is when does it become necessary that every citizen is presumed guilty until they can go to court and prove their innocence – which is exactly what such a statement establishes?

Share

Eli Lilly Shareholders to Management: Religious Liberty Matters

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:
Religious Liberty Matters

Shareholder Resolution Urges Pharmaceutical Giant to Be Respectful of ALL Groups, Including Religious Americans and Those Who Respect the First Amendment

Company Questioned at Shareholder Meeting for Doing Business Where Homosexuality is Illegal While Posing as An Ally with Gay, Lesbian and Gender Identity Activist Groups in the United States

 

Indianapolis, IN / Washington, D.C.  – At today’s annual meeting of Eli Lilly shareholders in Indianapolis, Indiana, the National Center for Public Policy Research presented a liberty-based shareholder resolution in response to the company’s activism against state-level religious freedom laws.

“Eli Lilly is acting with extreme duplicity. The pharmaceutical giant has joined with the leftist mob that falsely claims that religious freedom laws are avenues for discrimination of homosexuals. Yet, while it bemoans state religious freedom laws here in America, it has done business with nations that actively discriminate against homosexuals, women and just about every conceivable minority group,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. “Today, our shareholder proposal called out the company’s hypocrisy.”

Speaking on behalf of the National Center’s proposal, Danhof stated, in part:

Corporations and the mainstream media have expressed concern that religious freedom laws will lead to discrimination, in part, against homosexuals. There is zero evidence for this concern. These laws only require the government to avoid interfering with religious freedom if it can do so while still achieving important government goals – one of which, in every state of the union, is outlawing discrimination. The company’s spokesman stated: “One of our long-held values is respect for people, and that value factors strongly into our position. We want all our current and future employees to feel welcome where they live.”

Our proposal takes Lilly up on this. Eli Lilly has operated in many nations where homosexuality is outlawed. In some of those countries, homosexual acts are punishable by death. Women have almost no rights in some of these places. And try getting a fair trial in many of these nations.

The full text of Danhof’s remarks at the Eli Lilly meeting, as prepared for delivery, can be found here.

“As the national debate over religious freedom laws began last year in Indiana – and Lilly is one of the biggest companies in the Hoosier State – it deserves a fair share of the blame for the anti-religious sentiment that is sweeping the nation,” added Danhof. “When Georgia recently tried to pass a similar law, that state’s governor made the spineless decision to veto it after many corporations including Coca-Cola and the National Football League complained.”

“I find it very curious that many leftist politicians, organizations and commentators in the media have spent the better part of the past six years bemoaning corporate involvement in political activity. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC (which simply affirmed that corporations and unions have First Amendment free speech rights), to hear liberal talking heads tell it, the world would stop spinning due to corporate involvement in political activities. But when corporations such as Eli Lilly and Coca-Cola use their bully pulpits to spew invectives regarding religious freedom laws, the left cheers corporate involvement in the political process,” said Danhof. “This is the hallmark of a movement that lacks basic principles.”

“Liberal shareholder activists have filed hundreds of shareholder resolutions over the past few years and spent untold sums to denounce corporate involvement in any political or policy activity that might be considered conservative,” said Danhof. “But they have no problem with corporations using their power to advance far-left agendas.”

“Eli Lilly is violating a basic principle of business,” added Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research. “Don’t disrespect your customers, lest they disrespect you in return. Eli Lilly might claim its activism on lesbian and gay rights and gender identity issues was done to be inclusive, but the path Eli Lilly chose unnecessarily excluded others. The religious protections Eli Lilly opposed have been around for years. Everyone’s rights and freedoms could have been respected.”

“Eli Lilly does business in places where people have no basic civil rights,” Ridenour continued, “including the right to practice the religion of their choice. In that light, I suppose it is not odd that the company is standing against the continuation of long-held religious protection laws here in America. It appears likely that religious freedom is not its thing. Standing up for it certainly isn’t.”

The National Center’s complete shareholder resolution, and Eli Lilly’s response to it, can be found on pages 56 and 57 of the company’s proxy statement, which is available for download here.

Eli Lilly petitioned the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, seeking to block the National Center’s proposal. However, the National Center’s legal team, also led by Danhof, prevailed in convincing the SEC that its proposal was so significant that the company’s shareholders should have a say on the matter.

The entire legal exchange between Eli Lilly and the National Center, along with the SEC’s decision, can be downloaded here.

After Danhof presented a similar proposal ton General Electric’s investors last week, he also made these observations about the current state of the national debate over religious freedom laws:

“Religious freedom laws in the United States, whether federal or state, simply set a high bar for government action that might interfere with an individual’s deeply held religious beliefs. To pass such an infringing law, the government must prove that it has a compelling interest in doing so, and if the government can reach that compelling interest by other means, the courts will direct it to use those other means. That’s all these laws do. The public debate over these laws are often void of these very basic facts.”

“Furthermore, the left’s newest attack on religious liberty has all the trappings of a fundraising ploy. Many liberal organizations spent years raising hundreds of millions of dollars in the fight to legalize gay marriage. Perhaps winning that battle too quickly left a hole in the movement and the pockets of pro-gay marriage leaders. In that light, it is easy to understand why they concocted this fake outrage over basic religious freedom that has been a non-controversial issue in American jurisprudence for hundreds of years and a matter of state and federal law since the early 1990s.”

Earlier this year, Danhof presented a similar proposal to Apple. For more information about those meetings and shareholder resolutions, see here, here and here.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group focusing on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. In 2014-15, National Center representatives participated in 69 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues. Today’s Eli Lilly meeting marks its seventh shareholder meeting of 2016.

 The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here or follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter.

Share

Harbinger Man: ‘The time is now to prepare’

Author and Bible teacher Jonathan Cahn says he has been so swamped with questions and concerns about the looming end of the Shemitah year on Sept. 13 that he can’t answer them all.“We have been deluged with people calling, emailing, asking questions from all over […]

Source: Harbinger Man: ‘The time is now to prepare’

Share

Sen. Baldwin: 1st Amendment Doesn’t Apply to Individuals

1st Amendment’s free exercise of religion protections don’t apply to individuals – just institutions – Sen. Baldwin (D-WI) believes.

Source: Sen. Baldwin: 1st Amendment Doesn’t Apply to Individuals

Share

Bill would allow Maine Amish hunters to wear red instead of orange

*Editor’s Note* – Let’s forget about the “religious” aspect of the whats and whys of the Amish request to be exempt from wearing blaze orange when they hunt. That is a day-long debate with no end in sight. Consider what we have been told when the government forced hunters to wear blaze orange. And now consider what we are being told in regard to why a proposed exemption for the Amish bill should be passed.

The idea of blaze orange, we were told and everyone believes, was to be “safely” spotted by other hunters in the woods during deer season. It wasn’t just good enough that hunters HAD to wear an article of bright orange, it had to meet certain luminous minimum standards and cover head and a major portion of the torso. In addition to this forced requirement on the people, the law was changed that basically said a hunter was 100% responsible for any decision to pull the trigger and what happens to the bullet once it leaves the breech.

If all of this government intrusion is so important to the safety of everyone, why then should there be any exemption from participating in a government-mandated program?

If we look at the article, linked to below, read what lawmakers and others are telling us now about how there shouldn’t be any concern if Amish hunters hit the woods in red instead of hunter orange.

1. The Amish faith prohibits the use of bright colors
2. Amish hunters are forced to use the bright, fluorescent hunter orange to comply with safety regulations
3. the requirement to wear orange clearly conflicts with the Amish’s religious beliefs.
4. We should all be free to stick to our religious convictions
5. They just want to have the same opportunities as other hunters in Maine. (They do already.)
6. remedy the situation in the Legislature “while at the same time maintaining high hunting safety standards in Maine.”
7. The senate president said he did not believe safety would be an issue.(emboldening added).
8. “With all of the current laws and the hunter safety classes, we are past the time when people just point a gun at anything that moves and shoot it,”(emboldening added).

If the Maine Senate president and the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Committee’s “some concern for safety,” are right, then why is there a requirement by the government to make anybody wear hunter orange? This makes no sense at all.

One might even ask if a “religion” prohibits wearing bright colors but allows for killing wild animals, what kind of “religion” is that? In addition, it would seem to me that if hunting is so important to certain members of the Amish faith, then the Amish “religion” needs to draw up their own exemptions to laws. Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to ask of another something they are not willing to do?

If the Maine Legislature agrees to pass legislation exempting the Amish from wearing hunter orange, then one of two things, or both should also happen: 1. Wearing of blaze orange should become optional for everyone, and 2. Hunters who might accidentally shoot an Amish hunter, not wearing orange, will not be held responsible for “accidentally” shooting someone.

Mind you these suggestions are based on what we have been told about hunter safety, the effects of being forced to wear hunter orange clothing and what we are being told now about safety should not be an issue if the Amish don’t wear orange. Evidently we have moved beyond that requirement.

Hunting is a privilege and is deeply ingrained into the fabric of Maine’s heritage. Everyone, of legal status, has the right to purchase a license and hunt…legally, and all participants must abide by the laws that regulate hunting…this includes the wearing of blaze orange. A person chooses their religion. If providing an exemption to the Amish to not wear bright colors is good enough for the Amish, then it should be good enough for everybody.

I suggest that if the Amish provide their own exemptions to allow their followers to hunt.

AUGUSTA, Maine — Emergency legislation was submitted Tuesday to allow Amish hunters to wear red items of clothing instead of the standard orange during hunting season. The Amish faith prohibits the use of bright colors, but Amish hunters are forced to use the bright, fluorescent hunter orange to comply with […]

Source: Bill would allow Maine Amish hunters to wear red instead of orange — Politics — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine

Share

CEO Confronted for Hypocrisy and Inaccuracy on Religion and Gay Rights

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Leading Good Governance Group Blasts Marriott CEO Arne Sorenson for Calling Religious Liberty Law “Madness”

National Center for Public Policy Research Confronts Marriott CEO for Comments Against Freedom of Faith at Annual Meeting of Marriott Investors

Hypocrisy Abounds: Sorenson and other Corporate Leaders Such as Apple’s Tim Cook Blast Indiana’s Religious Freedom Efforts While Making Money in Countries Criminalizing Homosexuality

Corporate Leaders Join With Liberal Media in Creating False Discrimination Hysteria – Religious Freedom Laws CAN and DO Exist in Harmony with Civil and Human Rights Protections for Gay Americans

Washington, DC – At today’s annual meeting of Marriott shareholders in Washington, D.C., the National Center for Public Policy Research blasted the hotel giant’s CEO, Arne Sorenson, for comments he recently made disparaging Indiana’s religious freedom restoration law and, by extension, all Americans of faith.

“Sorenson did apologize and assured me that is was not his intent to impinge upon anyone’s religious liberties,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. “But that’s the problem, intent aside, his words added to the growing storm of anti-religious sentiment that is sweeping the nation.”

At the Marriott meeting, Danhof stated:

According to the Washington Post, our CEO thinks that religious freedom has no value in our country. Referring to Indiana’s religious freedom law, Mr. Sorenson called it “madness” and “idiocy.” Mr. Sorenson joined an echo chamber – led by the leftist media – in distorting what Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs) are all about. He should be embarrassed.

The federal government and 31 states have RFRAs and none of them legalize discrimination against anyone. What Mr. Sorenson and the media have done is to distort common sense laws to attack Americans of faith. You show me a gay couple who can’t find someone willing to bake them a wedding cake and I will show you liars. What the left has done, in the words of esteemed law professor Richard Epstein, is to give the law its “broadest possible construction and then give a parade of horribles, none of which have ever occurred.”

Danhof then asked:

Despite Sorenson’s outlandish attacks on Indiana’s law, Marriott does business in many countries where homosexuality is outlawed and homosexuals are imprisoned and even killed.

So my question is this: will Marriott cease all business operations in countries where homosexuality is illegal and will it also cease business with the U.S. federal government and close its hotels in the 31 states because of their religious freedom laws?

To read Danhof’s entire question, as prepared for delivery, click here.

“Sorenson basically told me that he wanted to ensure that Indiana’s law was written in a way that would allow the state to continue to attract commerce and where folks would be welcome. This just shows his profound ignorance regarding the issue. Nothing in the law would legalize discrimination,” said Danhof. “Furthermore, he told me that is was clear that we weren’t going to agree on the issue. There is nothing to disagree about. I am correct about the legal realities of religious freedom laws. Sorenson is spewing claptrap.”

“It is clear to me that Sorenson does not understand what religious freedom laws are all about. This shows the danger of a CEO, whose expertise is likely in business operations and finance, commenting on a legal and policy issues outside of their comfort zone. His comments did tremendous damage to Marriott’s brand,” added Danhof. “Sorenson is not a Constitutional scholar, and relying on the liberal media to tell the truth is a fool’s errand.”

“The federal government’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act has been the law of the land for more than 20, years and 31 states have similar laws protecting religious freedom. In that entire time, has anyone been denied a hotel room because of their sexual identity?” said Danhof. “The liberal cry of anti-gay discrimination is hollow. Religious freedom laws do not legalize discrimination. The liberal media is simply lying about this issue. It is shameful that corporate America has joined in this echo chamber of misinformation.”

“In fact, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was co-authored by the late Senator Ted Kennedy, a liberal icon, and signed into law in 1993 by another liberal hero, then-President Bill Clinton. I don’t recall the leftist media ever attacking Kennedy or Clinton for creating a federal law to discriminate against homosexuals. RFRA laws simply make the government show a compelling reason if it takes an action that restricts someone’s religious freedom. That’s it. Any suggestion that these laws endorse discrimination is a lie,” added Danhof.

“With his outburst about Indiana, Sorenson joined with corporate leaders such as Apple CEO Tim Cook in declaring war on Americans of faith. By specifically attacking religious freedom restorations laws, they are implying that the federal and state governments should have more power to restrict religious practices and beliefs,” said Danhof. “It is a very scary proposition that we have powerful corporate leaders urging our government to wield more control over American lives. It is especially scary when it burdens something so sacrosanct as the American ideal of freedom of religion.”

“It certainly strange that Sorenson feels so strongly about Indiana yet he would say silent about persecution of homosexuals in certain countries where Marriott does business. Surely Marriott’s management has thought about the persecution and lack of basic human rights in various countries in which they do business, and, no doubt, pay taxes, and if they have thought about it, why wouldn’t they share their thinking when asked for it at a shareholder meeting? And if Marriott’s management has not thought about the immense persecution that exists in certain countries in which the company does business, then why was the company’s CEO concerned about a religious freedom law in Indiana that does not cause any persecution at all?”

Mr. Sorenson’s comments to Danhof were lengthy and Danhof did not have access to recording equipment to capture them in full. Marriott, however, says it plans to upload the full audio of the shareholder meeting to its website at some unspecified future time.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market activist group focusing on shareholder meetings and big business. So far in 2014-15, National Center representatives have participated in 67 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and many other important public policy issues.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here or follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter.

Share

Who? Religious Extremistists

ChristiansMuslims

Share

Obama as Anti-Biblical

“So perhaps the most accurate description of his antipathy toward Catholics, Protestants, religious Jews, and the Jewish nation would be to characterize him as anti-Biblical. And then when his hostility toward Biblical people of faith is contrasted with his preferential treatment of Muslims and Muslim nations, it further strengthens the accuracy of the anti-Biblical descriptor. In fact, there have been numerous clearly documented times when his pro-Islam positions have been the cause of his anti-Biblical actions.”<<<Read More>>>

Share