The United States has an acute, and questionable, citizenship problem.

Based solely on religion and the influence of one segment of the Christian religion, the president instituted a ban on Muslims entering the country.

Although he claimed this was to limit the number of potential terrorists that might enter the country, none of the countries known to have sponsored terrorism, and may even have financially supported it, was on the list.

Recently the president rescinded protections for people whose parents had brought them here when they were too young to make any decision on their own, only to be now punished for the offense of their parents who crossed the border illegally..

The above people are all from foreign lands, but, Mr. Trump’s animus to people not like himself also extends to American citizens.

Although in his acceptance speech for the party’s nomination at the Republican National Convention he attempted to be willing to protect the GLBT Community from mistreatment, he was careful to state the Community would only be protected from foreign mistreatment, not domestic.

And now, as if to make that distinction clear, the Justice Department has filed a brief that defends a baker who refused to bake a cake for a couple’s wedding because he does not approve of Gay weddings

A case is before the Supreme Court involving a 2012 refusal by Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding reception. A complaint filed by the couple with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission claimed that the state’s public accommodations law had been violated, and the commission agreed.

The couple sued Phillips and won in the Colorado court system.

For those GLBT people who believed that Trump was our very best friend with no evidence, only his claim to be, although the case was at first declined by the Supreme Court, after Neal Gorsuch, Trump’s choice for Justice, was confirmed the numbers changed and it will now be heard.

According to the baker, baking a cake for a wedding is asking him to participate in the wedding. He also claimed that wedding cakes are artistic expressions protected by the First Amendment.

The lower courts, however, ruled that baking cakes is his job, and is not similar to his being in a studio creating art that may or may not get displayed and bought, and that his refusal is discrimination.

Male enlargement pills are basically used to reinforce the nervous system as well as soft tadalafil to regulate brain sensitivity to stimuli. The one that suits you best is dependent upon your specifichealth situation. 1.) levitra from india levitra is an FDA-approved oral prescription medication for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED) in men. It is the bestselling anti-impotency medicine but it is expensive. uk tadalafil levitra prescription cost Put your order now and have your products delivered home. Trump’s Justice Department claims that, while discrimination based on race might be discriminating, anti-gay discrimination is not.

A the brief states,

“A State’s ‘fundamental, overriding interest’ in eliminating private racial discrimination – conduct that ‘violated deeply and widely accepted views of elementary justice’ – may justify even those application of a public accommodations law that infringe on First Amendment freedoms. The Court has not similarly held that classifications based on sexual orientation are subject to strict scrutiny or that eradicating private individuals’ opposition to same ex marriage is a uniquely compelling interest.”

Th Justice Department is not arguing to protect citizens’ Constitutional rights, but to take them away. The department is supporting an exemption to anti-discrimination laws

It also holds that that baking a wedding cake, with or without any writing on it, is a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment.

“Weddings are sacred rites in the religious realm. When Phillips designs and creates a custom wedding cake for a specific couple and a specific wedding, he plays an active role in enabling that ritual.”

In response, the ACLU pointed out

 “This brief was shocking, even for this administration. What the Trump Administration is advocating for is nothing short of a constitutional right to discriminate.”

If a person buys a gun in a gun shop and then kills someone with it, are the dealers responsible because they agree with the purchaser’s use of that gun for whatever reason the buyer chooses to use it?

That possibility had to have crossed the gun shop owner’s mind when he sold the gun.

There is also the possibility that if discrimination based on an individual’s personal religious beliefs is supported, it could apply to other circumstances and allow for discrimination based on race, religion, creed, color, marital status, and disability as each of these is condemned in one form or another in the Bible, or at least people’s interpretation of it.

If the Trump Administration’s argument prevails, lower courts will have a much harder time ruling in favor of GLBT people in discrimination cases.

One person’s discrimination against another because of some real or convenient religious “belief means we will go back to the days when discrimination divided us as a people.

Remember history.