How advanced is the rot? - today's edition

This advanced:

ChristianMingle.com, an online dating service for Christian singles, must start allowing people to seek out same-sex relationships under a judge-approved settlement.

ChristianMingle only required new users to specify whether they’re a man seeking a woman or a woman seeking a man. Two gay men filed class-actions claims against the site’s owner, California-based Spark Networks Inc., claiming that the site’s limited options violated California’s anti-discrimination law, The Wall Street Journal reported.

State law requires businesses to offer “full and equal” accommodations and services to people regardless of their sexual orientation.

For now, ChristianMingle will only ask a user whether he or she is a man or woman. Spark Networks agreed that within two years, it would adjust other features to give gay singles a more tailored experience, the Journal reported.

The terms approved by a state judge Monday also applied to other Spark-owned sites that had operated in the same fashion, including CatholicMingle.com, AdventistSinglesConnection.com and BlackSingles.com, the Journal reported.

Spark agreed to pay both men $9,000 each and $450,000 in attorneys’ fees. The company didn’t admit any wrongdoing as part of the agreement, the Journal reported.

The family that owns Ralph's Thriftway in Olympia, Washington have likewise experienced the tyranny of post-American judges whose mission is to eradicate Christianity:

The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear a case challenging a Washington state law that forces a family-owned pharmacy to dispense emergency contraceptives is an “ominous sign” for those who value religious freedom, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said.

“If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern,” Alito said Tuesday in a critical dissent.

Alito was joined in his dissent by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Clarence Thomas, falling one justice short of the four needed for the court to accept a case.

The case involves the Storman family, owners of Ralph’s Thriftway, a small, family-run grocery store and pharmacy in Olympia, Wash. In 2007, after Washington state passed a law that requires all pharmacies to dispense “all lawfully prescribed drugs or devices” in a timely manner to all customers, the Stormans found themselves in the cultural crosshairs.

Because of their Christian belief that life begins at conception, the Stormans objected to dispensing drugs such as Plan B that they believe aid in the destruction of human life.

 

Under the state law, denying Plan B could result in the Stormans losing their pharmacy license.

The Stormans then entered a long legal battle. In February 2012, a federal court struck down the law as unconstitutional. The court found “abundant evidence” that the law was designed to force religious pharmacists and pharmacy owners to violate their faith.

But last July, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, upholding the law mandating pharmacists to dispense legal drugs and devices. The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case today allows the 9th Circuit’s ruling—and the law—to stand.

If a customer at Ralph’s Thriftway requests a drug such as Plan B, employees refer customers to other local pharmacies that do carry the drug. According to court documents, over 30 pharmacies and drug stores within five miles of Ralph’s carry Plan B, and none of Ralph’s customers has ever been denied timely access to Plan B or other emergency contraceptives.

Alito, in his dissent, suggested the 2007 law, which is unique to Washington state, was designed specifically to target Christian believers.

“There are strong reasons to doubt whether the regulations were adopted for—or that they actually serve—any legitimate purpose,” Alito wrote, adding:

And there is much evidence that the impetus for the adoption of the regulations was hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the State. Yet the 9th Circuit held that the regulations do not violate the First Amendment, and this court does not deem the case worthy of our time.

Kristen Waggoner, a senior attorney at Alliance Defending Freedom who has defended the Stormans for a decade, expressed disappointment that the high court opted not to take the case.

“All Americans should be free to peacefully live and work consistent with their faith without fear of unjust punishment, and no one should be forced to participate in the taking of human life,” Waggoner said in a prepared statement. “We had hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court would take this opportunity to reaffirm these long-held principles.”

The freedom-God-and-decency-haters / death-lovers have pretty much completed their mission of fundamental transformation.