SILENCE IN THE NORTH CAROLINA ACTION WILL PROVE DEADLY TO THE CHURCH

 By Rev. Mario Gonzalez Jr., Esq.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

I write this, not as a pastor, but as an attorney, concerned citizen, and most importantly as a Christian.  While I understand that the church may not officially attempt to influence legislation without endangering its tax exempt status, the church may well be in a catch 22 situation here.

After the decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the church and overall faith community had clearly been put on notice that they are facing a very real and present danger of losing public funding for any community based initiative that they might seek to undertake, as well as their tax exempt status, an act which will then both impose corporate taxation of any income received by the church beyond that required to cover expenses at the highest corporate tax rate in the world (on tithes and offerings), as well as the taxation of all presently tax-exempt real property owned by the church.

The end game, now being masterfully implemented by a Justice Department emboldened by the most liberal, anti-church president in U.S. history, is to criminalize orthodox Christian/Jewish/Muslim behavior by falsely alleging that such behavior, protected by the First Amendment, is violative of the federal Civil Rights Act and federal law, and and then shoving the SCOTUS holding in Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983) down the collective orthodox throats of the faith community.

Once this strategy is fully implemented, it will lead to the closing of countless churches and other houses of worship throughout the United States. Why? Because many small congregations of all orthodox faiths throughout the U.S. are presently barely able to meet their monthly mortgage payments or even to pay their ministers, let alone pay high corporate taxes on their income and property taxes on their real estate holdings. Many have survived by helping their communities through community initiatives subsidized by public grants. This will SHORTLY no longer be possible.

North Carolina’s legal action affords the faith community their collective “LAST LEGAL STAND.” The legal tide can be turned in this new case by use of the SCOTUS holding in Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) which differentiates discriminatory "intent" from discriminatory "effect." The key is understanding the fact that though the so called “bathroom” law may be regarded by some, or perhaps by many, as arising from discriminatory intent, if it can be legally proven that it is in fact based on a concern over public safety and state economic concerns and not as a result of an intent to discriminate, both areas that fall under the protection and purview of state law, then the law would not be considered unconstitutional and would be upheld. 

Contrary to what is being promoted by the media and interest groups who could care less what the majority of parents in the United States desire for the protection of their children, parents, and houses of worship, the North Carolina law is admittedly based on the realistic understanding that it is a State’s right and responsibility to protect its citizenry from perceived dangers. In this case, protecting both children and the elderly from individuals who may gain access to public restrooms by falsely claiming to identify as women simply to use the access then granted to hurt innocents. In terms of “numbers,” simply citing the absence of documented cases to justify the public concern is inadequate, as only minimum scrutiny is required for laws imposed by the government in order to protect public safety and the economic well-being of the state. If only a few of the vulnerable parties may rationally be hurt by not imposing the new law, this is good enough legally. That is, the State must simply show that the law is rationally related to achieving a legitimate government end. If the local church remains silent at this juncture for the sake of political correctness, it will solely be responsible for is own very quiet economic demise. 

www.gonzlawgroup.com

#gonzlawgroup

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mario-Gonzalez/104864159567451#

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA’S PASSING - THE FIGHT TO PROTECT OUR CONSITUTION IS NOW OURS.

By Mario Gonzalez Jr., Esq. - www.gonzlawgroup.com

Today, America lost one of its greatest heroes. An Italian-American icon dedicated to defending the Constitution with every fiber of his being. A man who recognized the erosion of the family unit in America as the greatest threat to its stability, who understood the Constitution to be a document that, like any other document, should be read and analyzed as expressing the thoughts and values of the authors that wrote it at the time of its writing. A document much too precious to be twisted and contorted to support sentiments and ideologies anathema to the very patriots who poured their hearts, souls and minds into its drafting.

I can’t tell you how many times I thought of custom designing a T-Shirt with his name and likeness on it that I could wear around my law school just to freak my professors out. Every time Scalia was derided during a discussion at law school by the backhanded comment of some confused liberal, my heart was broken. I saw his critics as lost souls, adrift in a sea of legal and logical instability destined to be helplessly marooned on an island of conflict and confusion by their fundamentally flawed ideologies.

Even in his controversial decision on Employment Div. v. Smith, 484 U.S. 872 (1990) which ultimately prompted a religious backlash and evidenced the need for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993), I understood and agreed with Justice Scalia’s much criticized opinion. Justice Scalia penned the Court’s decision in Smith holding that though the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects the right of individuals to believe whatever they wish, it does not necessarily protect an individual’s right to act on that belief when doing so violates a neutral, generally applicable state law governing criminal behavior the state has a Constitutional right to regulate though its police power.  In Smith, it was Oregon’s right to regulate the use of an illegal drug (Peyote) for religious purposes. However controversial, his decision in this case demonstrated Scalia’s consistent commitment to protecting an individual State’s rule of law. His steadfast support for state sovereignty and his commitment to limit the scope of the federal government’s ability to interfere with this Constitutional right was invariable.

I secretly shuddered in fear when I envisioned what it would be like to have a Supreme Court without Justice Scalia. But in my heart I was comforted in knowing that Justice Scalia would continue to hang-on, if only to protect the Constitution until a President was elected that would properly select another constitutional originalist to fill his place. He hung on as long as he could, protecting the Constitution to his last breath. We now have the most liberal president in the history of our country poised to submit an appointee to the Supreme Court that will worsen the constitutional imbalance already present in this historically liberal Court.  If ever conservatives needed to erect an impregnable firewall to a potential presidential appointee to SCOTUS it is now.

What is at stake? Let me make it simple for you - the country.  Simply put, SCALIA’S REPLACEMENT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT WHO THE NEXT PRESIDENT WILL BE. The next president’s influence over our country is constitutionally limited to no more than eight (8) years. Conversely, the decisions of a newly appointed Supreme Court Justice will affect us for generations to come. We cannot now allow what Scalia’s life stood for to be lost with his death. The fight to protect our beloved Constitution now passes to you and me.