“The American Bar Association is being warned that a proposed ethics-rule change that would punish attorneys who support traditional marriage violates the U.S. Constitution because the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision establishing “same-sex marriage” also protected religious beliefs. …In an interview with WND, Kallman pointed out that Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in the marriage decision concluded the 14th Amendment protects self-identity. “He specifically links to our rights as enunciated in the Bill of Rights,” Kallman said. “So if you find your identity in Christ … we would argue, Justice Kennedy has created another layer of protection.” Kallman said he and others believe that is a “valid interpretation,” and he is urging lawmakers in Michigan to establish processes to implement that protection. …That means, they explained, that the Supreme Court “determined that this new fundamental constitutional liberty right of personal identity is found in, and protected by, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. In effect, in addition to any First Amendment religious protections that exist, a person now has an additional, new, fundamental constitutional right to his or her religious self-identity, and is therefore entitled to have these constitutional rights protected under the 14th Amendment.” –Source

This is one of the many things I can’t stand about politics and especially political lawyers. Even though they knew day one when the Vatican controlled United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) allowed for homosexual marriage, the politicians, and this runs the gamut on both sides of the isle, said absolutely nothing about the way the law was penned which thanks to the 14th amendment automatically protected religious beliefs. Knowing that, they still went after that Christian Bakery Shop wherein they shut them down and fined them $135,000 for refusing to bake cakes for a homosexual couple. Why didn’t anyone mention the built in protection in the SCOTUS’ decision? Why is it we’re only hearing about it now?

No-brainer?

The way I see it, they allowed for the so called protection to be acknowledged in the law so as to allow the whole ball of wax an easy road to approval by pandering to some in the court that had an expressed issue with it. Could be Justice Scalia knew what they were up to and ignored the tactic and opposed it anyway, or he just agreed to play the part of opposition to prevent a majority vote as I’ve stated before. In any event, the court system in America is an obvious mess from top to bottom.

This all reminds me of the political pork that is added to just about every Bill by corrupt politicians who know their additions would have no chance of passage on their own, so they tack them on as riders to a Bill they know everyone wants and needs passage on. That way some prophesied unjust laws can be passed by riding on the coat tails of another law.

So, again, could it be that the “protection” already penned into law by SCOTUS was allowed to be there so as to schmooze some of the judges into going along with the homosexual marriage idea while suggesting, as appears to be the case with the Christian bakers, the protection itself wasn’t going to be mentioned publicly?

So why have it in there at all?

When I look at how the Christian Bakers were attacked and purposely placed on their own without the so called protection that was already written into the law via the 14th amendment, which the SCOTUS decision supposedly highlighted, and how months later some lawyer in Michigan points out the fact they should have been protected all along, one can see Vatican politics running amuck in this. They knew they had to puff up homosexuality as per Vatican command, so out of the gate some Christians will have to be targeted to that end.

Still, I can’t help think they would have preferred the “protection” not be brought to light until much later; when it is necessary to supposedly protect the “Christians” which are nothing more than masquerading Catholics by now. When that day comes, and it will, the so called “protection” can then be implemented to further the agenda towards religious law. Hence the reason Law Professor Kane stated in the article that “this ruling was not limited to same-sex marriage.”

Every obedient student of prophecy could see that being the case on day one. After all, it’s been part of the present truth message all along. Any mention of religiosity in Federal courts is always going to be a red flag towards prophetic fulfillment when it comes to Sunday Laws. Reality dictates they have to start somewhere. Jumping right into the Roman Sabbath on day one simply won’t fly. They need to set up the legal foundation well in advance for THE Antichrist (Satan incarnate) to be able to demand Sunday laws when he eventually gets here. And as we see by all the religious talk in in politics now-a-days, that day is racing towards us on greased rails. But don’t expect the majority and even most Christians from seeing that. Jesus wasn’t kidding when He said it will be as it was in the days of Noah. Everyone ignored all the signs and warnings of Noah. Jesus said in Matthew 24:39, “And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” Almost everyone alive at that time will not understand or even listen to the warnings UNTIL the sky splits!

So, when we look at how Rome runs politics today so as to keep the confusion well oiled, yes, it all appears a messy tangled web of deception, but then the prophet Daniel did say this beast in Rome would be very crafty in how it sets up shop against the people of God. There is a reason that supposed protection is in that law just as much as there’s a reason those Bakers in Oregon were never told about it. Playing both ends against the middle works well for Rome. Always has and always will. Well.. at least until their long awaited death knell is rung without human hands.