Penna Dexter
Nine years ago, the United States Supreme Court issued the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision that brought same sex marriage to every state. This — despite the fact that 31 states had specifically defined marriage in their laws and constitutions as being between one man and one woman.
Many Americans still hold to that definition of marriage, especially people of faith.
During oral arguments in Obergefell, Justice Antonin Scalia, asked, “Is it conceivable that a minister who is authorized by the state to conduct marriage can decline to marry two men if indeed this court holds that they have a constitutional right to marry?” Then he said, “I don’t see how.”
So far, the government has not forced churches and pastors to marry same sex couples. But public officials who perform marriages often experience opposition when they refuse to do so.
One such official is Dianne Hensley, a justice of the peace in McLennon County, Texas. She has refused to perform same sex weddings and thus received a reprimand from the State Commission on Judicial Conduct citing a violation of judicial impartiality. She now refers same sex couples to nearby officiants. Because of the public warning, she currently does not perform any weddings but, in order to serve her community, she would like to resume doing so.
In Obergefell, all nine justices affirmed that religious liberty should be protected. This was a slender reed to hang onto. Kelly Shackelford, President and CEO of First Liberty Institute, predicted that, post-Obergefell, religious liberty would come under attack.
Now the organization he leads is representing Judge Hensley in her quest to win the right for any justice of the peace in Texas to opt out of same sex weddings while still performing other weddings.
The TX Supreme Court recently ruled that Judge Hensley can challenge this warning in court, on the basis that her religious freedom is being violated. She’s fighting an important battle. 

Kerby Anderson
It’s time to have a meaningful conversation about tipping, for two reasons. First, there is a significant reaction to the expectation of tipping. Andy Kessler writes about “The Tyranny of Tipping.” Second, tipping may become a political issue. Donald Trump declared in Nevada: “When I get to office, we are going to not charges taxes on tips.”
Why do we tip? Historically, it goes back centuries. Andy Kessler talks about London taverns in the 17th century that suggested tipping “to insure promptitude.” Or to put it in modern terms, “to insure prompt service.” Frankly, many customers tip today because a percentage is already on the credit card screen. It is easier to add a tip than to zero it out and then feel guilty.
Most of us are glad to tip people who perform an important service. The frustration comes when we are asked to tip at a fast-food restaurant where we must pick up the food, take it to the table, refill our own drinks, and then throw away our garbage.
The social and economic consequences of tipping are significant. The IRS reported $38 billion in reported tips a few years ago. This would likely mean a loss of income in taxes. But what might this do to human behavior? Will employers pay less since they assume that workers are getting tax-free income? Will other professions start asking to be paid in tips?
Here’s another question. If we no longer tax tips, will they go up or down? According to the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers receive a tip credit between $2.13 per hour and the federal minimum wage. In a sense, your tips now pay part of a workers’ base salary. Will that increase or decrease?
America needs to get ready to have a serious conversation about tipping.