Faith-Based Institutions Will Be Affected By Possible Favorable Gay Marriage Ruling

th1DXO5NI3Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. – The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

You have seen me write, time and time again, that it is funny how those among us who claim to be the most tolerant, are actually the least of all.

The “Gay Mafia” is a prime example.

As with any liberal, as long as you believe what they believe, you’re one of the smartest people in the room. However, as soon as you cross them, and stand up for your own Christian Heritage of Faith, you are labeled a stupid “Christianist” and/or an inbred hillbilly.

Additionally, when the voters of a state get together to express their opposition to homosexual marriage through their right to vote, the Gay Mafia finds a sympathetic judge to rule that marriage is a “Civil Right”, instead of a Holy Sacrament…a bond between a man and a woman, ordained by God.

The problem that Christians and Conservatives alike face is the fact that being Pro-homosexual marriage is the “cool” thing to be now.

Even if it is at the expense of the First Amendment.

ChristianPost.com reports that

WASHINGTON — The lead attorney representing the Obama administration admitted before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday that if the court were to rule in favor of making same-sex marriage a constitutional right, it would create a religious liberty “issue” for faith-based schools and institutions, who could be at risk of losing their tax-exempt statuses.

As the Supreme Court listened to oral arguments regarding whether the 14th Amendment requires states to issue same-sex marriage licenses, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli tried to dodge a question from Chief Justice John Roberts, who asked him whether or not religious schools which have married housing would be required to provide housing to same-­sex married couples.

The solicitor general, which is the third highest ranking official in the Justice Department and is appointed to speak on behalf of the Obama administration in court cases, provided a winded answer to Roberts about how it is the states that are responsible for setting their civil laws.

Roberts continued prodding Verrilli by saying that even though states set their laws, the federal government has “enforcement power,” which Verrilli admitted was true but reasoned that there is no federal law “now” that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Justice Samuel Alito followed up and asked a pointed question regarding whether religious schools could have their tax-exempt status revoked for not providing same-sex couples with housing. Alito referenced the 1983 Bob Jones University Supreme Court case, which ruled that the Internal Revenue Service could revoke the school’s tax-exempt status for refusing to accommodate interracial married couples with housing.

“So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same­-sex marriage?” Alito asked.

It was clear that Verrilli did not want to answer that question but offered an offhand remark assuring that a ruling in favor of gay marriage would create some issues.

“You know, I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics but it’s certainly going to be an issue,” Verrilli stated. “I ­­ I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is, it is going to be an issue.”

Speaking at a Heritage Foundation panel on Wednesday, which discussed Tuesday’s oral arguments, Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director for the Judicial Crisis Network, explained that Verrilli’s answer indicates that the Obama administration is looking to “preserve the ability to remove tax-exempt status from institutions, like religious universities.”

“What this exchange shows is that the administration wants to leave the door wide open to do [removing tax-exempt statuses],” Severino told The Christian Post after the panel. “Not that they could really be bound, necessarily, by the statements here but the solicitor general does not want to, even in furtherance of winning this case, because him saying ‘Don’t worry, that won’t happen,’ that would actually help him in this case. Even though that would help his case, he said, ‘I am not going to say that. We are not going to go there.'”

“Frankly his answer to Chief Justice Roberts a minute earlier more or less admitted that the federal government could say this case could force a religious college to open its married housing to a married same-sex couple if they were married under laws of the state,” Severino added.

Severino also explained that such a ruling in favor of constitutional gay marriage would create a “head-on collision” with religious expression.

“That ought to give a lot of people cause to say that this is an absolute head-on collision potentially with religious liberty because the arguments that are being made on the other side are so extreme here,” Severino stated.

Severino reasoned that if such a ruling could cause tax-exempt status issues for Christian universities and schools, it could also present religious freedom conflict for faith-based charities and other organizations also.

“There isn’t any reason to say that it clearly wouldn’t extend to charitable organizations, potentially even to removing tax-exempt status from a house of worship, which is a slightly different argument but I can see people trying to make that argument,” Severino asserted. “Taking the tax-exempt status thing would be a gigantic step and a very serious blow to a lot of institutions, all sorts of charitable institutions that are run by religious organizations from Salvation Army on down.”

“Just imagine if all of those groups were not tax-exempt anymore and what impact that would have on their ability to serve the poor the way they are attempting to do and live out their faith,” she continued.

Severino expects that the potential for conflict with religious liberty will somehow weigh into the case’s outcome even if the court decides to constitutionalize gay marriage.

“Those potential collisions were brought out and will affect the way the justices decide this case because I think that Justice [Anthony] Kennedy is not going to want to have that kind of collision with religious liberty, and any of the justices ought to be concerned with the potential of further limiting the religious liberty at this point,” she said. “Perhaps, even if it doesn’t mean that is going to affect the outcome entirely, it may affect the way that the opinion is written in a way to have less of a risk to steamroll religious freedom.”

Democratic Presidential Hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton recently stated that religion would have to “change” in order to allow the American Genocide known as Abortion.

Today’s American Liberals, from Barack Hussein Obama on down to the Internet Troll, sitting at his computer in his Mom’s Basement, munching Cheetos, want Christians, like myself, to “change” our view on homosexuality, in order to proclaim Adam and Steve as husband and…err…husband.

What they do not understand, nor wish to, is the fact that man did not label it as deviant behavior and a “sin”.

GOD DID.

His Word, as revealed in the Old and New Testaments, with the Holy Bible, states that fact, over and over again.

Christianity is not something that can be boxed in, from 9 a.m. to 12 Noon on Sundays, as the President and the rest of the Gay Mafia seem to want it to be.

Nor can it be changed and modified to fit a culture which is currently embracing relative morality and situational ethics.

God’s Word, as is its Author, is eternal and unchanging.

The Supreme Court Justices must understand that, by undermining the Faith of Our Fathers, they are undermining the Solid Rock from which sprang forth the principles upon which our country was founded.

The future of America is in their hands.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness – these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. … And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” – President George Washington’s First Inaugural Address,  April 30, 1789    

Until He Comes,

KJ

The War Against Christianity: No “Bless You(s)” Allowed

American Christianity 2If you spend any time on Political Websites and Facebook Pages, you will notice that Liberals, who often claim to be “the smartest people in the room”, accuse us Conservatives of not being “independent thinkers”, who blindly follow “our leaders”. When pressed to define who “our leaders” are, they usually weakly fire back “Rush Limbaugh”, who is in fact not a Political Leader, simply the nation’s most popular Conservative Talk Show Host.

Some Liberal Professors from the University of Winnipeg recently performed a study, which disproved their previously-held views of this Liberal Mythology.

The study, “Political Conservatives’ Affinity for Obedience to Authority Is Loyal, Not Blind,” is published in the September issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , and posted at Christianpost.com.

Neither liberals nor conservatives are more or less likely to demonstrate blind obedience to authority, a new study finds. One of the authors of the study wrote that he used to believe that conservatives suffered from blind obedience while liberals were open minded.

Jeremy Frimer, professor of psychology at the University of Winnipeg, believed that the source of conservative political views was “slavish obedience to authority and tradition,” he wrote in a Thursday op-ed for The Huffington Post.

“If only conservatives would think for themselves — like liberals do — the war would be over and we could get on with life, governance, and progress. Or so I thought,” he recalled.

Those views began to change, however, on a trip to Cuba in 2012. In a conversation with a Brazilian couple touring the many shrines to famed Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara on the island, Frimer discovered that even questioning why there should be so many shrines was considered offensive.

Frimer also recalled a conversation with a liberal schoolteacher who believed it was important for his students to become “dedicated liberals,” and a conservation with a liberal aid worker who would have preferred living under a liberal dictatorship to living under a democratically elected conservative government.

Previous studies showing conservatives are more likely to show blind allegiance to authority figures only used examples of figures that most would consider conservative, such as a police officer or religious authority, Frimer noted. But what if, he thought, these experiments included authority figures that liberals look up to?

So in his experiment, Frimer, along with fellow University of Winnipeg researchers Dr. Danielle Gaucher and Nicola Schaefer, asked respondents about their obedience to liberal authority figures as well, such as environmentalists. They found that liberals showed more obedience to liberal authority figures, conservatives showed more obedience to conservative authority figures, and when the authority figure was neutral, liberals and conservatives were about the same.

“Rather than thinking of liberals and conservatives as being fundamentally different psychological breeds, I now think of them as competing teams. Liberal versus conservative is like Yankee fans versus Red Socks fans. Each has its own flag to which it pledges allegiance. And each side has its own authorities to which it demands obedience,” he wrote.

Uh huh.

I disagree with those Canadian Professors’ conclusion that neither side is blindly politically-driven.  I believe that there is more politically-driven stifling of Americans’ Constitutional Rights coming from this Administration and their Far Left sycophants that any other time in our nation’s history.

What is happening in American Society today is a divisiveness , unlike any other The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave has ever seen before.

It is a deliberate divisiveness, across political, social, and faith-based lines. I have referred to it in the past as “The New Facism”. An example of it happened earlier this week, right up the road from me in Dyer County, Tennessee. Todd Starnes of Fox News reported that

Kendra Turner was brought up right. She’s the kind of kid who says “yes sir” and “no ma’am.”  She was “raised up right,” with good manners as they are prone to say around Dyersburg, Tennessee.

So it was not out of character for Kendra to say “bless you” after a fellow classmate sneezed. But that common courtesy landed the 18-year-old in hot water.

Kendra said she was rebuked by her teacher at Dyer County High School and thrown out of class for violating the teacher’s ban on the words “bless you.”

The school would have us believe that a child telling a classmate “bless you” after a sneeze somehow caused a classroom commotion so severe it warranted a punishment? It’s a good thing Kendra didn’t offer her classmate a tissue.  
“She said that we’re not going to have godly speaking in her class and that’s when I said we have a constitutional right,” Turner told Memphis television station WMC.

Another student sent the television station a photo taken inside the teacher’s classroom showing a list of banned words. Among the censored words are “dump,” “stupid,” “my bad,” “hang out” and “bless you.”

She wrote about her incredible story on Facebook. It was then picked up by the MomDot.com blog and then, as they say these days, the story went viral.

“I stood up and said, ‘My pastor said I have a constitutional right – 1st amendment freedom of speech,’” Kendra wrote on Facebook. “She said, ‘Not in my class you don’t.”

Kendra says she was tossed out of the class and sent to the principal’s office where things apparently went from bad to worse.

“The assistant principal said if I didn’t want to respect my teacher’s rules then maybe my pastor should teach me because my freedom (of) speech and religion does not work at their school,” she wrote.

As you might imagine the school has a very different take on what happened inside that classroom.

“We can’t discuss discipline issues because of right to privacy of students,” assistant principal Lynn Garner told the Dyersburg Gazette. “But I can say there are two sides to every story. Sometimes people spin things and turn them to make them seem one way.”

The assistant principal said Kendra was sent to In School Suspension as a matter of protocol. She was allowed to leave at the end of the class period.

“In this case, this was not a religious issue at all, but more of an issue the teacher felt was a distraction in her class,” Garner told the newspaper.

To be clear – the school would have us believe that a child telling a classmate “bless you” after a sneeze somehow caused a classroom commotion so severe it warranted a punishment? It’s a good thing Kendra didn’t offer her classmate a tissue.  

Kendra’s pastor is among those not buying the school’s explanation and he’s taking a public stand in defense of the young girl.

“I believe this young lady,” said Steven Winegardner, the pastor of the Dyersburg First Assembly of God. “Everything she said took place.”

Winegardner told me he’s hoping students will lead a petition drive to force the school to overturn the classroom ban on the words “bless you.”

“Christians have been told to be quiet, to shut up,” he said. “It’s ridiculous. Everybody has a right to their beliefs. I’m glad Kendra stood up.”

Winegardener’s wife told WMC that the teacher had issues with other students using the words “bless you.”

“There were several students that were talking about this particular faculty member there that was very demeaning to them in regard to their faith,” she told the television station.

Every now and then a story will land on my desk that seems too outrageous to be true. And to be certain there are two very different versions of what happened in that classroom.  But I’m prone to believe Kendra, too.

That’s because Tuesday, a school official tried to convince me this young lady was a trouble maker. They were clever with their words – but that was the impression I received.

That same school official told me there was no ban on the words “bless you.” But a classroom photograph proves otherwise.

They said she was not punished. But Kendra’s pastor saw the slip of paper that ordered her to In School Suspension.

For whatever reason, the school will not explain why the teacher has an issue with the words “bless you.”  This one is a head-scratcher, folks. But one thing is clear – religious intolerance is nothing to sneeze at.

Do you remember when New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said that Conservative Republicans,

Right-to-life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.

and New York City’s Communist Mayor, Bill DeBlasio, publicly agreed with his remarks?

Imagine if the Governor of the state of Mississippi proclaimed that all Democrats, Liberals, and libertarians, gay or strait “had no place in the state of Mississippi because that’s not who Mississippians are”.

Oh, Lawdy.

Democrat Pundits, and Liberal and small “l” libertarian Politicians, on both sides of the aisle, would have a bigger conniption than that of Michelle Obama, if she were told that she had to pay for her own vacations.

Funny. If “political correctness” does not emanate from the mouths of “the enlighted”, it sounds just like hateful bigotry…doesn’t it?

Until He Comes,

KJ