The War Against Christianity: The “Gay Mafia” Vs. Elaine Photography

gay marriageSuppose that you are a small business owner, who just happens to be a Christian, and you own a doughnut shop. Through your door walks a young man, positively reeking of marijuana usage, cursing at the top of his voice to someone on the other end of his cell phone, with his pants “saggin'” half-way down his rear,showing his boxers to everyone who sees him..

Do you have the right to to refuse service and ask him to leave?

Most Americans would say that you do.

In fact, according to RasmussenReports.com, the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that free exercise of religion extends to how you run your business.

For example, if a Christian wedding photographer who has deeply held religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage is asked to work a same-sex wedding ceremony, 85% of American Adults believe he has the right to say no. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only eight percent (8%) disagree even as the courts are hearing such challenges.

That being said, have you heard about what happened in New Mexico?

Last Thursday, the Supreme Court of New Mexico decided that a small business, Elaine Photography,  violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA).

The judge ruled that their refusal to phtograph the “gay wedding” of  Vanessa Willockand her “partner”, violated the act, which “prohibits a public accommodation from refusing to offer its services to a person based on that person’s sexual orientation”.

According to Justice Richard C. Bosson, the case “provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice.” He also said that the case “teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less.”

Bosson wrote in his ruling that the owners of Elane Photography, Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin, “are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish” Nevertheless, in the “world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different.”

Doing so, Bosson wrote, is “the price of citizenship.”

The ruling upholds a grant of summary judgment for Willock against Elane Photography by New Mexico’s Second Judicial District Court and holds that Elane Photography’s free speech rights were not violated. The case was first decided by the New Mexico Human Rights Council, which ordered Elane Photography to pay Willock $6,637.94 in attorneys fees and costs. Elane Photography appealed to the Second Judicial District Court based on the court’s original and appellate jurisdiction.

The Hugueins were made an example of because they stood strong in their Christian Faith. They believe that a marriage consists of one man and one woman.

Guess what? New Mexico law agrees: it has no legal same-sex civil unions or same-sex marriages.

And, you know the kicker? There were other photographers in the Albuquerque area who could have photographed the ceremony.

The Free Exercise Clause,found in the First Amendment to the Constitution, protects our absolute freedom of belief. According to our Founding Fathers, religious liberty is a natural right.

Congress 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 ensures that all people have an equality of rights to practice their faith. Although it was originally written to apply to actions of the federal government, it was incorporated into state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment by the Supreme Court in the case Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940).

The Free Exercise Clause was a direct descendant of the English Bill of Rights, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. The English Bill of Rights expanded religious freedom for Protestants who did not attend the Church of England, but not for Catholics or non-Christians. The Virginia Declaration of Rights held that “all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion.” The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom asserts that “all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion.

The First Amendment also guarantees all Americans the right to Freedom of Association.

All Americans, including us Christians, may peacefully assemble with whomever we choose, whether it’s in a church building on a Sunday morning, or a church-sponsored small group in someone’s home on a Tuesday night.

As Americans, we have the right to practice our faith 7 days a week, at home, in our community, and in our business.

This activist judge, as in the case of the homosexual activist judge in California overruling the vote of the people, who had voted against allowing gay marriage in that state, overstepped his bounds, trumping the Free Exercise Clause for the sake of Popular Culture and his own Political Ideology.

Remember when the whole gay marriage brouhaha started being the cause celebre for Gay Activists and their Liberal supporters? They went around assuring us that they would not force anyone, whether small businesses or churches, to be involved in the organization or performance of their phony “marriage” rituals.

They lied.

As I, and others have insisted all along, this is a political movement, spearheaded by a political ideology, whose express purpose is the remake the fabric of our society. They wish to make what was once considered deviant behavior by both popular culture and academia, by the use of the word “marriage”, “normal”.

Ask the Roman Empire how that worked out for them.

Heck, ask Modern European Nations, who have put God in a box in their “enlightened” societies, how things are working out for them, as a Modern version of the Barbarian Hordes who destroyed Rome, radical Muslims, install Sharia Law in their countries,

American churches and their leadership will be sued, next, and forced to perform gay marriage rituals or pay an exorbitant fine. 

Don’t be surprised if a ruling comes down from the Halls of Power that preaching against Homosexuality as a sin, becomes a “Hate Crime”.

America’s free-fall down the oft-referenced “Slippery Slope” of Relative Morality and Situation Ethics has kicked into high gear.

Caligula’s Horse approves.

Until He Comes,

KJ

The War Against Christianity: Don We Now Our Gay Apparel?

American ChristianityIn a Friday Evening Announcement, word got out that the Supreme Court has decided to hear arguments concerning California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act.

Per ABC News:

The Supreme Court’s announcement that it would hear two cases challenging laws prohibiting same-sex marriage has reinvigorated one of the most hotly contentious social debates in American history, a debate that has been fueled by a dramatic change in attitudes.

With some states taking significant steps towards legalizing gay marriage, the hearings come at a critical moment.

This week in Washington State, hundreds of same-sex couples lined up to collect marriage licenses after Gov. Christine Gregoire announced the passing of a voter-approved law legalizing gay marriage.

“For the past 20 years we’ve been saying just one more step. Just one more fight. Just one more law. But now we can stop saying ‘Just one more.’ This is it. We are here. We did it,” Gregoire told a group of Referendum 74 supporters during the law’s certification.

Washington is just the most recent of several states to pass legislation legalizing same-sex marriage, signifying a significant departure from previous thinking on the controversial subject.

A study by the Pew Research Center on changing attitudes on gay marriage showed that in 2001 57 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage, while 35 percent of Americans supported it.

The same poll shows that today opinions have greatly shifted to reflect slightly more support for same-sex marriage than opposition — with 48 percent of Americans in favor and 43 percent opposed.

In fact, just two years ago, 48 percent of Americans opposed same-sex marriage while only 42 percent supported it — indicating that opinions have changed dramatically in the last couple of years alone.

The question a lot of Christian American Conservatives, like myself ,are asking, is: What if we end up like Canada?

From catholicexchange.com in 2008:

In a decision that foreshadows the possible fate of Fr. Alphonse de Valk, Canada’s leading pro-life voice among Catholic clergy, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal has forbidden evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson from expressing his moral opposition to homosexuality. The tribunal also ordered Boisson to pay $5,000 “damages for pain and suffering” and apologize to the “human rights” activist who filed the complaint.

The complaint stems from Canada’s debate leading up to state legislation recognizing so-called same-sex marriage. In 2002, the pastor wrote a letter to the editor of his local newspaper in which he denounced the homosexual agenda as “wicked” and stated that: “Children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.”

The activist subsequently filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission — a quasi-judicial body that investigates alleged discrimination within the Canadian province. The government tribunal published its decision [http://albertahumanrights.ab.ca/Lund_Darren_Remedy053008.pdf] on May 30.

While agreeing that Boisson’s letter was not a criminal act, the government tribunal nevertheless ordered the Christian pastor to “cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” Moreover, the tribunal’s decision “prohibited [Boisson] from making disparaging remarks in the future” about the activist who filed the complaint and witnesses who supported the complaint. Many of Canada’s religious leaders and civil libertarians have expressed concern that the government’s human rights tribunals are interpreting any criticism of homosexual activism as ‘disparaging’.

The tribunal also ordered Boisson to provide the complainant with a written apology for his letter to the editor. This last requirement threatens civil liberties in Canada, said Ezra Levant, a Jewish-Canadian author and lawyer. Levant, himself the target of an Alberta Human Rights Commission investigation, is facing the possibility the state may order him to apologize as well.

If activist judges, as in the case of California, can negate the will of the American People concerning allowing “Adam and Steve” to “marry”, why can’t they call preaching against homosexuality a hate crime?

The following is Article 17 of the Baptist Faith and Message, found at sbc.net.

God alone is the Lord of the conscience and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of god, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things no contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.

While God’s word does tell us to honor and obey our leaders, we are also warned of the consequences of  being given over to “a reprobate mind”.

Do the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah ring a bell?

The general consensus by political pundits is that the Court will rule that each individual state must decide for itself whether to allow homosexuals the use of the word “marriage” to describe their “union”.

So far 9 states have voted in favor of gay marriage. The other 41, or 48, if you believe the president, have not.

Liberal propaganda will be flying hot and heavy, both before and after the Supreme Court’s ruling.

The majority of the 78% of Americans who still proclaim Christianity won’t be listening to the Liberals’ bloviating, though.

We listen to a  Higher Authority.