1

Persecution and Perspective

Remember the prisoners as if chained with them—those who are mistreated—since
you yourselves are in the body also.
~Hebrews 13:3

Where are Christians suffering the most for their faith? Nigeria and China would be very good answers. In both countries, suffering for the sake of Christ is very real, although the suffering takes on different forms in each nation.

China, the largest country in the world in terms of population, is still dominated by a communist government that, since coming to power, has killed an estimated 60 million people (this estimate is likely on the low end). Numbers of this magnitude are almost impossible for us to grasp.

Praise the Lord that despite this almost unbelievable adversity, there are still many Christians in China. These believers choose to follow Christ, knowing full well that they will most likely suffer because of their faith.

One of many inspiring stories of courage and suffering is that of Early Rain Covenant Church in Chengdu, China. This faithful congregation grew from 63 members in 2008 to approximately 500 members today.

In December 2018, the Chinese government started directly attacking this congregation. To date, more than 200 members of this church have been arrested, though most have been released. In 2019, church elder Qin Defu was sentenced to four years in criminal detention. Pastor Wang Yi was sentenced to nine years in criminal detention. Beyond arrest, the government has also seized church and personal property. Many families have faced the cruel reality of eviction from their homes and even deportation from the city of Chengdu.

A recent update reported that Preacher Wu Wuqing and his family have been locked into their homes by government forces. Guards now surround their residences.

Nigeria is the largest country in Africa, with a population of almost 220 million. It is unique in that it is both one of the largest Christian and Muslim countries in the world.

It is estimated that, since 2015, over 12,000 Christians have been murdered simply because they are not Muslim. Many, many more have been displaced by violence as the Fulani Tribesmen invade rural villages and unleash a targeted genocide against Christians. This suffering is in addition to the great harm caused by another Muslim terrorist group, Boko Haram.

Recently more than 125 students from a Baptist school were kidnapped. In the following six days, at least thirty-three Christians were killed, four churches were burned, and hundreds of homes were also burned.

Again, it is very difficult for us to fully appreciate the atrocities that take place in China and Nigeria. Yet, the call of Scripture is to remember, to remember all our brothers and sisters in Christ, to remember we are part of the body of faithful believers all over the world.

It is important to keep these things in mind so we have the right perspective on what we, as Christians, face in our nation. It would be wrong to try to directly compare what American Christians face with what believers in China, Nigeria, or many other countries face. But, at the same time, it is also foolish to ignore the very many stories of harassment and even government-sanctioned persecution against faithful believers in the U.S.

While we shouldn’t exaggerate or directly compare the trials of faithful Christians in America with the suffering of those in China or Nigeria, we must not ignore or forget the stories of believers like Jack Phillips (Masterpiece Cakes), Barronelle Stutzman (Arlene’s Flowers), Aaron and Melissa Klein (Sweet Cakes by Melissa), Jim and Beth Walder (Timber Creek Bed and Breakfast), Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski (Brush and Nib Studios), and, no doubt, many others whose stories have not been as widely publicized.

As best we can, we must stand with faithful believers both in our nation and around the world. We need to pray, give, and learn more about what is happening, and then share that information with those who are unaware of the moral, spiritual, and legal attacks perpetrated against Christians in our nation.

We must keep a proper perspective and not be ignorant of these matters.

Please learn more by visiting these websites:

1] Persecution.com

2] chinapartnership.org/early-rain-covenant-church

3] acts29.com/nurturing-gospel-encouragement-in-suffering

4] The Crisis of Christian Persecution in Nigeria

5] adflegal.org





It’s All Queer, All Year

What if I told you that a community of American citizens who are defined by a set of subjective, self-disclosed, and self-defined characteristics and personal behaviors have designated at least 163 days of the calendar year to national and international observances honoring their choices? What if I also told you that the group made up only a fraction of the U.S. population? What would you think?

You would probably have two questions: who are these people and what gives?

“These people” are members of the LGBTQ+ syndicate and we’re right in the middle of their annual “LGBT Pride Month.” If you think 30 days of celebrating anal sex, leather bondage, gender confusion, self-mutilation, sadomasochism and other expressions of sexual anarchy might seem like more than enough, you’re wrong. They’re only halfway through the year and you’ve already missed:

Aromantic Awareness Week, Bisexual Health Awareness Month, Day of Silence, Harvey Milk Day, International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia, International Holocaust Remembrance Day, International Non-Binary People’s Day, International Stand Up to Bullying Day, International Transgender Day of Visibility, Lesbian Visibility Day, National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day, National GLBT Health Awareness Week, No Name-Calling Week, Pan Visibility Day, Pulse Night of Remembrance and Zero Discrimination Day.

Although you probably weren’t aware of these observances, don’t worry. There’s plenty more for you to engage with. Beginning at the end of June with the Stonewall Riots Anniversary, the rest of the year offers:

Ally Week, Asexuality Awareness Week, Bisexual Awareness Week, Celebrate Bisexuality Day, International Drag Day, International Lesbian Day, International Non-Binary People’s Day, Intersex Awareness Day, Intersex Day of Remembrance (or Intersex Solidarity Day), LGBT History Month, National Coming Out Day, Pan Pride Day, Spirit Day (annual LGBTQ awareness day), Trans Parent Day, Transgender Awareness Week, Transgender Day of Remembrance and World AIDS Day.

The only month not represented by any of these annual observances is August, which is kind of like a seventh inning stretch (only longer). After all, you’ve got to take some time off from all that observing!

A couple of the observances are understandable. International Holocaust Remembrance Day and the Pulse Night of Remembrance honor the homosexual victims of both events, none of whom deserved losing their lives to madmen.

But the rest? The most curious thing about all this is the inverse relationship of their minority status with their complete domination of the Gregorian calendar. Eleven million people have staked a claim to 45% of available days which seems, I don’t know, excessive. Imagine some version of the 10-member Glee Club appearing on every other page of the high school yearbook. For comparison, the nine largest world religions representing 5.5 billion people (or about 80 percent of the world’s population) observe 138 days combined. Christianity, the largest of the nine with 2.4 billion followers, only observes 12 days.

What gives?

A quick analysis reveals four main themes behind the designated LBGTQ+ observances: 1) to raise awareness, 2) to prevent bullying, 3) to honor select people or events and 4) to celebrate. If we break down the 35 observances I cite by theme, here’s what we find (some observances have multiple themes):

Theme Number of events Number of days
Raise Awareness 14 127
Prevent Bullying 14 29
Honor Select People/Events 9 38
Celebrate 6 6

 

This tells us “what gives.” The majority of these observances (28 of 35) are to “raise awareness” and to “prevent bullying,” which account for 95 percent of designated days (156 of 163). The LGBTQ+ community is extremely concerned about educating the rest of us about their proclivities and suppressing any kind of bullying.

I will be the first to say that no one, including members of the LGBTQ+ community, should be bullied. Bullying is cruel and unloving, no matter the reason. “‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’” says Jesus. The only problem with the anti-bullying initiative is that none of those days make a clear and explicit distinction between bullying and moral disapproval. While bullying does happen and should be opposed, one wishes that the LGBTQ+ folks would heed their own advice and stop bullying people like Jack Phillips, Barronelle Stutzman, or Aaron and Melissa Klein.

As far as being “educated” or having my “awareness” raised, does anyone seriously think that we need more awareness of the LGBTQ+ crowd? They are represented in music, film, television, advertising, sports, science, federal government, state government, city government, the military, business, education, children’s programming, legal mandates, law enforcement, dedicated parades and, as of this writing, we have an openly gay (and “married”) man running for president of the United States.

It may be true that back in the 1960s, people who called the LGBTQ+ community home were an obscure minority. But that’s no longer true. What is true is that the over-indulgence of the queer-all-year calendar is no longer just about becoming visible, but about pushing an agenda. In fact, that’s what it’s been all along.

The LGBTQ+ movement isn’t just “educating” us; it is indoctrinating us. It isn’t just opposing bullying; it’s demanding no resistance at all. The 163 days are 163 days of impressions being made on you, your children and our society. It’s how advertising works.

“Because of this repeated ‘nudging’ effect, advertising achieves best results on market share when it maintains a continuous presence and a sufficient weight relative to competition. (We also know this to be largely true because brands, on average, gain or lose share of market when their ‘share of voice’ becomes larger or smaller.)”

As further evidence, in their 1989 book, “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s,” Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen wrote, “Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are ‘not Christian’ and the propaganda can further show them homosexuals as being criticized, hated and shunned…” (p. 152-153). Madsen earned “a doctorate in politics from Harvard and was an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing.”

The more impressions you receive, the more inclined you are to choose the advertised product over a competitor’s. In this case, the “competitor” is the Church. For example, Chai Feldblum, a lesbian and leading gay rights activist, a former law professor at Georgetown University, and an Obama-era appointee who served almost nine years as the Commissioner of the EEOC, said during an interview in 2006 that she was “having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win,” when religious and sexual liberties competed.

Fifteen years ago Albert Mohler, Jr., wrote,

“There can be no doubt that Christianity represents the greatest obstacle to the normalization of homosexual behavior. It cannot be otherwise, because of the clear biblical teachings concerning the inherent sinfulness of homosexuality in all forms, and the normativity of heterosexual marriage.”

If you are a believer and you (or your children) participate in any of these so-called “Pride” observances, you have been seduced by a lie. Refuse to participate any longer and “be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil” (Ephesians 5:15-16).

No group needs 163 days of recognition. It’s all propaganda, part of a master plan for the LGBTQ+ consortium to acquire more power, pressure society into approving sexual anarchy and, ultimately, to destroy the Church.



IFI Fall Banquet with Franklin Graham!
We are excited to announce that at this year’s IFI banquet, our keynote speaker will be none other than Rev. Franklin Graham, President & CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Christian evangelist & missionary. This year’s event will be at the Tinley Park Convention Center on Nov. 1st.

Learn more HERE.

 




Conflicts Between Religious Freedom and the Gay Agenda Trouble Most Americans

A few weeks ago, I shared the findings of an extensive national survey conducted by the Barna Group covering religious freedom, religious monuments and displays.

They have passed along the internals of another large national poll looking at attitudes toward sexual orientation, gender identity and religious freedom.

These results are timely given the U.S. Supreme Court’s move this week to scold the Oregon Court of Appeals for imposing a $135,000 fine on Aaron and Melissa Klein, a Christian couple who owned a bakery and did not want to participate in a homosexual wedding.

The Kleins lost their life savings and were forced to shut down their business because of the conflict over their religious beliefs. They were also the victims of vandalism, threats, and public harassment.

The U.S. Supreme Court is asking the state to review their actions in light of a ruling involving a similar situation in Colorado where the nation’s highest court found that baker Jack Phillips’s 1st Amendment rights were violated by the Colorado Equal Rights Commission.

While people’s views on homosexuality and gender are clearly in a fluid state, U.S. adults overall are against radical changes being made to accommodate LGBTQ demands and expectations.  Most adults do not want the government punishing people of faith, especially Christians, for following their beliefs, and most do not want the government to impose standards of belief or behavior simply to appease LGBTQ desires.  They want the government to remain neutral in its dealings with religion.

Here are a few of the findings from this March 2019 survey:

• The highest response to any question or statement, with 84% agreement, was “Each law must respect every citizen’s freedoms, no matter who they are.”

• Three out of four adults (77%) agreed that the government should remain neutral when it comes to religion, it should not be in the business of deciding whose faith is or is not acceptable because such decisions amount to discrimination against people of faith.

• Seven out of ten (72%) of adults agree that the government punishing individuals for living out their deeply-held religious beliefs is a form of discrimination.

• Two out of three adults (65%) disagreed that the government should have the right to ban personal, gender specific pronouns such as him, her, his, hers, male or female and to punish people using those terms.

• Sixty-four percent (64%) agreed that the vast majority of Christians and other people of faith who believe homosexuality is wrong do not hate gay and lesbian people.

• Six out of ten adults (60%) agreed that laws that punish people who hold traditional views on gender identity and sexual orientation with fines, censorship or jail are unjustly discriminatory.

• Sixty-one percent (61%) of adults agree that there are only two genders – male and female – not a range of genders

• Nearly six out of ten adults (59%) said that state governments should not have the legal authority to force Christian-owned businesses to close if the business chooses to not serve a same-sex wedding or event.

• Roughly the same portion (58%) agreed that there is no reason to single out and punish adoption providers who believe that the best home for a child includes a father and a mother.

• Surprisingly, only half (51%) say that it is not appropriate for a biological male who now identifies as a female to compete in women’s sporting events.

People seem the most agitated by the possibility of the government cracking down on people simply because they hold to traditional views on sexuality, or because they use traditional language to communicate about homosexual issues and gender.

The pollsters note that a large share of people hold opinions on matters that they do not feel strongly about, so under pressure, it is possible that their views could be changed to a different position.  What was once not even an issue for public discussion has become a morass of feelings, facts, and beliefs that many do not know how to resolve.


This article was originally published at AFA of Indiana.




U.S. Supreme Court Hands Christian Bakers Win in Same-Sex Case, Vacates Lower Court

Written by Michael Foust

The U.S. Supreme Court handed religious liberty advocates a victory Monday when it vacated a lower court’s opinion that had ordered a Christian baker to design a cake for a same-sex wedding.

At issue was a ruling by the Oregon Court of Appeals that upheld a state decision forcing Aaron and Melissa Klein to pay a $135,000 penalty after they refused to design a cake celebrating a wedding for a lesbian couple. The Kleins eventually closed their business, known as “Sweet Cakes by Melissa.”

The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday issued a one-paragraph order vacating the judgment and sending it back down to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals of Oregon for further consideration in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n,” the unsigned order read.

Masterpiece was a 2018 ruling in which the Supreme Court sided with a Colorado baker who refused to design a wedding cake for a gay couple. Former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy ruled the Colorado Civil Rights Commission demonstrated hostility toward religion when it ordered bakery owner Jack Phillips to design the cake.

The Kleins are represented by First Liberty Institute.

“This is a victory for Aaron and Melissa Klein and for religious liberty for all Americans,” said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty. “The Constitution protects speech, popular or not, from condemnation by the government. The message from the Court is clear, government hostility toward religious Americans will not be tolerated.”

First Liberty had hoped the Supreme Court would hear oral arguments and expand on its Masterpiece decision. The high court, though, punted on that decision.

First Liberty filed suit after the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) ruled the Kleins had violated a law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. The BOLI also handed down a $135,000 penalty. The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled against the Kleins, and the Oregon Supreme Court declined to take the case.

“The State of Oregon drove Melissa and Aaron Klein out of the custom-cake business and hit them with a $135,000 penalty, because the Kleins could not in good conscience employ their artistic talents to express a message celebrating a same-sex wedding ritual,” First Liberty’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court read.

The Kleins “opened and operated” their baker as an expression of their Christian faith,” the petition said. Further, they believe “God instituted marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

They served all customers “regardless of sexual orientation.” They even had sold a cake to one of the lesbian complainants in the case for her mother’s marriage to a man. But they could not, the petition said, create a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding.

“The Kleins created these cakes, in part, because they wanted to celebrate weddings between one man and one woman,” the petition said. “The Kleins do not believe that other types of interpersonal unions are marriages, and they believe it is sinful to celebrate them as such.”

The state’s order violated the First Amendment, the First Liberty petition argued.

“Unless this Court enforces the First Amendment,” the petition said, “similar cases will continue to arise, as creative entrepreneurs are compelled, under the guise of public accommodations statutes, to participate in same-sex marriage rituals that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs, or – as the Kleins did – to sacrifice their livelihood.”

The Thomas More Society, Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Cato Institute were among the groups that asked the Supreme Court to side with the Kleins. The attorneys general for 11 states also issued a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the Kleins. Those states were Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia.


This article originally posted on ChristianHeadlines.com




Religious Liberty Wins, For Now.

Written by Sean Maguire

Based on a quick survey of news articles and blogs on Mississippi’s law, HB 1523, you could conclude that gay, lesbian, transgender, and people who have sex outside of marriage, are about to be in great danger.

That is because the news articles and blogs are filled with hyperbole about how hated these groups of people must be. You will read about how scared lesbian women are when they travel to Jackson. You will read that opponents of the law say unmarried women will not be able to get birth control. You will read that people will be “hurt” and won’t have access to health care and governmental services. You will read that this law “leaves LGBT people in Mississippi in the crosshairs of hate and humiliation.”

And that’s about all that you will read about it. Based on the news reports alone, this law sounds like the worst thing ever to happen in Mississippi.

So it was fair to assume, based on the news and blogs, that the Supreme Court would protect the people of Mississippi from such a terrible law. Yet, the Supreme Court didn’t do that. This week, the high court announced that it isn’t going to hear the challenge brought against this law.

This is good news for the Mississippi government, which passed the law in the first place. But is it bad news for all the people the news and blogs have been crying out for?

Journalists, bloggers, and even Business Councils have talked about the “environment of discrimination” that this law might generate.

The name of this law is the, “Protecting Freedom of Conscious from Government Discrimination Act.”  So there’s no doubt, the law is about discrimination.

It’s telling that only one of the news articles called this act by its name. All the others, and all the blogs, called it “HB 1523” or “The Religious Freedom Act.”

Instead of talking about the dangers of governmental discrimination against religious persons, all the news articles and blogs have been going on about the dangers of discrimination by religious persons.

In reality, this law will not result in a discriminatory environment against individuals.

(This law does nothing to change the state of the law against individual discrimination. Churches are already allowed to make hiring decisions based on their religious beliefs. Individuals are already allowed to discriminate against same-sex weddings. This was reported in the one news article that actually called the act by its name.)

The “Protecting Freedom of Conscious from Government Discrimination Act” does just that. It protects religious individuals and organizations from discrimination by the government. After what we’ve seen done to Jack Phillips in Colorado, Baronnelle Stutzman in Washington, Kevin Cochran in Atlanta, Aaron and Melissa Klein in Oregon, and so many others, that kind of protection is definitely warranted.


Article originally posted on FamilyFoundation.org.




12 Recent Cases Where Christians Were Punished for Their Beliefs on Marriage

Written by Stoyan Zaimov 

The Family Research Council has compiled a reporting listing 12 cases this past decade in America where Christian business owners have been punished or threatened with punishment for holding traditional beliefs about marriage in order to comply with anti-discrimination laws regarding gay people.

The list began with the 2006 case of Elane Photography, where Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin refused to provide photography for a same-sex wedding between two women, as it went against their beliefs on marriage. They were sued for their refusal to provide the service, and although they went all the way to the New Mexico Supreme Court, the state’s anti-discrimination laws won over their religious freedom rights, and they were ordered to pay nearly $7,000 in attorneys’ fees.

As The Washington Post reported, the state human rights commission had found that the Huguenins violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act in their refusal to photograph the wedding.

“When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races,” the court argued at the time.

The full list of cases, available on the FRC website, goes all the way up to Carl and Angel Larsen of Telescope Media Group, who are facing the danger of being fined up to $25,000 in damages if they refuse to provide media and film services to gay couples on their weddings — and so they filed a suit earlier this year asking Minnesota law to protect them from being compelled to violate their faith.

The other 10 cases are:

  • Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association (2007)
  • Wildflower Inn – Jim and Mary O’Reilly (2011)
  • TimberCreek Bed & Breakfast – Jim Walder (2011)
  • Masterpiece Cakeshop – Jack Phillips (2012)
  • Sweet Cakes by Melissa – Aaron and Melissa Klein (2013)
  • Arlene’s Flowers – Barronelle Stutzman (2013)
  • Liberty Ridge Farm – Cynthia and Robert Gifford (2013)
  • Gortz Haus Gallery – Dick and Betty Odgaard (2013)
  • The Hitching Post Wedding Chapel – Don and Evelyn Knapp (2014)
  • Brush & Nib Studio – Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski (2016)

FRC’s report explains in its conclusion that the First Amendment is meant to protect all Americans and their right to practice their faith.

“Requiring a cake-baker, wedding photographer, or other artisan to promote a message that contradicts sincerely-held, personal beliefs certainly violates the First Amendment,” the conservative group argued.

“Compelling artists who support natural marriage to speak a particular message by forcing them to participate in a particular event violates the principles of the First Amendment and oversteps the historical use of public accommodation laws,” it added.


This article was originally posted at ChristianPost.com




Another Bakery Faces Attack as Sweet Cakes Story Gains National Attention

From First Liberty

Last week, First Liberty Institute attorneys announced their legal representation of Aaron and Melissa Klein—owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa who were forced to pay a $135,000 penalty to the Oregon government for declining to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.

In addition to widespread media attention from news outlets across the country, Aaron and Melissa shared their story with America last Friday night on FOX’s The Kelly File.

“[I]t’s not something I ever thought I’d have to fight with the government over,” Aaron said of his faith-based stance on the issue of marriage. “This was something I believed should never be happening in this country.”

But it is happening—and not only in Oregon to Aaron and Melissa Klein.

A TEXAS COUPLE UNDER ATTACK FOR THEIR FAITH

In mid-February, a family-owned bakery in Longview, Texas declined to make a same-sex wedding cake—and they are now reaping the same hate-filled repercussions as the Kleins did in 2013 (and still feel today).

David and Edie Delorme own Kern’s Bake Shop, which has been in business in Longview, Texas since 1918. As devout Christians, David and Edie are committed to operating their bakery in a manner that honors God. In the past they have consistently refused to bake alcohol, tobacco, gambling, or risqué-themed cakes.

When two men requested a cake for their same-sex wedding, Edie politely informed them that Kern’s Bake Shop did not make same-sex wedding cakes, and offered to provide a list of other bakeries in Longview that could fulfill the couple’s request.

Nevertheless, the incident soon appeared in a local newspaper, igniting a firestorm of hostility and even death threats toward the Delormes, their family, and their business from places as far away as New York and California.

“Americans value and protect our freedoms – especially freedom of expression and religious liberty,” said Mike Berry, Senior Counsel for First Liberty Institute. “In order for America to remain free and prosperous, we must secure the rights of small business owners to operate their businesses according to their beliefs.”

Though no lawsuits have been filed against Kern’s Bake Shop yet, David and Edie heard about First Liberty’s defense of Aaron and Melissa Klein, and preemptively retained First Liberty Institute as legal counsel.

HOPE—FOR THE KLEINS, THE DELORMES, AND ALL AMERICANS

Attacks are spreading against Americans who embrace religious tenets teaching that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman, as evidenced by the Delormes’ experience just a few weeks ago.

But there is hope for religious freedom, even surrounding this hotly contested issue. For example:

  • The same majority opinion that legalized same-sex marriage in Obergefell last June reaffirmed religious liberty for those who maintain that marriage is between one man and one woman. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote,

The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons…In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate.

  • First Liberty’s social media pages prove that the “open and searching” debate Justice Kennedy talked about is increasing, while hate speech and threats are decreasing. The response on social media to First Liberty’s announced representation of the Kleins last week was overwhelmingly positive and consisted of constructive debate—a stark contrast to the barrage of hostile, lewd, or extreme comments that often flood social media in response to controversial issues. According to First Liberty’s social media team, the response was more positive than anticipated—and could mark a change of heart regarding the religious liberty rights of Americans who simply want to run their business according to their faith.
  • The best constitutional lawyers in the country are working with First Liberty to win these cases. First Liberty’s unique volunteer attorney model harnesses the legal firepower of constitutional attorneys from many of the nation’s top law firms. Passionate about defending religious freedom, these lawyers give their time to First Liberty Clients pro bono.

Working on the Aaron and Melissa Klein’s case is The Honorable Boyden Gray, former White House Counsel for President George H. W. Bush, former Ambassador to the European Union, and founding partner of Boyden Gray and Associates.

“America is a great nation because we celebrate diversity of thought,” stated Ambassador Gray. He emphasized:

“Our rights to free expression and religious liberty are some of our most cherished American freedoms. We must safeguard these rights for every American – including Aaron and Melissa Klein.”

Thanks to God’s grace and volunteer attorneys like Ambassador Gray, First Liberty wins over 90 percent of its cases.

IN THE BALANCE—PROTECTIONS FOR PEOPLE OF FAITH

But while the hope is undeniable, so is the threat. And despite progress in the conversation surrounding religious freedom and marriage, threats and hate-filled messages continue to bombard the Kleins and the Delormes personally.

“If these small business owners can come under attack for their faith, what does that say about our perspective on liberty?” asks Berry. “We need to respect the rights of all Americans to live together peaceably, even if they have a difference of opinion. That’s what freedom means.”

First Liberty’s attorneys are committed to ensuring Americans like Aaron and Melissa Klein and David and Edie Delorme are free to live out their faith, and are preparing for the Kleins’ case to possibly go before the United States Supreme Court.

If the case does go to the U.S. Supreme Court, it will be one of the first cases to answer two new questions America is now facing, said Ken Klukowski, First Liberty Senior Counsel and Director of Strategic Affairs on The Kelly File last Friday:

[I[f someone has sincerely held religious beliefs that are mainstream beliefs on an issue like marriage, can the government punish them for speaking those beliefs, and can the government order them, as [the Kleins have] been ordered to, that they can’t discuss aspects of their beliefs?”

Click here to receive updates from First Liberty Institute as these cases progress

Click here to read more information about Aaron and Melissa Klein’s case

News and Commentary is brought to you by First Liberty’s team of writers and legal experts.




American People Say “No” to Judicial Tyranny. They Reject the Pop Culture Narrative

The Family Research Council released a new WPA Opinion Research poll showing that 61 percent of Americans agree that “states and citizens should remain free to uphold marriage as the union of a man and a woman and the U.S. Supreme Court should not force all 50 states to redefine marriage.” The survey also found that 53 percent of Americans agree that marriage should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman.

An overwhelming majority (81 percent) of Americans agree that government should “leave people free to follow their beliefs about marriage as they live their daily lives at work and in the way they run their businesses.” The survey was released only days after Aaron and Melissa Klein, former owners of Sweet Cakes in Gresham, Oregon, were told by the state of Oregon that they face fines of up to $150,000 for declining to bake a same-sex “wedding” cake. In Washington state, Barronelle Stutzman, who is a florist, is being threatened with the loss of her home, her family business, and her life savings at the hands of the state because she declined to participate in a same-sex “wedding” ceremony.  (Read more HERE.)