On Monday, December 5, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, another case that pits the purported rights of same-sex couples to force Christian business-owners to create products (or provide services) that express messages related to same-sex “weddings” in violation of the Christian business-owners’ First Amendment rights.

The Court case is a challenge filed by Coloradan Lorie Smith, a wedding website designer who, in expanding her business, understandably wants to include a statement clarifying that she does not create websites for same-sex weddings. But Colorado’s boneheaded pro-religious discrimination, pro-censorship law “that bars businesses that are open to the public from discriminating against gay people or announcing their intent to do so” mandates both what Smith must do and may not say.

Smith has made clear the intent of her work:

As a Christian artist, I want to create freely and create messages that glorify and honor God. And for me, this means designing for weddings and telling the story of a couple through God’s lens of marriage. But the state of Colorado is forcing me to celebrate messages about marriages that are inconsistent with my faith. There’s a lot of misconceptions about my case and what it is that I’m asking for. I love everyone and my faith has taught me to love everyone, and I have worked with those who identify as LGBT. There are just certain messages that I cannot promote because of my faith.

While Smith originally challenged the Colorado law based on its violation of both speech and religious protections, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken it up only on free speech grounds. The threat posed to religious liberty, however, is at least as grave.

This case follows on the judicial heels of cases in which those who choose to place their homoerotic desires at the center of their identities have sued bed and breakfast inns, videographers, florists, cake bakers, and calligraphers. The plaintiffs in those cases like to pretend they are the Rosa Parks of the sexual revolution—the oppressed victims of irrational hatred based on a condition equivalent to skin color.

Anyone with an ounce of rationality should be able to see that this whole “LGBTQIAP+” political movement is based on a big fat, slimy lie—a lie not unlike a Guinea worm that works from deep inside the body politic, worming its way painfully through the muscles and sinews of its host. The only difference is the Guinea worm rarely leaves permanent damage.

For the millionth time, there are no points of correspondence between skin color per se and homoeroticism per se.

Skin color is an objective, 100 percent heritable, in all cases immutable, environmentally unaffected condition with no behavioral implications—and, therefore, morally neutral.

In contrast, homoeroticism is a subjective condition, with little to no genetic involvement, shaped in many cases by one’s environment, and constituted centrally by volitional acts that are appropriate objects of moral assessment. Making judgments about the morality of homoerotic acts and relationships is as legitimate as making judgments about any other erotic acts and relationships constituted by such acts.

Saying homoerotic acts and relationships are immoral no more constitutes hatred of “gay” persons who believe differently and act in accordance with their beliefs than does saying polyamory and plural unions are immoral constitute hatred of polyamorists.

Refusing to make floral arrangements, bake cakes, or create websites for weddings of two men is no more unjust or hateful than refusing to make floral arrangements, bake cakes, or create websites for weddings of five polyamorists, three brothers, or a man and his horse.

And refusing to create products or provide services for “weddings” of two men or two women is in no way akin to refusing to allow blacks to sit at a lunch counter. Only fools and deceivers would claim it is.

Here’s one way to know that that these cases have nothing to do with discrimination or hatred of persons and everything to do with the religious bigotry and discrimination of people who seek compulsory approval of their deviant sexual desires: Virtually every one of the Christians sued by homoeroticists, including Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman and cake baker Jack Phillips, happily made products for and served homoeroticist customers.

Theologically orthodox Christians do, indeed, sell their wares and services to homoeroticists. They simply will not use their gifts, time, and labor in the service of an event that violates their deeply held religious convictions, mocks marriage, and offends God.

Ignorant of both the meaning of the First Amendment as well as the nature and role of Christianity in the lives of Christ-followers, many non-Christians harbor (at least) two fallacious ideas. First, they believe Christians should exercise their religion only within the confines of their church building. And related, they believe the First Amendment protects only what takes place in church buildings.

Leftists want no protections for the exercise of religion outside the confines of church on Sunday. But here’s the cultural rub: For Christians, the exercise of their religion encompasses the totality of their lives, including their work.

Just as skin color, homoeroticism, and religious exercise have natures, so too does marriage. Marriage is something. It has a nature that does not change based on the legislative whims or prurient desires of humans. The law can no more change the nature of marriage than it can change the nature of horses by redefining them.

Until very recently, sexual differentiation has been central to any definition of marriage throughout history and cultures. In fact, jettisoning sexual differentiation is far more radical a change than would be jettisoning criteria regarding blood kinship, number of partners, or age of partners.

Of course, those changes are coming because—ya know—”love is love.” All that polyamorists, sibling-lovers, and hebephiles need to do now is organize, pressure the American Psychological Association to designate their erotic predilections “sexual orientations,” and abracadabra, their unions will be covered by anti-discrimination law and legalized.

When that day comes, will Christians who refuse to provide goods and services for sibling weddings, poly weddings, and hebephile-teen weddings be hauled before courts for discriminating based on “sexual orientation”? Will they be accused of bigotry and hatred?

The ceremony solemnizing an erotic relationship between two men or two women is not a wedding. Such a relationship is by nature and design non-reproductive, so it is neither sexual nor uniting. Since the central constituent feature of a true wedding is the sexual differentiation of partners, a ceremony recognizing and solemnizing a non-sexual, non-uniting relationship is not a wedding. It is the antithesis. It is an anti-wedding. And it harms all involved.

Leftists are trying to force Christian photographers, florists, bakers, calligraphers, and wedding website designers not only to create and sell products that violate their religion but also to create products that they have never before created: Anti-wedding cakes, anti-wedding floral arrangements, and anti-wedding websites.

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

Written by Dr. John A. Sparks

Among recent actions by the U.S. Supreme Court, a four-sentence order may set the stage for the court to eventually address the collision between free speech and religious freedom on one hand and gay rights on the other. The order voided a judgment by the state of Oregon that had imposed a $135,000 fine on Portland-area bakery owners—the Kleins—for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. Oregon maintained that its anti-discrimination law condemned such a rebuff even when the bakery owners’ religious convictions run counter to participating in a same-sex wedding.

Besides vacating the fine, the court sent the case back to the Oregon Court of Appeals to be reconsidered in light of the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision. Masterpiece involved a similar situation in Colorado for Christian baker, Jack Phillips, when he refused, on religious grounds, to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple’s marriage. In Masterpiece, Colorado’s case against Phillips had relied on language in an earlier case, Employment Division v. Smith (1990), which said that religious liberty claims could not be used as a defense against “generally applicable” laws that were “neutrally” enforced. However, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the Colorado proceedings against Phillips were far from “neutral.” In fact, they were rife with religious hostility toward him. Besides that, the court found that Colorado had selectively enforced its anti-discrimination laws, making them less than “generally applicable.”  Now the court is ordering the Oregon court to review the Klein case looking for the same examples of unfairness it had discovered in Masterpiece.

Klein is the second case of this type that the U.S. Supreme Court has sent back to the courts below for reconsideration in light of the Masterpiece decision. Earlier, the Washington Supreme Court was ordered to make such a review in a case involving a florist, Barronelle Stutzman, and her business, Arlene Flowers. Stutzman had refused to provide wedding flowers for a gay couple’s ceremony. Just recently (June 6, 2019), the Washington court found that proceedings were not conducted with “religious animus.” The Washington court closed that review by repeating its conclusions that neither free speech, free exercise, nor freedom of expression were infringed upon by the anti-discrimination law in question.

It seems likely that the Oregon court will make similar findings of the absence of religious hostility. Once the Oregon court has spoken on the matter in the way it is expected to rule, the questions of religiously hostile proceedings and selective enforcement will have been disposed of. That will leave the central constitutional questions of free speech and free exercise of religion for the U.S. Supreme Court to face which it effectively avoided in Masterpiece. The arguments on those issues made by the Kleins and Mrs. Stutzman in their existing court filings will be brought up again.

What are the Constitutional claims supporting the positions of faith-guided commercial providers who are asked to set aside their religious beliefs by customers who ask them to offer services contrary to their convictions?

The first basis for relief from the reach of the anti-discrimination laws is the claim that such laws violate the freedom of speech of the providers. At first blush, it may seem a stretch to regard baking a cake or arranging flowers as “speech.” However, federal Constitutional cases have long recognized that protecting speech is not limited to “the spoken or written word.” Engaging in conduct that expresses a point of view or idea is speech, and that expressive conduct is protected by the First Amendment.

In addition, and important for these cases, citizens cannot be forced to deliver a message provided by the government or another person. The oldest and best-known case recognizing this idea—called the “compelled speech doctrine”—is W. Va. State Board of Education v. Barnett. There the court said that public school children could not be required to salute the American flag or say the pledge of allegiance when to do so was against their religion’s teaching. The case, though it involved religious convictions, is usually viewed as a free speech case in which the court forbade the government from making citizens express a message contrary to their beliefs. Both wedding providers—the Kleins and Stutzman—maintain that Washington and Oregon laws are, in effect, requiring them to use their artistic expression to further a conjugal union against which they have serious religious reservations, or face a legal penalty. When their only other choice is to abandon the means to make a livelihood that they have chosen, the burden placed upon them is unconstitutional.

The second constitutional claim asserted by the two wedding providers is that their religious liberty under the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment has been denied to them by the anti-discrimination laws. Employment Division v. Smith, as already mentioned above, makes that claim more difficult. The Smith defendants consumed an illegal drug—peyote—as part of a Native American religious ceremony. They were dismissed from their jobs with a drug rehabilitation organization and lost a claim for unemployment compensation. They argued that their free exercise of religion was being infringed upon by Oregon.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, maintaining that “neutral” and “generally applicable” regulations could not be avoided by religious liberty claims. The result was probably right: religious ceremonies do not give participants the right to use controlled substances. But, unfortunately, the court’s opinion needlessly swept away an almost three-decades-old case which had established a sensible legal formula for addressing those instances in which religious convictions clash with existing legislation. That formula, called the Sherbert test after Sherbert v. Verner (1963), protected religious believers when the court found that a law or regulation “substantially burdened” their “free exercise of religion,” and that the government had no “compelling interest” at stake, or that it overlooked a “less restrictive” way to further its interest. Congress vigorously sought to counter the Smith decision by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which required the restoration of the Sherbert test. However, the RFRA was ruled as only applicable to federal laws and regulations and not to the states and therefore does not help the Kleins and Stutzman.

Given the clear facts of these cases, and the uncertainty that remains for religious providers, it is high time for the court to hear and decide them. For the most part, the reasoning of Smith should be discarded and Sherbert reinstated. The court should not avoid these fundamental questions of free speech and free exercise of religion any longer. Rather, it must courageously set the cases for oral argument and address these key issues head on.

This article was originally published by The Institute for Faith & Freedom.

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):

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.

It has been an eventful term for the U.S. Supreme Court, which has provided many closely decided cases and ended with the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. For those interested in free speech and religious liberty, there have been plenty of decisions to keep track of and digest. Here is what you need to know.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

The story is well-known. Jack Phillips, a Christian cake shop owner from Colorado, refused to create a cake for the same-sex “wedding” of two men. They filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which held that Mr. Phillips violated the state’s public accommodation laws. Much of the litigation centered around whether creating a wedding cake fell under the free expression protections of the First Amendment, but the Court punted on this argument, leaving it for a future case. Instead, the Court ruled for Mr. Phillips on two separate grounds.

First, the Commission did not employ religiously neutral standards when deciding Mr. Phillips case, and instead showed unwarranted hostility towards his Christian faith. One official on the Commission even referred to Mr. Phillips’ faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use.”

Second, the Court found that the Commission had used different standards for different bakery owners. An individual named Bill Jack (no relation to Jack Phillips) went to several bakeries asking them to create a cake with a message critical of homosexuality derived from the Bible and was—unsurprisingly—refused service. When complaints were filed, the Commission found that bakeries can refuse to make a cake with a message they deem to be derogatory.

The popular narrative is that this case was decided on narrow grounds and sets little precedent for future cases. However, Masterpiece has already proven to be more influential than that narrative suggests. Anti-religious animus by government officials is common in religious liberty cases, and there’s no better example than Arlene’s Flowers.

Arlene’s Flowers Inc. v. Washington

Similar to Jack Phillips, Barronelle Stutzman, a Washington florist, refused to offer her services for a same-sex wedding. However, in this case, when she refused to create a floral arrangement for a same-sex couple, it was not the couple who took action. Rather, the state’s attorney general, on his own initiative, filed a complaint against Ms. Stutzman, showing unusual hostility towards her religious beliefs. This led to the Washington Supreme Court holding that Ms. Stutzman engaged in unlawful discrimination. However, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the decision and remanded it back to the state supreme court to consider the decision in light of Masterpiece.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

This case had less headline appeal than Masterpiece but will likely end up being the more influential in First Amendment jurisprudence. The Court found that California’s Reproductive FACT Act, which forced pro-life pregnancy centers to post disclosures about the state’s abortion services, to be a violation of the pregnancy centers’ free speech rights. The decision was important on several fronts. Most notably, the Court refused to create a lesser standard of First Amendment protection for “professional speech.” The argument was that the state should be given greater power to prevent and compel the speech of professionals (like doctors, lawyers, and mental health counselors) than the usual First Amendment protections would allow. But Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, criticized such “professional speech” doctrine as being a tool to suppress unpopular ideas or information. The decision may open possible litigation on the issue of so-called reparative therapy bans, which ban professional counselors from talking with minors about their unwanted same-sex sexual attraction.

In his concurrence, Justice Kennedy came down particularly hard on California for its intolerance of the pro-life viewpoint:

The California Legislature included in its official history the congratulatory statement that the Act was part of California’s legacy of “forward thinking.” But it is not forward thinking to force individuals to “be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view [they] fin[d] unacceptable.” It is forward thinking to begin by reading the First Amendment as ratified in 1791; to understand the history of authoritarian government as the Founders then knew it; to confirm that history since then shows how relentless authoritarian regimes are in their attempts to stifle free speech; and to carry those lessons onward as we seek to preserve and teach the necessity of freedom of speech for the generations to come.

Trump v. Hawaii

This case stems from then-presidential candidate Donald Trump’s promise of a “Muslim ban” during the 2016 presidential campaign. Initially, President Trump signed an order that banned entry in the U.S. from seven predominantly Muslim countries regardless of visa status. However, after getting blocked by the lower courts because of its disproportionate effect on Muslims and because of several anti-Muslim statements from the Trump administration, the president issued a moderated version of the order. This time, the order did not outright ban travel from the seven countries but it did add extra scrutiny before people were allowed to enter the U.S. The final order was also backed by evidence that the nations with restricted access posed legitimate national security risks and were not just chosen based on anti-Muslim animus.

Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that although five of the seven countries with restricted access were predominantly Muslim, the countries made up only 8% of the world’s Muslim population and were previously designated as posing national security risks. The decision continues the longstanding judicial deference to the Executive Branch on decisions affecting national security. The High Court also renounced the infamous Korematsu v. United States decision, which allowed the executive branch to establish internment camps for Japanese Americans during World War II.

Janus v. AFSCME

This case is not just of interest for its First Amendment jurisprudence but also its close connection to Illinois politics. Illinois was one of the 22 states that allowed unions to charge nonmembers fees for the costs of collective bargaining with employers. Mark Janus, a government social worker from Springfield, filed suit against Illinois arguing that the government requiring him to pay a private organization like a union violated his First Amendment right to free speech and association. By subsidizing the union’s administrative costs, Janus argued that he was being forced by the government to support the union’s political activism. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in a 5-4 decision. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the law “violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern” like tax increases or collective bargaining rights. One important distinction is that this ruling only applies to public sector unions, not to any in the private sector.

Rowan County v. Lund

One notable case that did not get the U.S. Supreme Court review comes from Rowan County, North Carolina, where the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal barred the opening prayer at county board meetings. The prayer was led by the elected commissioners, who took turns leading at each meeting. Three residents were offended by the prayers and sued the county. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the prayer policy as violating the Establishment Clause despite clear precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court allowing public prayers in Town of Greece v. Galloway. Unfortunately, the High Court denied cert (i.e., declined to review the lower court decision) on the county’s appeal, and the Fourth Circuit’s decision stands.

IFI depends on the support of Christians like you. Donate now

-and, please-

Legal affairs columnist at The Daily Beast, Jay Michaelson, has offered the dumbest idea yet to solve the problem of homosexual couples trying to force Christians to provide goods and services for their faux-weddings.

Michaelson, who writes on “law, religion, and sexuality,” is a graduate of Columbia University and Yale Law School, which provides clear evidence that intelligence and prestigious educations provide no bulwark against foolishness.

Michaelson is also an “affiliated assistant professor at Chicago Theological Seminary,” a “teacher of meditation in a Theravadan Buddhist lineage,” and openly homosexual with a special interest in “queer theology.”

Focusing on the case of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker whose case before the U.S. Supreme Court starts next week, Michaelson proposed this:

All Masterpiece Cakeshop has to do is state that they only provide wedding cakes for weddings that take place at certain churches (and, if they like, synagogues and mosques). Don’t turn people away based on their identities, or the type of wedding they’re conducting. Turn them away based on the place where they are getting married…. That leaves the discrimination up to the religious institution, and churches are allowed to discriminate. They can refuse to host same-sex weddings, interfaith weddings, interracial weddings – whatever. And almost everyone agrees that they should be allowed to do so. Whatever else it means, the First Amendment definitely covers religious institutions’ rights to decide how to practice their religion.

That’s a doozy of a “solution.”

First, a few thoughts.

Neither Jack Phillips, nor florist Barronelle Stutzman, nor baker Melissa Klein, nor calligrapher Joanna Duka, nor photographer Elaine Huguenin, nor Bed & Breakfast owner Jim Walder “turned people away based on their identities.” All of these defendants in unjust lawsuits brought by petulant, intolerant homosexual oppressors served homosexuals and provided products to homosexuals—an inconvenient fact that Michaelson omitted. Phillips was willing to sell the homosexuals who are suing him a pre-made cake for their wedding or any other baked goods. Stutzman had sold flowers for years to the homosexual who has sued her, knowing full well his “sexual orientation.”

For the umpteenth time, what these Christians are unwilling to do is provide a service or product for a type of event that the God they serve abhors. For theologically orthodox Christians, marriage is first and foremost a picture of Christ and the church. The union of Christ the bridegroom and his bride, the church, is a union of two different and complementary entities. They are different in both nature and role. Pretending that the union of two people of the same sex can be a marriage is heresy. In theological terms, such a belief would necessarily mean that there is no difference in nature or role between Christ and his church.

And theologically orthodox Christians throughout the history of the church and today understand that God detests homosexual activity even as he loves those who reject Him and his Word. What a grievous injustice it is for the government to compel Christians to serve, participate in, or provide products for an event that celebrates a union that God detests.

Christians also recognize that true marriage—that is the union of one man and one woman—also serves public and secular purposes. It serves children who have an intrinsic right to know and be raised by both a mother and father–preferably their own biological parents.  Further, the needs of children are best served when they are raised by a mother and father. In serving the needs and rights of children, true marriage also serves society.

Michaelson offered this odd statement: “the First Amendment definitely covers religious institutions’ rights to decide how to practice their religion.”

Evidently Michaelson isn’t “woke” to the fact that the First Amendment definitely covers religious individual’s right to decide how to exercise their religion.

Michaelson denies that his solution of providing goods and services only for weddings held in certain churches constitutes religious discrimination:

[S]ince the bakery (or photographer, or florist) is limiting their services to certain physical venues, rather than discriminating against individual customers, the practice is what lawyers call “facially neutral.” If you’re getting married at venue A, B, or C, we can provide a cake for you. Period. You can be of whatever religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity that the venue allows; that’s up to the venues. All the bakery cares about is where the wedding is happening.

None of the Christians being sued is discriminating against individuals. They’re making distinctions between types of events: a union between two people of the same sex is as different from the union of two people of different sexes as a man is from a woman—which homosexuals and “trans” cultists tell us are very different, indeed. So, why is discriminating between venues “facially neutral,” while discriminating between types of events is unjustly discriminatory?

So, now for some questions that may help further illuminate just how asinine Michaelson’s proposed solution is:

1.)  What if a theologically orthodox Christian couple is having their wedding in a home, on the beach, on a mountain top, at an inn, in a hotel, or some other venue? Why should Jack Phillips be precluded from providing a wedding cake for such a wedding?

2.)  What if a denomination or church is in the midst of a schism, with some members upholding orthodoxy and some heresy? And what if a theologically orthodox couple in this church want a cake from the baker? Shouldn’t Phillips be free to provide a cake for this type of event that doesn’t violate his religious convictions?

3.)  What if Phillips wants to serve any sexually complementary couples because of his belief that marriage—which has an ontology—is good for all humans and good for society? Shouldn’t he have the right to serve all such couples regardless of their religion or absence of religion?

Jack Phillips did not refuse to serve homosexuals. He served them many times. He refused to make a type of product he had never made for a type of event he had never served: He declined to make an anti-wedding cake for an anti-wedding.

Marriage has a nature. It is something. Societies historically have recognized and regulated it, but they did not create it out of whole cloth. Marriage has a nature central to which is sexual differentiation and without which a union is not and cannot, in reality, be a marriage. A same-sex union is the antithesis of a marriage. It is an anti-marriage. I bet if a homosexual couple were to ask Phillips to make a birthday cake for the birthday of one of their mothers, he would do it. This illustrates that Phillips’ refusal to make an anti-wedding cake does not constitute discrimination against persons based on their “sexual orientation” but, rather, constitutes discriminating among types of events based on his religious beliefs. To paraphrase Michaelson, Phillips doesn’t care about the “sexual orientation” of his customers. All he cares about is the type of event that he’s being asked to serve.

I’ll speculate again. I bet if a man who identifies as homosexual were to choose to marry a woman—perhaps because he wants a traditional family life—Phillips would bake a wedding cake for the reception. Conversely, if two heterosexual women were to choose to marry—perhaps for some pragmatic fiscal reasons—Phillips would likely refuse to make a wedding cake. Both hypotheticals illustrate that Phillips’ refusal to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple has nothing to do with their “sexual orientation.” It is the type of event to which he objects.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Asinine-Idea-to-Protect-Christian-Vendors-From-Lawsuits.mp3

A bold voice for pro-family values in Illinois!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

There is only one thing more appalling than the Washington Supreme Court’s 9-0 ruling against religious liberty [on Thursday]. It is the silence of Christian leaders across America, leaders who choose convenience over confrontation, leaders who would rather be popular than prophetic, leaders who prefer the favor of people over the favor of the God. Shame on these silent leaders. Today is a day to stand.

There are, of course, the handful of expected Christian voices protesting the court’s outrageous decision, as these justices ruled unanimously against florist Barronelle Stutzman, claiming that she discriminated against a longtime gay customer (named Robert Ingersoll) when she told him she couldn’t make the floral arrangement for his upcoming gay “wedding,” despite the fact that she had served him for years and despite her recommending three other florists who could do the arrangements for his wedding.

Instead, the court ruled that this 72-year-old grandmother who had employed gay workers and served gay customers for years, was required by law to participate in a gay wedding, even though this constituted a direct violation of her religious beliefs – beliefs which have been consistent and almost universally held among Christians for the last 2,000 years.

Not only so, but the court upheld the attack on her personal assets as well – her house, her savings, her retirement funds – by requiring her “to pay the attorneys’ fees that the ACLU racked up in suing her,” fees which could reach as high as one million dollars.

Previously, when Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, an aggressive liberal who brought the suit against Barronelle, “announced he would accept $2,000 in penalties, $1 in fees and costs, plus an agreement not to discriminate in the future and to end further litigation,” Barronelle rejected the proposed settlement.

She explained, “Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important. Washington’s constitution guarantees us ‘freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.’ I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do.”

She continued, “I pray that you reconsider your position. I kindly served Rob for nearly a decade and would gladly continue to do so. I truly want the best for my friend. I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and I will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case. You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating, and having a home. If you are serious about clarifying the law, then I urge you to drop your claims against my home, business, and other assets and pursue the legal claims through the appeal process.”

Today, on my radio show, shortly after the ruling was announced and with the full weight of the state’s ruling hanging over her head, she told me would do the same thing again (stating that when God changes His Word, she will change her mind), also stating without the slightest trace of bitterness that she would gladly serve Robert Ingersoll should he come into her store today.

Friends, what are we witnessing today is a breathtaking abuse of power, an extreme overreach by the government, a shocking example of LGBT activism out of control, yet over the next 7 days, church services will come and go without a word being spoken, and over the next 48 hours, the Christian blogosphere will remain relatively quiet. How can this be?

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, courageous Christian leader Basilea Schlink rebuked the silence of Christians immediately after Kristallnacht, the Night of Broken Glass (November 9, 1938), when the Nazis set synagogues on fire and vandalized Jewish places of business, also killing and beating some Jewish victims as well. And while I am not comparing gay activists and their allies to Nazis and I am not comparing the Washington court’s ruling to Kristallnacht, I am comparing the silence of Christians then and now.

Please stop and read these words carefully.

Schlink wrote, “We are personally to blame. We all have to admit that if we, the entire Christian community, had stood up as one man and if, after the burning of the synagogues, we had gone out on the streets and voiced our disapproval, rung the church bells, and somehow boycotted the actions of the S.S., the Devil’s vassals would probably not have been at such liberty to pursue their evil schemes. But we lacked the ardor of love – love that is never passive, love that cannot bear it when its fellowmen are in misery, particularly when they are subjected to such appalling treatment and tortured to death. Indeed, if we had loved God, we would not have endured seeing those houses of God set ablaze; and holy, divine wrath would have filled our souls. . . . Oh, that we as Germans and as Christians would stand aghast and cry out ever anew, ‘What have we done!’ At every further evidence of our guilt may we repeat the cry.” (From her book Israel, My Chosen People: A German Confession Before God and the Jews.)

What adds to the tragic irony of the moment is that in recent weeks, designers have said they will no longer work with Melania Trump and stores have dropped Ivanka Trump product lines, not because of deeply held religious beliefs, which are explicitly protected by the First Amendment, but because of political differences. And these companies and individuals are being praised by liberal Americans for standing on their convictions. But when a Christian florist politely declines a gay couple’s request to design the floral arrangements for their “wedding” ceremony, she is taken to court and threatened with the loss of her business and all her personal assets.

Where is the righteous Christian indignation? And where are the bleeding-heart liberals who claim to care about the persecuted underdog? (Remember: The ACLU with its massive resources is leading the charge against Barronelle.)

I can respect Christian leaders who try to stay out of the culture wars because they don’t want to drive their LGBT neighbors and friends away from the gospel – as long as they speak up at times like this, when our fundamental liberties are being trashed and when a gracious Christian grandmother is being savaged by the state. But should they remain silent at a time like this, the next time they raise their voices on behalf of the LGBT community (and against the conservative evangelicals they so frequently attack) they will be shouting one message to the world: “I am a hypocritical coward!”

Let me urge you, then, to do three things: 1) share this article with others to help spread the word; 2) make a statement about this gross injustice however you can (on social media; to your family; from your pulpit – I’m urging every pastor reading this column to say something to your flock the next opportunity you have); 3) go to this website to stand with Barronelle and her team; 4) pray for God to awaken the Church of America.

Will you take a stand today?

ADF attorneys file reply brief with Washington Supreme Court
on behalf of Barronelle Stutzman, targeted for her beliefs.

Alliance Defending Freedom filed a brief Friday with the Washington Supreme Court that answers arguments the state and the American Civil Liberties Union have made in favor of government discrimination against a floral artist, whom they sued for acting consistently with her faith.

ADF attorneys asked the state high court to take up the case in June of last year after a lower state court ruled that Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, must pay penalties and attorneys’ fees for declining to use her artistic abilities to design custom floral arrangements for a long-time customer’s same-sex ceremony. Rather than participate in the ceremony, Stutzman referred the customer, whom she considers a friend and had served for nearly 10 years, to several other florists in the area who would provide high-quality arrangements and wedding support.

“Barronelle and many others like her around the country have been more than willing to serve any and all customers, but they are understandably not willing to promote any and all messages,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner. “No one should be faced with a choice between their freedom of speech and conscience on one hand and personal and professional ruin on the other.  Americans oppose unjust government actions that strong-arm citizens to create expression against their will.”

As the ADF reply brief explains,

“The case boils down to this question: is there room in our tolerant, diverse, and freedom-loving society for people with different views about the nature of marriage to establish their ‘religious (or nonreligious) self-definition in the political, civic, and economic life of our larger community…?’ The trial court’s and [the state’s and the ACLU’s] answer is ‘no.’ Their view is that those who seek to establish their self-identity based on the millennia-old view that marriage is solely between a man and a woman may be coerced by law to express different views or be silenced. This is contrary to the best of our historical and constitutional traditions, which mandate that citizens who hold non-majoritarian views be given room to express them and not be coerced, punished, and marginalized through force of law.”

“The trial court’s and [the state’s and the ACLU’s] view—that there can never be a free speech exception to public accommodation laws—endangers everyone,” the brief continues. “If correct, then the consciences of all citizens are fair game for the government. No longer could a gay print shop owner decline to print shirts adorned with messages promoting marriage between one man and one woman for a religious rally. Nor could an atheist painter decline to paint a mural celebrating the resurrection of Christ for a church. Indeed, no speaker could exercise esthetic or moral judgments about what projects to take on where a customer claims the decision infringes on his or her rights under the WLAD [Washington Law Against Discrimination].”

“People in creative professions regularly have to make decisions about where they lend their artistic talents and the events in which they will participate,” Stutzman said. “For me, it’s never about the person who walks into the shop, but about the message I’m communicating when someone asks me to ‘say it with flowers.’ The government should respect everyone’s freedom—including our artistic freedom and core religious beliefs about marriage—and not force us to create expression that violates our conscience.”

Washington attorneys George Ahrend, John Connelly, and Alicia M. Berry are also counsel of record in the lawsuits, State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers and Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers.

“Progressives,” always plagued by inconsistency and hypocrisy, have been for years waxing self-righteous about their deep commitments to diversity, to “honoring all voices,” and to “critical thinking.” They’ve also been devotees of relativism, subjectivism, radical autonomy, and deconstructionism. But when it comes to homosexuality and gender confusion, all liberal principles are abandoned in their voguish, slavish devotion to absolute, transcendent, eternal pro-perversion orthodoxy. They will abuse academic institutions to censor and mock assumptions that they have ordained by the power invested in themselves to be ignorant, prudish, biased, hateful, false, or oh-so-uncool. Their declarations are often unaccompanied by reason and evidence, but chock ‘o’ block full of feelings, nothing more than feelings.

Since the 1960s, secular colleges and universities as well as colleges and universities affiliated with liberal religious denominations have slowly moved away from a commitment to help students know truth. Homosexualist ideologues have for decades controlled academia and, therefore, are culpable for the  corruption of public elementary, middle, and high schools through their “education” of public school teachers.

Liberals exult in the sad reality that younger Americans—including Evangelicals—increasingly affirm homoerotic activity and relationships as morally equivalent to heterosexual activity and relationships. These same liberals rarely (if ever) examine the reasons for this troubling affirmation of sexual perversion as normative and good. Princeton law professor Robert George illuminates the reasons:

The [homosexual] lynch mob came for the brilliant mild-mannered techie Brendan Eich.

The lynch mob came for the elderly florist Barronelle Stutzman.

The lynch mob came for Eastern Michigan University counseling student Julea Ward.

The lynch mob came for the African-American Fire Chief of once segregated Atlanta Kelvin Cochran.

The lynch mob came for the owners of a local pizza shop the O’Connor family.

The lynch mob is now giddy with success and drunk on the misery and pain of its victims. It is urged on by a compliant and even gleeful media. It is reinforced in its sense of righteousness and moral superiority by the “beautiful people” and the intellectual class. It has been joined by the big corporations who perceive their economic interests to be in joining up with the mandarins of cultural power. It owns one political party and has intimidated the leaders of the other into supine and humiliating obeisance.

…

[I]t is certainly true that the political, economic, and cultural power now arrayed against people of faith and their rights and liberties is formidable.

It is not reasoned argument that has allowed folly and ignorance to metastasize within the culture, destroying temporal and eternal lives, children’s rights, parental rights, and First Amendment protections. Rather, self-serving desire, appeals to emotion, censorship, propaganda, and intimidation are incrementally destroying American “culture”—if such a thing even exists anymore.

Here are just three recent examples of the insalubrious excrement served on gilded platters to our children by self-righteous, hubristic “intellectuals”:

• Omar Currie , a 25-year-old homosexual, 3^rd-grade teacher from Efland Cheeks Elementary School in North Carolina read the homosexuality-affirming picture book King & King to his class without parental notification or parental permission. This was his presumptuous effort to address bullying. Imagine a teacher reading a pro-polyamory book to 3^rd-graders in order to address ridicule of “consensual non-monogamy.” Or imagine a teacher reading a book that presents promiscuity positively in an effort to end ridicule of those whose parents may be swingers. The issue isn’t whether polyamory or promiscuity per se is ontologically or morally equivalent to homoeroticism. The issue is whether government employees have the right to promote their personal feelings and beliefs about sexual deviance to other people’s minor children.

• In February, the University of Chicago held its annual Sex Week during which students could choose from a smutty smorgasbord of freakish workshops designed to appeal to the baser instincts of adolescents and perverts, including the following:

“Dirty Talking, Etc.”: They say the most powerful sex organ is the one that resides between your ears! Keep your mind engaged during awesome sex with this peer-led how-to on dirty-talking, role-play and fantasy.
“Positions 101”: Tea Time and Sex Chats presents a tutorial on different ways to spice up your sex life. Covering a variety of positions, you’re guaranteed to find one to suit your fancy.
“Taste of Kink”: Ever wonder what people get out of floggers, wax, electricity, and more? Intrigued by the possibilities but don’t know where to start? Try our smörgåsbord of sensation, where you’ll be able to safely sample a variety of props and toys in a low-key setting and at your own pace. 18+, bring ID.
“A Consumer’s Guide to Sex Toys”: Come learn about sex toys from the owner of one of the most popular sex toy shops in Chicago! Searah Deysach, owner of Early to Bed, will answer all your questions on the best toys to buy, the questions to ask when purchasing, and the best way to care for your toys once you take them home.
“Trans 101 Panel”: Students Anaïs (she), Amalia (they), Devon (they), and Hex (it) talk about life as trans people and trans issues as they affect them.

It doesn’t matter how many or few students attend this annual sexuality freak show. What matters is that the University of Chicago administration permits it. Thankfully, Mortimer Adler isn’t around to witness this pseudo-intellectualized bacchanalia. (Well, perhaps “pseudo-intellectualized” grants too much.)

• Smith College is following in the disoriented footsteps of purportedly all-women’s colleges Mill’s College, Mt. Holyoke, Simmons, Scripps, Bryn Mawr, and Wellesley. Smith will now admit men who pretend to be women, but, forced to accommodate an ontologically incoherent ideology, Smith will not admit actual women who pretend to be men.When announcing the change, Smith president, Kathleen McCartney said, “In the years since Smith’s founding, concepts of female identity have evolved.” Clearly.

According to the pontificating panjandrum of liberal academia, female identity has nothing whatsoever to do with XX chromosomes and their accompanying biochemistry and anatomy. But if objective biological sex has no inherent meaning, then the very idea of “women” and women’s colleges have lost their meaning as well. The fixed lodestar of objective biological sex has been devoured in this tangled ideological web. The doctrinaire and absurdist gender ideology embodied in these admissions policies is like the “black swallower” fish that ingests prey so large that it decomposes before the swallower can digest it. The object the black swallower ingests for sustenance kills it.

From kindergarten through college, cultural regressives control education, manipulating the feelings of other people’s children and filtering out ideas (otherwise known as censorship) that dissent from pagan sexuality dogma. It is mind-boggling that so many orthodox (small “o”) Christians allow  secular academicians (as well as the “beautiful” people)—who are lost in spiritual and intellectual darkness—to inform or deform their hearts and minds and to determine what they say publicly about homoeroticism and marriage.

While “progressives” claim to honor diversity, free speech, and intellectual freedom, the reality is their commitment ends at the bedroom and dungeon doors. Societal health and welfare were enhanced through the influence of Judeo-Christian sexual ethics that rejected the sexual perversion embraced by prior pagan cultures. This cultural health is eroding as Americans embrace pagan sexual perversity and profligacy.

We are witnessing the tragedy of frogs blithely simmering in fetid cultural water, thinking it’s the rejuvenating, liberating water of life.

Written by Laurie Higgins

Stand With Us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your promotion of our emails on Facebook, Twitter, your own email network, and prayer for financial support is a huge part of our success in being a strong voice for the pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family message here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.

Written Professor Robert P. George

The lynch mob came for the brilliant mild-mannered techie Brendan Eich.

The lynch mob came for the elderly florist Barronelle Stutzman.

The lynch mob came for Eastern Michigan University counseling student Julea Ward.

The lynch mob came for the African-American Fire Chief of once segregated Atlanta Kelvin Cochran.

The lynch mob came for the owners of a local pizza shop the O’Connor family.

The lynch mob is now giddy with success and drunk on the misery and pain of its victims. It is urged on by a compliant and even gleeful media. It is reinforced in its sense of righteousness and moral superiority by the “beautiful people” and the intellectual class. It has been joined by the big corporations who perceive their economic interests to be in joining up with the mandarins of cultural power. It owns one political party and has intimidated the leaders of the other into supine and humiliating obeisance.

And so, who if anyone will courageously stand up to the mob? Who will resist? Who will speak truth to its raw and frightening power? Who will refuse to be bullied into submission or intimidated into silence?

I’m not asking, which leaders? Though that, too, would be good to know. Are there political or religious leaders who will step forward? Are there intellectual or cultural leaders who will muster the courage to confront the mob?

No, I’m asking what ordinary people will do. Are there Evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians who will refuse to be intimidated and silenced? Are there Latter-Day Saints, Orthodox and other observant (or even non-observant) Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs? Buddhists?

Oh yes, the mob came first for the Evangelicals and the Catholics and the Latter-Day Saints; but do not be deceived: it will not stop with them. It’s true that many in the mob have a particular animus against Christians, but the point of destroying the reputations and livelihoods of the initial victims is pour encourager les autres. If you believe you belong to a group that will be given a special exemption or dispensation from the enforcement of the new orthodoxy—by any means necessary—you will soon learn that you are tragically mistaken. No one who dissents will be given a pass.

We have seen how swiftly the demands have moved from tolerance to compulsory approbation of behavior historically rejected as contrary to morality and faith by virtually all the great religious traditions of the world. And now it is not only approbation that is demanded, but active participation. And do you honestly think that we have now reached the endpoint of what will be demanded?

Of course, some will say—indeed some are saying—that the battle is over, the cause is lost. All we can do is seek the best terms of surrender we can get, knowing that at this stage they will not be very good.

What should we say to that? Well, it is certainly true that the political, economic, and cultural power now arrayed against people of faith and their rights and liberties is formidable. No question about it: This is David against Goliath.

But then, we know how that contest ended, don’t we?

If we refuse to surrender, we will certainly be demonized; but everything will depend on whether we refuse to be demoralized. Courage displayed in the cause of truth—and of right—is powerful. And it will depend on whether ordinary people—Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, others—inspired by their faith to stand firm, will also be willing to stand shoulder to shoulder, and arm-in-arm, with their brothers and sisters of other traditions of faith to defy the mob.

This article was originally published on the First Things blog.

IFI Worldview Conference
featuring Dr. Del Tackett
April 10-11, 2015

CLICK HERE for Details

Intellectual frustration is boiling over—mine, that is.

Opponents of RFRA laws would like these laws to protect religious liberty as long as religious liberty protections never trump the wishes of those who affirm a homosexual identity. Homosexual activists seek to effectively neuter the First Amendment. They seek to enshrine in law the right to discriminate based on religion and then have the audacity to say—as Apple CEO Tim Cook has—that RFRA laws “go against the very principles our nation was founded on.” Say what? Last time I checked, this nation was founded on religious liberty—not homoerotic privilege.

“Progressives” fret with feigned hysteria that Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act is really about homosexuality, which points to the unsavory truth that the only current threat to religious liberty in America is posed by the social and political movement to normalize homoeroticism. If the jackboot fits, homosexual activists should just wear it.

Here are my responses to two of the fatuous arguments that the Left produces in their effort to amend the Constitution without having to go through the work of amending the Constitution. Getting rid of that pesky First Amendment Free Exercise Clause would be oh so tedious and intellectually challenging. It’s much easier to hurl epithets, concoct absurd analogies, and redefine terms trusting that few will bother to think carefully about the glittering new redefinitions.

Bad argument 1. This law is designed to discriminate against “gays.”

Christian owners of wedding-related businesses are not refusing to serve homosexuals, nor do they desire to refuse to serve homosexuals.  Some are refusing to use their gifts, labor, and time in the service of a type of event that God they serve abhors.

Barronelle Stutzman, the elderly florist in Washington state who is being sued because she wouldn’t make floral arrangements for a same-sex “wedding,” had served the homosexual man who requested flowers for his faux-wedding. In fact, she was friends with him and had sold him flowers on multiple occasions knowing that he was homosexual.

There is a huge difference between discrimination against persons and discrimination between types of events or actions—a difference liberals refuse to acknowledge for strategic reasons.

Refusing to sell pastries or tulips to a customer who happens to be homosexual or bisexual (or black or white or a man or a woman) would constitute an immoral, unbiblical, indefensible act. Refusing to create and provide a cake or floral arrangement for an event that celebrates a union that your faith teaches is abhorrent to the God you serve is a biblically warranted, morally defensible act.

The Left claims that since both homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are requesting the same product, the discrimination present in the refusal to provide goods or services for a homosexual “wedding” constitutes discrimination based on their “sexual orientation.” But such a claim requires assent to the embedded, unspoken proposition that a homosexual “marriage” is, in reality, identical to a sexually complementary marriage. Orthodox (small “o”) Christians reject that claim as false.

What “progressives” are really claiming is that outside their homes and pews, orthodox Christians may enjoy religious liberty, but they, “progressives,” get to define all the terms of the debate. If they, “progressives,” claim that there are no ontological differences between non-marital, same-sex “weddings” and marital, sexually complementary weddings, then abracadabra, there are no ontological differences. In the faith-based, presuppositional, totalitarian universe of “progressives,” refusal to provide goods or services for the celebration of non-marital, same-sex “weddings” is not discrimination between two different types of events (because the Left has ordained them identical), but, rather, discrimination against persons. Very tricksy rhetorical game.

Homosexual “weddings” are not identical or equivalent to true weddings. In reality, they are the anti-thesis of true weddings. Homosexual “weddings” imitate or, rather, mock true weddings. When two men asked Baronelle Stutzman to make floral arrangements for their “wedding,” they were asking her to make a product she had never made before: an anti-wedding floral arrangement.

Bad argument 2. (ad nauseum) This RFRA law is the equivalent of Jim Crow laws that permitted restaurants to refuse to serve blacks.

For the umpteenth time, homosexuality is not analogous to race. Race is 100 percent heritable and immutable in all cases. Most important, race is not constituted by subjective desire or volitional acts.

In contrast, homosexuality is not 100 percent heritable, is in some cases mutable, but most important, homosexuality is constituted centrally by subjective desire and volitional activity, which is perfectly legitimate to assess morally. Much better analogues for homosexuality are polyamory or consensual adult incest.

Therefore, if homosexuality is included as a protected category in anti-discrimination policy and law, shouldn’t other conditions constituted by subjective desire and volitional acts be included in anti-discrimination law? Shouldn’t polyamory and consensual adult incest (or paraphilias which too are constituted by powerful unchosen and seemingly intractable desire and volitional acts) be considered, alongside race, as constitutionally protected categories? Shouldn’t business owners be compelled to use their gifts to help them celebrate their polyamorous and incestuous commitment ceremonies?

And what about bisexuality, which has been deemed a “sexual orientation”? Should Christian bakers, florists, and photographers be compelled to create and provide goods or services for a commitment ceremony between two women and a man who identify as bisexual?

As a fix, some conservatives are recommending that Indiana pass a law that prohibits discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” Such laws are misguided for three reasons:

• First, “sexual orientation” really means homosexuality and bisexuality because in any objective sense, all humans are heterosexual, and, therefore, discrimination based on heterosexuality is nonsensical.
• Second, as mentioned, laws that specifically protect one condition constituted by subjective desire and volitional acts (e.g., homosexuality or bisexuality) open the legal floodgates to other conditions similarly constituted.
• Third, homosexuals will use such laws to prohibit people of faith from discriminating among different types of actions and events, as is happening to Christian owners of wedding-related businesses.

Not including “sexual orientation” in anti-discrimination laws no more constitutes legal carte blanche to refuse service to homosexuals or bisexuals than does the absence of the categories of paraphilias, polyamory, gluttony, or adultery constitute legal carte blanche to refuse to serve frotteurists, zoophiles, polyamorists, gluttons, or adulterers.

As a Christian, I shouldn’t refuse to serve whites, but I should refuse to provide cakes for a celebration of white superiority.

I shouldn’t refuse to sell tulips to a woman who affirms a bisexual identity, but  I should refuse to create and provide floral arrangements for her commitment ceremony to a man and woman.

I shouldn’t refuse to serve Muslims, but I should refuse to photograph a pro-ISIS rally.

I shouldn’t refuse to sell a pastry to a homosexual, but I should refuse to bake a cake for his anti-wedding.

By the way, remember this news story next time someone asks, “How will same-sex marriage hurt you?”

First Annual IFI Worldview Conference
featuring Dr. Del Tackett
April 10-11, 2015

CLICK HERE for Details

Much metaphorical ink has been spilt over the un-American assault on the religious liberty of elderly Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman, who has withstood withering personal attacks and repressive government action with grace, courage, and steadfastness.

I’m reluctant to beat dead horses, but this ain’t a horse and it ain’t dead. It’s a donkey and it’s alive and kicking. Or maybe it’s a Dolos—the mythical Greek spirit of deception. Either way, it’s kicking the heck out of Barronelle Stutzman.

Despite what the mainstream press and homosexual activists claim, Ms. Stutzman did not refuse to serve homosexuals. In fact, she serves not only homosexuals in general but the specific homosexual man who sought her services for his faux-wedding.

Further, Ms. Stutzman serves all manner of sinners and serves only sinners because there exists no other kind of humans.

Ms. Stutzman refused to use her gifts and labor to produce a product that she has never produced before and which would be used for a celebration of that which Jesus says does not exist and which God condemns.

A homosexual union is ontologically different from a heterosexual marriage. A homosexual union is as different from a heterosexual union as men are from women. A homosexual union is, in reality, the anti-thesis of a marriage between a man and a woman.

Marriage has a nature—an ontology—which neither society nor the government that represents it creates. As the Left likes to point out, throughout history, marriage conventions and legal regulations have changed. But what the Left doesn’t like to point out is that throughout these tinkerings, one constant has remained: Marriage was recognized as a sexually differentiated union.

If marriage is something, if it has a nature that predates government, then government can jettison only so many constituent features from the legal definition of marriage before it becomes a meaningless, nonsensical, or empty legal definition with no relation to reality.

Virtually everyone, including liberals, believes marriage has a nature. Liberals would reject the fanciful notion that lawmakers create marriage out of whole cloth. For example, liberals argue that marriage is the union of two unrelated people who experience erotic/romantic (concept) love. They would disagree if someone were to argue that marriage is the union of three brothers who experience “storge” love or five friends who experience “philia” love. Liberals believe that the type of love family members or five good buddies feel for each other is not marital love.

In other words, liberals argue that marriage has a nature central to which is romantic/erotic love (as opposed to agape, philia, or storge love) and without which a union is not a marriage. Therefore, liberals implicitly argue that marriage has a nature which government recognizes and regulates but does not create.

Similarly, conservatives argue that marriage has a nature that governments don’t create. Conservatives believe that the central constituent feature of marriage is sexual differentiation, without which a union is not in reality a marriage.

It is no more hateful to argue that marriage is by nature a sexually differentiated union than it is to argue that marriage is by nature a union constituted by romantic/erotic love rather than storge love. And it is no more hateful to define marriage as a biologically complementary union than it is to define it as binary, which necessarily excludes polyamorists.

Barronelle Stutzman was not asked by a homosexual couple to create and sell a product to them that she creates and sells to other couples. She was asked to create and sell something she had never created or sold to anyone: an anti-wedding floral arrangement.

Please support the work of Illinois Family Institute.

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.)

A state judge ruled last week that Washington floral artist and grandmother Barronelle Stutzman must provide full support for wedding ceremonies that are contrary to her faith. The court claims that her faith-based decision to refuse to provide floral designs for a homosexual marriage violated Washington law. Read full story at OneNewsNow.

In essence, a judge has told the Christian florist she is entitled to her beliefs – but not to act on them!

The court also ruled recently that both the state and the same-sex couple, who each filed lawsuits against her, may collect damages and attorneys’ fees not only from her business, but from Stutzman personally.That means the 70-year-old grandmother may lose not only her business, but also her home and savings because she lives her life and operates her business according to her beliefs.

Barronelle is standing firm, despite the 3-year battle against anti-Christian bigotry. In 2012, when she declined to support a homosexual marriage, word spread quickly on gay social media. Before the couple would file a complaint, the state’s attorney general sued Barronelle’s business and, in an unprecedented move, Barronelle personally.

Through it all, she has remained strong in her faith and Christian resolve.

Take ACTION:  Barronelle Stutzman needs to know fellow Christians are standing with her and praying for her.

AFA has prepared this LETTER OF PRAYER SUPPORT for Barronelle. I encourage you to sign the letter to Barronelle and let her know she is not sharing the burden alone.

Please click HERE to sign the letter and share her story with others by forwarding this email and posting it to your Facebook page today!