1

Religious Freedom Cases Stacking Up

|
Court cases across the country continue to point to the big showdown coming soon at the U.S. Supreme Court.In the ongoing legal battles over religious freedom, there are advances and setback. One win happened last month. When Amy Larson, a Christian photographer in Wisconsin who declines to photograph so-called same-sex weddings, saw what was happening to similar photographers across the country, she was concerned that her decision would violate local and state law. So, she decided she wasn’t going to shoot any weddings.But she also decided to challenge a local ordinance and the state law. And she won! But on somewhat of a technicality. The court ruled that the ordinance didn’t apply to her because her business didn’t have a storefront.

On the other hand, last week, there was a serious setback.

Minnesotans and videographers Carl and Angel Larsen serve all people, but, as the Alliance Defending Freedom states, they “draw the line at creating videos celebrating same-sex weddings because of the biblical teaching on marriage.”

The Larsens knew that by declining to use their artistic talents to participate in something they believed to be wrong, they could face penalties. What kind of penalties? Well, triple compensatory damages, punitive damages of up to $25,000, and as much as 90 days in jail. Yes, you heard that right.

So, like Amy Larsen, they filed what’s called a “pre-enforcement” challenge. It’s a common way of preventing the sort of damage that a bad law can cause. Shockingly, the U. S. judge in their case compared their refusal to participate in gay weddings to “conduct akin to a ‘White Applicants Only’ sign.”

As ADF stated, this ruling was “probably the worst language we’ve seen to date” in one of these cases.

Then there’s the case of Kentucky T-shirt maker Blaine Adamson. He has long refused business if it meant creating t-shirt designs that contradict either his faith or his moral convictions. For example, he once refused to design a shirt that showed Jesus sitting on a bucket of fried chicken. And he refused business that promoted an “adult film.” Whenever he feels that he can’t design a shirt, he points customers to other t-shirt shops.

But it wasn’t until he refused to design a shirt for a gay-pride parade that he was sued. Never mind he regularly serves gay customers, has employed gay employees, and that two lesbian printers have supported his case because “they didn’t want to be forced to print messages that would violate their consciences.”

Thankfully, the Kentucky Court of Appeals has sided with Adamson.

Of course, all of these developments point to the enormous importance of the pending U.S. Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. I’ve said it before on BreakPoint and I’ll say it again, this case might very well be the religious freedom equivalent of Roe v Wade.

In the end, the High Court will either find a balance between the rights of religious believers and the public-accommodation rights of gays, or, it will rule that the price of citizenship is nothing less than the forfeiture of faith.

Friends, we need to pray that God will give the justices heavenly wisdom and discernment.

And we need to let our friends and acquaintances know about these cases, especially the Masterpiece Cakeshop one. Post it on Facebook. Write a letter to the editor. Let your state and city representatives know how much religious freedom matters to a healthy, civil society.

And urge your pastor to speak from the pulpit about these cases. I’ve just run into a few too many pastors who simply don’t see the urgency of the situation.

And finally, we have to counter bogus media characterizations that Christians business owners are refusing to serve gay customers, hiding behind religious freedom to discriminate. It just isn’t true. Not in the case of the Larsens, not in the case of t-shirt maker Blaine Adamson, not in the case of Baronnelle Stutzman, and certainly not in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips.

Religious Freedom Cases Stacking Up: Be a Voice for Everyone’s Rights

Get the facts on these very crucial cases. As John says, we can be engaged in conversations within our own spheres of influence on the importance of freedom of conscience, not only to Christians, but to people of all faiths or none.

Resources

I’m a T-Shirt Maker With Gay Customers and Gay Employees. I Still Was Sued.

  • Blaine Adamson | The Daily Signal | September 17, 2017
This article was originally posted at Breakpoint.org 


Lord Willing, This is the First of Many

|

Let’s flash back 10 years ago…

This was a time when a majority of states had constitutional marriage amendments defining marriage s the union of one man and one woman – a time when support for this definition was bipartisan: from John McCain to Barack Obama, most politicians would confess their support for marriage.

As you may recall, at that time supporters of redefining marriage had a favorite talking point: what does my marriage have to do with you? Why can’t we live and let live?

This was a persuasive argument to a lot of people (And at another time, we can get into why this question fundamentally misses the point of why the government is in the marriage business in the first place).

“Live and let live.”

But once the U.S. Supreme Court redefined marriage, we can see they never really meant it.

Just look at the case of Blaine Adamson – a T-Shirt printer in Kentucky. In 2012, the Lexington Gay Pride Parade asked Blaine to print shirts for their event. As a Christian, Blaine didn’t feel comfortable promoting their message, so he declined.

This wasn’t acceptable to the Lexington LGBT community, so they sued Blaine. Blaine lossed his case in front of the Lexington Human Rights Commission, but last Friday, The Kentucky Court of Appeals overturned this decision, protecting Blaine’s first amendment rights.

Make no mistake, this is a significant victory. This is the first time in the country religious freedom has prevailed in a case like this – the first time the court understood our the issues that are truly at hand.  Blaine didn’t decline to make shirts for these clients because they were gay, in fact, he served gay customers all the time. He declined to make the shirts because they were trying to get him to promote a message he disagreed with, or in other words, they were trying to compel speech from Blaine.

If the government can force you to say something or convey a message, then you fundamentally do not have free speech.

Nation wide, the courts are full of these cases today. Here’s hoping this is the first of many “wins” to come.



Christian T-Shirt Maker Found Guilty of Gay Bias

|

In an overt act of religious discrimination, a Kentucky T-shirt manufacturer has been found guilty of “sexual orientation” discrimination for refusing to print T-shirts for a community  homosexual festival. 

Organizers of the Lexington, Kentucky “gay pride” event had filed the complaint against Hands On Originals, a Christian outfitter.  The company declined to print T-shirts promoting the 5th annual “Lexington Pride Festival,” citing a conflict with their religious beliefs. 

The Lexington-Fayette Human Rights Commission has found that Hands On Originals violated the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance.  Attorneys for the company plan to appeal the decision to an independent hearing examiner, and if necessary to a court of law. 

“Hands On Originals declined this order because it did not want to communicate the message of the requested shirt–that people should be ‘proud’ about engaging in homosexual behavior–nor did they want to promote the ideology of the Pride Festival,” says Jim Campbell, staff counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom.   

“The Constitution prohibits the government from forcing business owners to promote messages they disagree with,” Campbell adds.  “This kind of bullying may be practiced in a dictatorship, but violations of conscience have no place in the United States.” 

Blaine Adamson, the owners of Hands on Originals, says the company treats its customers fairly.  “We don’t have a sign on the door that says ‘No Gays Allowed.’  We’ll work with anybody.  But if there’s a specific message that conflicts with my convictions, then I can’t promote that.” 

You can watch a video providing more information about this controversy by clicking HERE.