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?

Written by Joseph Backholm

You may not know what dhimmitude is and hopefully you never experience it.

But you’ve probably heard of ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) and you’re almost surely aware of what Christians are.

Dhimmitude is an Islamic system that governs non-Muslims who have been conquered through Jihad by folks like ISIS.

If you surrender to Muslim control – though not Muslim – you are referred to as dhimmi.

Sounds fun, right?

If ISIS took over the town you live in, they might move door to door and give you three options: “convert to Islam, pay the jizya, or die.”

The jizya is a tax for not being Muslim.

It doesn’t apply to everyone, but paying it is seen as proof of your subjection to the Jihadist state and its laws. In return, non-Muslim subjects are permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to the Muslim state’s protection from outside aggression.

Acknowledging the difference, there are parallels between the way Jihadists treat those who are in dhimmitude and the way the new sexual revolution in America seeks to treat those who disagree with their (religious?) beliefs about sexuality and marriage.

Once they have political power, they are giving businesses three options “convert, pay a fine, or die” (economically, not physically).

After Arlene’s Flowers was sued for declining to decorate for a same-sex wedding, Attorney General Bob Ferguson offered to settle (demanded the jizya) for $2,000 on the condition that she would “convert,” or agree to make business decisions according to the state’s new values.

Only a few days ago, a judge in Oregon fined a bakery $135,000 because they attempted to run their business according to their Christian beliefs about sexuality rather than the government’s. When they rejected the government’s demands that they convert or pay the jizya, the government opted for what amounts to the economic death penalty.

“Nonsense,” you argue. “They broke the law. Having penalties for breaking the law isn’t exactly innovative. Nor is it jihadist.”

Fair enough.

But the left’s new found impulse to be sticklers for the letter of the law misses the larger point.

The left is proposing a regime change that fundamentally alters freedoms that have been taken for granted for in America for centuries.

Christians, Jews, Muslims and others have been not participating in same-sex “weddings” for millennia.

But under the new regime, doing what has always been done is illegal.

Your choice. Convert, pay a fine if you refuse to convert and then convert, or experience economic death.

Like the jizya, the non-discrimination law discriminates.  It protects one person’s right to decline to participate in an activity they disagree with, but denies that right to others. 

The good news is that if you accept the terms of the new regime, you will still be allowed a measure of communal autonomy, and be entitled to other benefits from the state.

Imagine a new law compelling church attendance or pork consumption on the grounds that refusing to participate is discriminatory. (Which, of course, it is. But that’s the kind of discrimination lefties still like.)

Being indignant with the atheist who objects to compulsory church attendance would be stupid since he’s simply doing what atheists have always done.

“But it’s the law,” you say, self-righteously.

“But it shouldn’t be the law, and you should know better,” he says in response.

And of course he’s right.

The way non-discrimination laws are being interpreted right now is not a modification to the building code that frustrates some builders or a change in the speed law that catches unsuspecting drivers.

It is a regime change that seeks to fundamentally alter the way Americans have always lived. It seeks to create the kind of conformity that America was created in opposition to.

America doesn’t and shouldn’t have conquered peoples. We make room for the atheists, Christians, Muslims, or Jew to be who they are, not just in their preferred place of worship, but in the rest of their life as well. We respect the right for people to be who they are, even if we think they’re silly and ignorant. We understand that we’re different and we make room for that.

Dhimmitude is for jihadists, not for Americans.

This article was originally posted on the blog of the Family Policy Institute of Washington.

A few weeks ago managers inside the United States Justice Department received a memo titled: “LGBT Inclusion at Work: The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Managers.” It was sent in advance of “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month.” One of the instructions to the managers cited the need to verbally affirm the lifestyle of these individuals. It read: “Don’t judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.”

This is where this issue is headed in government and perhaps in the private sector. Forced affirmation of other people’s lifestyle choices or else. This leads me to the U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier this week regarding homosexual marriage. Before the Court was the amendment of the California (Prop 8 ) Constitution which seven million Californians passed but which was not defended in federal court by the governor of the state and was struck down by one federal judge. The Court said the attorney who argued before them on behalf of the people (since the governor did not) did not have legal standing thus the lower court’s ruling stood. The bottom line is same-sex marriage is now legal in parts of California, but the ruling did not strike down the other amendments defining marriage as between one man and one women which have passed in over 30 states.

The Court did overturn the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act passed by congress and signed into law by President Clinton which defined for federal purposes that marriage was only between one man and one woman. It would take be too long to dissect that decision here.

But the larger issue here is, again, where this all is headed. The political and social agenda of the LGBT movement is now starting to collide with the freedom of religion guaranteed all Americans in the U.S. Constitution. Here are a couple of recent examples of this:

• In 2013 in Colorado, two men recently married in Massachusetts filed a discrimination complaint against a Colorado bakery – Masterpiece Cakeshop – that refused to make them a wedding cake for their reception. The owner of the bakery cited his Christian beliefs when he refused the couple’s business. The Colorado Attorney General’s office filed a formal complaint on behalf of the couple.
   
• In 2013 in the state of Washington, state Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced a lawsuit against an eastern Washington florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex marriage ceremony.

In response to the lawsuit in Washington, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers posted this on her Facebook page: “I could not [provide the flowers] because of my relationship with Jesus.” She added: “I have hired all walks of people in different circumstances, and had the privilege of working with some very talented people that happen to be gay. I’m sure there are many places you can purchase flowers, if you choose not to purchase them from Arlene’s, because of your beliefs, then I certainly understand.”

Using the power of the government to force private business owners to violate their religious convictions is just a step away from the government telling churches who they can and can’t marry and what they can and cannot teach.

I did many media interviews this week on the Supreme Court’s decisions including National Public Radio, USA Today and the Washington Post. I appreciate these media outlets giving me an opportunity to give our perspective. This issue will be in the public for some time to come, but some court followers do not believe that the justices are eager to take up a case directly challenging the right of states to define marriage for themselves. At least not anytime soon.

Rest assured, AFA and IFI will continue to hold high the biblical definition of marriage as the only definition of marriage that the government should recognize. AFA has been a large part of seeing the marriage amendments pass in state after state the last decade. We have labored long and hard on this issue because it is one that matters to God.

Originally posted at AFA.net.