In an act of extraordinary hypocrisy, PayPal, which last month announced its plans to expand into Cuba, has decided not to expand into North Carolina because the state is determined to keep its public bathrooms and locker rooms safe.

PayPal has now sent a loud and clear message to America: The common sense values of conservative Americans should be scorned; the destructive values of Cuban Communists, including decades of human rights abuses that continue to this hour, should be embraced.

I say it’s time to send a message to PayPal. Perhaps we can communicate most clearly to them through our money?

According to PayPal’s president and CEO, Dan Schulman, North Carolina’s HB2 is a violation of his company’s “deepest values.”

As he explained in a written statement, “This decision [not to open new offices in Charlotte] reflects PayPal’s deepest values and our strong belief that every person has the right to be treated equally, and with dignity and respect. These principles of fairness, inclusion and equality are at the heart of everything we seek to achieve and stand for as a company. And they compel us to take action to oppose discrimination.”

Schulman’s statement is not just dripping with hypocrisy. It is absolutely saturated with it.

First, PayPal made its plans to open new offices in Charlotte many months before the Charlotte bathroom bill was passed in February (and subsequently overturned). In other words, six months ago or one year ago, when all the laws were exactly as they are today, PayPal was quite happy to do business in Charlotte.

HB2 simply reversed a wrong-headed, potentially dangerous bill and put things back exactly as they were two months ago.

This begs the question: If the current law, which is identical with previous statutes, is so bad, why was PayPal so eager to do business in Charlotte before? Why is today different from one year ago? And who was stopping PayPal from setting up whatever standards it wanted in its own buildings and among its own employees?

Second, HB2 ensures that men cannot use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms in public buildings, meaning that heterosexual predators cannot use transgender bathroom access as a means to carry out their own voyeuristic (or worse) acts. (For those who deny that such things take place, please take a few minutes to watch this video.)

In short, because of HB2, a man cannot claim to be a woman and walk into the women’s locker room of the local YMCA where women and girls are showering and changing. Yet PayPal wants to defend the “rights” of the gender-confused male rather than protect more than 99% of the population that does not identify as transgender.

What kind of madness is this?

And what about the rights of the all-too-many female rape victims, some of whom have expressed horror at the thought that biological males who identify as females could share their bathrooms or, even worse, locker rooms and shower stalls? (Stop and think about the insanity of all this. How can this even be an issue?)

Mr. Schulman, I urge you to take a minute to read this article, “A Rape Survivor Speaks Out About Transgender Bathrooms.” Then come back and tell me that you are really concerned about treating everyone equally with dignity and respect. In fact, look this rape victim in the face and tell her.

Third, HB2 protects the Constitutional liberties of the people of North Carolina by not forcing a Muslim or Christian or Mormon or Jew to violate his or her religious convictions.

Consequently, just as no one would think that a Muslim caterer should be forced to cater a wedding with pork or a religious Jewish baker should be forced to photograph a wedding on the Sabbath, under HB2, a Christian baker could not be forced to bake a cake for a homosexual “wedding” ceremony.

What could be more basic than this? And would anyone dare argue that when our Founding Fathers guaranteed our religious liberties in the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights, what they really meant was, “Your liberties are guaranteed unless they come in conflict with homosexual activism”? Really!

This further underscores the extreme hypocrisy of PayPal, along with quite a few other major American companies, since they express their righteous indignation against HB2 while announcing their partnership with countries like Cuba.

How, pray tell, does Cuba treat its LGBT population?

And what of PayPal’s working relationship with many countries in Africa and Asia that forbid homosexual practice and imprison or even execute practicing homosexuals?

It seems that what really matters to PayPal is money and political correctness, and while we can’t stop them from acting hypocritically, we can send a message by directing our business elsewhere. Why not send a PayPal a loud and clear message by taking action with your money today?

The safety and security of our women and children and the protection of our most fundamental liberties will not be scorned without consequence.

This article was originally posted at TheStream.org.

According to a new national survey, a growing number of Americans believe that religious liberty is now in decline in the U.S.  They are observing that Christians face a growing intolerance according to LifeWay Research.

Here is what they found in their national poll:

—Two-thirds (63%) say that Christians in America face an increasing intolerance. That’s a 13-point increase from 2013.

—A nearly identical amount (60%) say that religious liberty is on the decline in America.

—Among ministers, 70% of pastors believe that religious freedom is in decline in America.

—The perception that religious liberty is on the decline in America is “growing rapidly” according to LifeWay researchers.

—People of faith are more sensitive toward what they see as intolerance.  Seventy percent of Christians, 82% of self-identified evangelicals and 76% of those who regularly attend religious services once a week see more intolerance against them than they have in the past.

—While a majority of Americans disagree, a sizeable minority (43%) think that Christians complain too much about how they are treated.  This finding in and of itself may or may not be connected to a growing religious intolerance. Many people of faith specifically fear being silenced or efforts to limit their free speech rights.

Written by Laurie Higgins and David E. Smith

Christian Jim Walder, owner of the Timber Creek Bed & Breakfast in Paxton, Illinois, who because of his faith declined to allow his facilities to be used for the celebration of a same-sex union is not backing down even as the state of Illinois stands ready to persecute him and destroy his business.

Mr. Walder has released the following statement in response to Judge Michael R. Robinson‘s tyrannical decision to fine him $80,000 and force him to offer his facility to a homosexual couple to celebrate a type of union God opposes:

Evidently religious freedom does not exist within the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act or the Illinois Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act. 

In our opinion, neither the State of Illinois nor the U. S. Supreme Court has the authority to tamper with the definition of marriage. God alone created marriage and declared thousands of years ago that it was to be between a man and a woman. Not two men. Not two women. We may be out of step with an increasingly anti-Christian culture, but we are in compliance with God’s design and that is what ultimately matters. 

To be absolutely clear, we cannot host a same-sex wedding even though fines and penalties have been imposed by the Illinois Human Rights Commission.  Our policy will not be changing. We are not looking for a fight, but when immoral laws are purposely passed (or deemed constitutional) that blatantly conflict with God’s Word and when the heavy hand of government tries to force us as Christians to embrace sinful behavior, we have a moral obligation to resist and stand for biblical truth. “It is better to obey God than men” (Acts 5:29).  

Please take a moment to stand with Mr. Walder by speaking out against this unjust erosion of religious liberty. Tell people in your church, your neighbors, and your family members about this miscarriage of justice. Write a letter to your local newspaper about this proposed discriminatory act against a Christian man of faith. The First Amendment guarantees the right to the “free exercise” of religion, which includes the right to act upon beliefs regarding the morality of activities and behaviors.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send an unequivocal and respectful message to Keith Chambers, the executive director of the Illinois Human Rights Commission, and Gov. Bruce Rauner to express your opposition to Judge Robinson’s decision.

Please keep Mr. Walder, his family, his business, and his attorneys in your prayers. Pray that the members and staff of the Illinois Human Rights Commission recognize the federal civil rights of Jim Walder and choose not to undermine his First Amendment protections.

Follow IFI on Social Media!

Be sure to check us out on social media for other great articles, quips, quotes, pictures, memes, events and updates.

Like us on Facebook HERE.
Subscribe to us on YouTube HERE
Follow us on Twitter @ProFamilyIFI

Initial press reports suggested that the case against the Christian owner of the Timber Creek Bed and Breakfast in Paxton, Illinois, Jim Walder, was settled. The Illinois Human Rights Commission has clarified that administrative law judge Michael R. Robinson’s decision that Jim Walder should pay an $80,000 fine and be required to offer his facility to a homosexual couple to celebrate their civil union can be appealed by filing “exceptions.”

Either party to the suit has 30 days to file exceptions. If they file exceptions, the case goes before a panel. If no exceptions are filed, the recommendations made by Robinson will take effect.

Here is what Robinson has ordered:

• Pay $15,000 each to Todd and Mark Wathen as compensation for their emotional distress arising out of the issue.
• Cease and desist from violating the Human Rights Act by denying same-sex couples access to its facilities and services for marriages and civil unions.
• Offer the Wathens access to the facility, within one year, for an event celebrating their civil union.
• Pay the Wathens’ attorneys $50,000 in fees and $1,218 in costs.

Ubiquitous ACLU attorney John Knight has erroneously stated that  “For the first time, the Human Rights Commission has made clear that owners of businesses serving the public in Illinois cannot pick and choose who [sic] to serve based on their personal religious views.” “Progressives” can’t seem to get it through their dogma-drenched minds that Christians in wedding-related businesses are not deciding whom to serve. They are deciding which kinds of events to serve, facilitate, and profit from. 

Attorney Betty Tsamis, who represents the Wathens, made a similar claim but got dangerously close to inadvertently acknowledging the truth: “It would have been shameful to reverse this history simply because some business owners object to the legal protections afforded same-sex relationships.” Tsamis veered slightly off-message by focusing on “same-sex” (i.e., homerotic) relationships rather than persons. Her slip suggests the truth that it is a type of volitional activity and ceremonies that solemnize and celebrate it that many people of faith, including Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and orthodox Christians, cannot in good conscience serve. 

While the Left continues to add conditions (all sexual in nature and behaviorally constituted) to anti-discrimination policies and laws, they are bit by bit removing religion.

It is imperative that we speak out against this unjust erosion of religious liberty. The First Amendment guarantees the right to the “free exercise” of religion, intrinsic to which is the right to act upon beliefs regarding the morality of activities and behaviors. 

Take Action: Click HERE to send an unequivocal and respectful message to Kevin Chambers, the executive director of the Illinois Human Rights Commission, and Gov. Bruce Rauner to express your strong opposition to Judge Robinson’s decision.

Follow IFI on Social Media!

Be sure to check us out on social media for other great articles, quips, quotes, pictures, memes, events and updates.

Like us on Facebook HERE.
Subscribe to us on YouTube HERE
Follow us on Twitter @ProFamilyIFI

Another Christian business-owner has been persecuted for his faith. Jim Walder, owner of an Illiois bed and breakfast, has been fined $80,000 by the Illinois “Human Rights” junta (also known as the Illinois Human Rights Commission) for refusing to rent his facility to homosexual couple Todd and Mark Wathen for their civil union ceremony.

Even more outrageous, the Illinois Human Rights Commission has ordered that Jim Walder “[o]ffer the Wathens access to the facility, within one year, for an event celebrating their civil union.” You read that right. This unelected, quasi-governmental commission has mandated that Jim Walder not only pay a fine for not accepting a request that violated his religious beliefs but also to offer to violate his religious beliefs. Such a mandate clearly violates Mr. Walder’s constitutionally protected religious liberty.

Despite what cultural regressives in their profound ignorance claim, the issue is not about discrimination against persons for some behaviorally neutral trait, like race, sex, or nation of origin, but rather about discriminating among types of activities. And despite what one of the homosexual plaintiffs claim, they were not turned away because of who they are.

Walder chose not to use his property, his business, and his labor in the service of an immoral activity. Facilitating a ceremony that solemnizes and celebrates a union that God abhors would violate Walder’s religious convictions, and compelling him to facilitate such an activity violates his First Amendment protections.

**Click HERE to read an update**

Here is a news report from Reuters:

Illinois inn fined for refusing to host gay civil union ceremony

CHICAGO (Reuters) – An Illinois inn that refused to allow a same-sex couple hold their civil union ceremony on the property was fined more than $80,000 by the Illinois Human Rights Commission on Tuesday.

An administrative law judge with the commission ordered TimberCreek Bed & Breakfast to pay $15,000 each to Todd and Mark Wathen for emotional distress.

The Wathens had contacted TimberCreek in 2011 as they looked for possible locations for the ceremony.

TimberCreek owner Jim Walder had responded to the Wathens’ inquiry with an email that said “homosexuality is immoral and unnatural,” according to the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.

TimberCreek, located about 100 miles south of Chicago, must also pay $50,000 in attorneys’ fees and $1,218.35 in costs.

“We are very happy that no other couple will have to experience what we experienced by being turned away and belittled and criticized for who we are,” Todd Wathen said in a statement.

A representative from TimberCreek was not immediately available to comment.

The U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in June 2015.

(Reporting by Mark Weinraub; Editing by Bernadette Baum)

Written by Ryan T. Anderson

Georgia’s Republican Governor Nathan Deal has caved to pressure from big business and special interests and vetoed a very modest religious liberty bill. This shows the lack of courage of many in the political class, and also highlights the extreme nature of the Left and the business community. To these groups, even mild religious liberty protections are unacceptable.

The economic threats made by big businesses to get the government to do their bidding at the expense of the common good are examples of a vicious form of cultural cronyism.

The Georgia religious freedom bill that Deal vetoed would have safeguarded clergy from having to officiate same-sex weddings, prevented faith-based organizations from being forced to hire someone who publicly undermines their mission, and prohibited the state government from discriminating against churches and their affiliated ministries because they believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

The bill that the Deal vetoed was the result of a series of compromises that significantly watered down the original version. It did not offer protections to bakers, florists and similar wedding professionals, and it adopted a very narrow definition of faith-based organizations, covering only churches, religious schools, and “integrated auxiliaries”—the same unacceptable definition used by the Obama administration to exclude the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Yet liberals demagogued these very limited protections—and got the governor to veto it. As the Atlanta Journal Constitution reports:

Executives from dozens of big-name companies, including Disney, Apple, Time Warner, Intel and Salesforce, called on the governor to veto the bill. The NFL warned it could risk Atlanta’s bid for the Super Bowl and the NCAA hinted it could influence the state’s ability to host championship games.

That’s right, big business threatened boycotts and used their outsized economic pressure to force the governor to act against the common good. Do the NFL and the NCAA, Disney and Apple have a zero tolerance policy for religious freedom bills? Even a bill that didn’t protect the Little Sisters is too much for the Left to tolerate.

And the governor bought into this nonsense hook, line and sinker. In explaining his veto Deal argued that the religious liberty bill “doesn’t reflect the character of our state or the character of its people.” Leaving people free to act on their deepest religious convictions apparently isn’t one of those values.

Most remarkably, Deal concluded that states simply shouldn’t pass any religious freedom laws, for religious freedom “is best left to the broad protections of the First Amendment.”

This is nonsensical.

There is a reason why President Bill Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act—and why it passed unanimously in the U.S. House of Representatives and with 97 votes in the U.S. Senate. There is a reason why over 20 states have adopted their own state religious freedom restoration acts, and why 11 more have constitutional religious liberty protections that provide a similar level of protection.

Religious Freedom Restoration Acts and other religious freedom protections are needed against our contemporary over-active progressive government. In addition to the First Amendment, both the federal government and the states must act to protect religious freedom—in broad measures like Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, and in more specific measures like the First Amendment Defense Act.

Americans need both broad protections and specific protections. So, in addition to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress has passed a variety of laws that protect pro-life conscience. In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court invented a right to an abortion. But after Roe Congress made clear that government cannot require a pro-life doctor or nurse to perform an abortion—that they, too, had rights that required specific protections from hostile judges and bureaucrats.

Likewise, in the Obergefell decision, the Supreme Court redefined marriage throughout America by mandating that governmental entities treat same-sex relationships as marriages. The Supreme Court did not say that private schools, charities, businesses, or individuals must abandon their beliefs if they disagree.

We need laws protecting these rights.

Indeed, protecting minority rights after major social change is also a hallmark of American tolerance and pluralism. But Deal seems unwilling to do anything that might protect such people and their rights. And big business and special interests on the Left seem intent on doing everything to make sure people are coerced by the government into violating their beliefs.

This is yet another example of cultural cronyism. Businesses in Georgia were always free to embrace gay marriage—to bake wedding cakes for gay marriages and make floral arrangements for same-sex nuptials—and many do. But now activists want the government to force everyone in Georgia to do it. And they’ve attacked religious freedom for everyone in the process.

America is in a time of transition. Courts have redefined marriage, and beliefs about human sexuality are changing. During this time, it is critical to protect the right to disagree and the civil liberties of those who speak and act in accord with what Americans had always believed about marriage—that it is the union of husband and wife.

Good public policy is needed at the local, state, and federal levels to protect cherished American values. These policies would help achieve civil peace amid disagreement, maintain pluralism, and protect the rights of all Americans, regardless of what faith they may practice.

This article was originally posted at TheDailySignal.com

Written by Ryan T. Anderson and Roger Serverino

On Wednesday night, the Georgia legislature introduced new language to its religious freedom bill and passed the bill in mere hours. Haste makes waste. This new language significantly waters down a religious freedom bill that had real force even though it was, as we pointed out three weeks ago, already lacking in certain respects.

The new version of the bill provides Religious Freedom Restoration Act levels of protection for certain protected persons, but it explicitly says these protections cannot apply in cases of “invidious discrimination.” Of course, no one is in favor of invidious discrimination, but the problem is that in the hands of a liberal judge, everything looks like invidious discrimination even when it is not, such as religious universities or adoption agencies that want their policies to reflect their teachings on marriage. This apes the bad “fix” that gutted the Indiana religious freedom bill.

What this “fix” means in practice is that if a new or existing law creating special legal privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity conflicts with a sincere religious belief, the Georgia religious freedom bill may provide no protection—not even the standard balancing test that is the hallmark of religious freedom restoration acts. So in an area where we most need religious liberty protection, the new Georgia law goes out of its way to disclaim it.

The Georgia bill also provides First Amendment Defense Act-style protections with respect to beliefs about marriage for certain faith-based organizations. But here again, what it gives in one sentence, it takes away in another.

The new version of the bill adopts a very narrow definition of faith-based organizations, covering only churches, religious schools, and “integrated auxiliaries.” Indeed, Georgia’s constrained definition of religious organization mimics the one used by the Obama administration to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to help provide abortion-inducing drugs in their employee health plans because they don’t qualify for an exemption as a religious organization. Faith-based organizations come in all shapes and sizes, and there is no reason for Georgia to adopt such a cramped vision of religious organization.

Finally, the new Georgia bill provides no protection for bakers or florists or other similar wedding professionals who cannot help celebrate a same-sex wedding. While it does provide protections for priests and pastors not to have to perform same-sex weddings and for everyone not to attend them, the U.S. Constitution already provides such protections. So the bill doesn’t protect those who most need it, but it protects those who already have it.

It is unfortunate that the Georgia legislature caved to pressure from big business and special interests to water down their weakened bill even further. Other states must be vigilant against such cultural cronyism.

This article was originally posted at TheDailySignal.com

I’ve been saying that, in the LGBT activist lexicon, “tolerance” means the intolerance of all views but their own, “diversity” means their way or the highway, and “inclusive” means the exclusion of all opposing opinions and values.

Day by day, we are watching all this unfold before our eyes.

In the UK, Pink News reports that, “Scotland is training a small army of LGBT-friendly police officers to stamp out hate crime.”

This “small army” has been tasked with encouraging victims of “hate crimes” to report those crimes to the police, since such crimes are allegedly underreported.

The problem is that, in the UK, preachers simply reading the Scriptures on a street corner have been charged with LGBT “hate crimes.”

On at least one occasion, a preacher was charged with a hate crime because a lesbian listener simply felt discriminated against. (Thankfully, the case was thrown out and compensation of about $4,000 was paid out due to the preacher’s arrest and 11-hour, jail cell detainment.)

What will happen now with this “small army” on the lookout for such “crimes”?

Some years ago, I began to write about “the diversity police,” using the term metaphorically. Today, it is no longer a metaphor.

Yet there’s more. There will be increasing scrutiny in Scottish schools as well.

As explained by Fergus McMillan, Chief Executive of LGBT Youth Scotland, “We are currently working with a range of partners, including Equality Network, to increase the reporting of homophobic, biphobic and transphobic hate crimes and incidents and improve the support available to those targeted.”

Presumably, if a little girl objected to a confused little boy sharing her bathroom, she would be guilty of a “transphobic hate crime.”

John Knox must be turning over in his grave.

Back here in America, the Insider Higher Ed website reported on March 10 that, “In a letter sent to the National Collegiate Athletic Association on Wednesday, more than 80 lesbian, gay and transgender organizations urged the NCAA to ‘divest from all religious-based institutions’ that discriminate against transgender students.”

In other words, if a religious-based institution of higher education cannot support transgender activism on its campus – because of its explicit religious convictions – then the NCAA must boycott that schools.

Talk about intolerance and bullying!

So, if a religious-based university like Wheaton or Oral Roberts or Brigham Young was not willing to admit a biological male as a female, thereby allowing him to room with women, use the women’s locker rooms and bathrooms, play on the women’s sports teams, and join women’s collegiate groups, that school would be guilty of transgender “discrimination” and the NCAA should boycott them.

Once again, in the world of gay activism, “inclusion” is a one-way street, to be enforced by bullying and boycotting.

Over in Australia, a concerned mother wrote to our ministry:

“I listen and read your articles here in Australia and wanted to alert you to what’s happening here. The government has initiated a program:

“They want to make it compulsory to be taught in all schools. There is information in there to teach transgender kids to bind breasts and tuck genitals. Doctors have warned this is very dangerous for kids and could even be fatal.

“Even worse, some large Pentecostal preachers reviewed it and said it’s not that bad as some other Christian leaders have warned us about.”

Some of the resources on the “Safe School” website include, “All of Us,” described as, “A ground-breaking teaching resource that supports gender diversity, sexual diversity and intersex topics.” And, “Guide to Supporting a Student to Affirm or Transition Gender Identity at School,” described as, “A step by step guide for schools supporting transgender and gender diverse students who want to affirm their gender identity at school – suitable for both primary and secondary schools.”

The document itself explains that it “includes people who identify as women, men or as neither male nor female. The terms people use to describe their gender identity may include transgender, gender non-binary or agender.”

And this educational “resource” could become mandatory in children’s schools in Australia, just the latest example of the war on gender.

In my book, I warned that gay activists would overplay their hand, stating that those who were once bullied would become the bullies and that the LGBT war on gender distinctions and natural marriage would destroy itself, since it goes against the very fabric of human society.

Little by little – no, quite rapidly and aggressively – we are seeing this come to pass in front of our eyes. Unfortunately, many conservative Christians are still sleeping while others, like the proverbial frog boiling in water, are spiritually dull, having become accustomed to our world being turned upside down.

Now is the time to wake up to reality and say, “Not in my school, not on my campus, not in my city.”

We can take a stand for what is right while loving those who oppose us.

And if we are unable to turn the tide just yet, no one is stopping us from swimming against it.

As Malcom Muggeridge once stated, “Never forget that only dead fish swim with the stream.”

Don’t be a dead fish!

This article was originally posted at TownHall.com

Written by Sorin Leahu, J.D.

In 1865, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, under the pseudonym Lewis Carroll, published his famous novel Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Readers then and now continue to be mystified by a narrative that can only be described as illogical and wholly irrational. The novel introduced readers to a world of such absurdity that it helped launch the phenomenon now known as the literary-nonsense genre.

Lately, another story has been unfolding rivaling even Carrol’s work within the same genre. In November 2015, a loving family was dragged down a legal rabbit hole and introduced to the whacky world of institutionalized kidnapping.  Barnevert, Norway’s child protective services, seized Marius and Ruth Bodnariu’s five children after suspicions that they were receiving “Christian indoctrination.” “Christian indoctrination,” of course, is a term of art; most would recognize it simply as religious education. Not content with competing education, however, the State seized the five children and placed them with three separate foster homes where, presumably, they will receive State sanctioned indoctrination instead. Without having committed a crime, and with no due process, two parents have lost their children. The parents must now overcome baseless charges and seek vindication in Norwegian courts, or alternatively, the European Court of Human Rights.

United States Precedent

The family’s prospects would be much different in the United States. Unlike Norway, the United States Supreme Court has for some time now recognized the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit. One of the first major cases to address this issue came in 1925 when the Supreme Court decided a case called Pierce v. Society of Sisters. During this interwar period, several states become concerned with the influx of immigrants and the values that they were imparting to their children. Sound familiar? As a result, citizens in Oregon passed the Compulsory Education Act, a law meant to enlist public schools in promoting American culture while simultaneously closing down parochial and private schools. All childrenbetween ages eight and sixteen, with some exceptions, were required to attend public school.

The Society of Sisters of the Holy Names and Hill Military Academy sued Oregon governor Walter Pierce alleging, among other things, that the Act violated the parents’ rights to direct the education of their children. In a unanimous decision by Justice McReynolds, the Supreme Court agreed with the parents. The Court rejected the State’s arguments and held that a

“child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”

Among the most well-known of Pierce’s progeny is a case called Wisconsin v. Yoder. There, three Amish students refused to continue attending school after the eighth grade because it conflicted with their families’ religious beliefs. The Court again ruled against the State holding that

“The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.”

These cases, and others like it, have for the most part protected families in the U.S. from what has transpired in Norway. Nevertheless, opponents continue to fight to reverse long standing precedent.

United States Precedent Under Attack

Legal attacks on Pierce and Yoder have come from various angles but the most creative is the theory that the child has a right to an “open future.” This right is said to trump the right of parents to raise their children. This right of autonomy, which children cannot exercise right away, is held in trust by the parents until children are old enough to make choices. It is argued that by removing children from public school, parents violate their children’s right to an open future. Scandinavian countries have embraced this “open future” to such extremes, that schools in Sweden have instituted “gender neutral” classrooms. Teachers cannot refer to students using pronouns, “he” or “she,” because doing so would violate the child’s right to an open future. After all, the child should decide for himself or herself whether he or she is a he or she.

Other attacks come from the media. Take for instance MSNBC host Melissa-Harris Perry who insisted that

“we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”

This notion that children belong to the State was specifically rejected by both Pierce and Yoder but continues to be a rallying cry for liberals in America. It stems from Karl Marx’s utopian vision and must be repudiated at all cost.

The latest strategy is the State’s idea of “partnership.” If the State cannot claim ownership of your child, as much as it wants to, it will claim a “partnership” interest with the parent. The Obama administration Department of Education has released its vision for education in several reports. In one report we learn that

“research shows that initiatives that take on a partnership orientation—in which student achievement and school improvement are seen as a shared responsibility, relationships of trust and respect are established between home and school, and families and school staff see each other as equal partners—create the conditions for family engagement to flourish.” (emphasis added).

“Equal partnership” entails equal responsibility, equal decision-making, and equal authority. Needless to say, the report does not say what gives the State the right to claim such a partnership.

The Path Forward

The Bodnariu situation has affected all groups of people, but especially people of faith. What can people of faith do to prevent similar happening in the U.S.? There are several things, but I highlight four below:

1. Promote and Defend Limited Government—the Founders of this country envisioned a government with limited and enumerated powers. It was James Madison who said that an energetic government is always oppressive. All efforts to increase the power and size of government should be resisted.

2. Be an Informed Participant—Thomas Jefferson once wrote that an “educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.” Lack of knowledge leads to manipulation and bondage. The prophet Hosea records God’s words stating that “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” More than being informed, Christians also have a responsibility to be involved. Not everyone is called to run for office, but Christians should be encouraged to attend school board meetings, town hall meetings, and be active in local matters. At the very least, it means voting. Every election offers the opportunity to defend and promote life, family, and religious liberty. Most elections also offer a choice between smaller government and bigger government.

3. Influence Culture—One of the most important lessons I have learned is that “Law is downstream from culture.” This means that, for the most part, it is culture that influences law and not law that influences culture. Andrew Fletcher once wrote “Let me write the songs of a nation, I care not who makes its laws.” Fletcher is right to suggest that culture is a great influencer of nations. Those who influence culture influence nations and their respective laws. This means, among other things, that people of faith need to engage the arts: film, painting, literature, music, architecture etc. Withdrawal from society is not only unbiblical but unwise. If the world ever needed Christian witness in culture, it is now.

4. The Church Must Lead—The final point is the most important one. The ultimate problem is spiritual in nature. It is a problem of sin and unbelief. As important as the points above are, and they are important, the ultimate solution is one of Spiritual renewal that only Christ can offer. The Church must reject false teaching within its ranks, seek the salvation of the unsaved, and speak prophetically on the important issues of the day. Few people know that the American Revolution was preceded by a movement called the Great Awakening. Led by pastors such as Johnathan Edwards and George Whitefield, colonial America experienced great revival. Historians have noted that this evangelical movement contributed to the thinking of the Founding Fathers and led to the religious freedom that we enjoy today. Churches must lead.

The Present Situation

Some progress has been made in the last couple weeks. Some media in Norway have given attention to this case and have even expressed concern for the family. Most recently, the parents were finally allowed to meet with their five children at the same time in the same place. The three hour visit was filled with mixed emotion but it is a step in the right direction. The parents are to stand trial later this year.

I am still hopeful that a court, any court, will eventually vindicate the Bodnariu family. Perhaps their best chance is outside of Norway in the European Court of Human Rights. In the court of public opinion Norway is all but defeated. The large demonstrations have garnered attention from international media and Norway’s reputation has been stained. Norway’s image will continue to deteriorate so long as people make their voices heard. It is hard to comprehend that Norway would continue to trade its standing in the world for the ability to continue to harass families. The country prides itself as a beautiful place to live but its totalitarian reality is becoming more lucid every day. Perhaps an excerpt from Carrol’s novel best describes what Norway has become:

‘But I don’t want to go among mad people,’ Alice remarked.
‘Oh, you can’t help that,’ said the Cat: ‘we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.’
‘How do you know I’m mad?’ said Alice.
‘You must be,’ said the Cat, ‘or you wouldn’t have come here.’     

Sorin Leahu is a Chicago attorney who works with churches to advance religious liberty. Originally published at MauckBaker.com.

Probate Judge Don Davis asked to be relieved of the order because it would cause him to violate a federal court order that struck down the marriage law. On March 10, 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court issued a second order refusing to relieve him of the order and directing that he immediately cease issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

On March 12, 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court issued a third order directing that “all probate judges” in the state are subject to the March 3, 2015, order and that they must immediately cease issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

On June 26, 2015, the 5-4 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Obergefell marriage case was released. The ACLU then asked the Alabama Supreme Court to reverse its prior orders in light of the U.S. Supreme Court opinion. Liberty Counsel argued that the prior Alabama Supreme Court orders remain valid.

Last Friday the Alabama Supreme Court made permanent the Petition for Mandamus, which upheld the marriage laws and ordered the probate judges to comply with those laws. The Alabama Supreme Court then dismissed the ACLU’s motion to clarify and reverse this prior order. The Judgment reads as follows:

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the ruling on the application for rehearing filed in this cause and indicated below was entered in this cause on March 20, 2015:

Application Overruled. No Opinion. PER CURIAM – Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Main, Wise, and Bryan, JJ., concur. [This refers to the ACLU motion.]

WHEREAS, the above referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the Supreme Court of Alabama and the orders indicated below were entered in this cause:

Petition Granted. Writ Issued. March 3, 2015. PER CURIAM – Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Wise, and Bryan, JJ., concur. Main, J., concurs in part and concurs in the result. Shaw, J., dissents. [This refers to Liberty Counsel’s Petition for Mandamus.]

Writ Issued as to Judge Don Davis. March 11, 2015. PER CURIAM – Stuart, Parker, Murdock, Main, Wise, and Bryan, JJ., concur. Shaw, J., dissents. [Same as above]

Writ Issued as to additional respondents. March 12, 2015. PER CURIAM – Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Main, Wise, and Bryan, JJ., concur. Shaw, J., dissents. [Same as above]

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Court’s judgment in this cause is certified on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

Along with the Judgment, the Alabama Supreme Court released the separate opinions of the Justices. In his 105-page opinion, in which he concurred in the Judgment, Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote the following:

Today this Court by order dismisses all pending motions and petitions and issues the certificate of judgment in this case. That action does not disturb the existing March orders in this case or the Court’s holding therein that the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment, art. I, § 36.03, Ala. Const. 1901, and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act, § 30-1-9, Ala. Code 1975, are constitutional. Therefore, and for the reasons stated below, I concur with the order.

Later in a public statement after the Judgment was issued, Chief Justice Roy Moore made the following statement:

The Court dismissed in its order “pending motions and petitions” in the API case today but did not dismiss “lawsuits” or dismiss the case. In fact, the Court also issued the certificate of judgment (COJ) which explicitly recognized the 3 orders issued in this case last year. As I stated in my written concurrence, the Court did not disturb the existing orders in this case or the holding in API that Alabama’s Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act were constitutional.

“Some media reported the opposite of what the Alabama Supreme Court did. When the Alabama Supreme Court entered the Judgment on its March 2015 order and dismissed the ALCU’s motion to reverse that order, the result was a clear victory for our case,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “The Alabama Supreme Court order upholding the marriage laws and ordering the probate judges to comply with those laws still remains in effect. The ACLU’s request to reverse that order was dismissed. The Alabama Supreme Court rejected the 5-4 marriage opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. While some of the Alabama Supreme Court Justices wrote separate opinions ripping apart the U.S. Supreme Court, it is clear a majority of the Court issued a Judgment affirming that their prior orders upholding the marriage laws remain valid in Alabama,” said Staver.

Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.

From First Liberty

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

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

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

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

A TEXAS COUPLE UNDER ATTACK FOR THEIR FAITH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• First Liberty’s social media pages prove that the “open and searching” debate Justice Kennedy talked about is increasing, while hate speech and threats are decreasing. The response on social media to First Liberty’s announced representation of the Kleins last week was overwhelmingly positive and consisted of constructive debate—a stark contrast to the barrage of hostile, lewd, or extreme comments that often flood social media in response to controversial issues. According to First Liberty’s social media team, the response was more positive than anticipated—and could mark a change of heart regarding the religious liberty rights of Americans who simply want to run their business according to their faith.

• The best constitutional lawyers in the country are working with First Liberty to win these cases. First Liberty’s unique volunteer attorney model harnesses the legal firepower of constitutional attorneys from many of the nation’s top law firms. Passionate about defending religious freedom, these lawyers give their time to First Liberty Clients pro bono.

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

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

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

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

IN THE BALANCE—PROTECTIONS FOR PEOPLE OF FAITH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Wayne Grudem says “moral character” still matters as the nation chooses a new President. During an Illinois Family Institute sponsored meeting with faith leaders the renowned theologian and author challenged pastors to let their congregation know that the future of America is at stake and how the nation votes will not only determine who our next President will be, but also the direction of the Supreme Court. New additions to the High Court will likely decide life and religious liberty cases.

Support the work of IFI

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.

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, Illinois 60188

(Gifts to IFI are tax-deductible.)

Written by Kathryn Watson

Lawyers filing an amicus brief on behalf of Little Sisters of the Poor before the U.S. Supreme Court claim federal health officials were working behind the scenes years ago to make as many religious organizations as possible subject to Obamacare’s contraception coverage mandate.

Internal government emails from October 2011 and July 2012 obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services officials obsessed over which Catholic universities are exempt from the requirement to provide contraceptive coverage for students and staff.

Judicial Crisis Network chief counsel Carrie Severino said the emails reveal federal officials defined religious organizations narrowly and arbitrarily by the tax code, rather than broadly and based on a desire for religious freedom, in order to make the maximum number of such organizations subject to the contraception coverage mandate.

“The fact that these officials are drawing these distinctions without having any relationship to the real, actual religious freedom concerns shows they’re not actually interested in religious freedom,” Severino told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “They were just trying to cover as many people as they could possibly cover.”

An Oct. 12, 2011, email from CMS’s Alexis Ahlstrom to colleagues advised them to “see last question on what student health plans at Catholic universities cover today” and asked “can we reach out to our sources at Aetna and Nationwide to see if they can answer the question? Thanks.”

Severino told TheDCNF that the email “was showing they were trying to figure out, is this going to cover Catholic universities.”

Little Sisters of the Poor, a Michigan-based group of Catholic nuns, is leading one of the most prominent religious liberty challenges against the Obamacare contraception mandate, which the U.S. Supreme Court will hear during its Spring 2016 term. Severino and the Judicial Education Project are filing an amicus brief on behalf of the Little Sisters of the Poor on Monday.

The Judicial Education Project contends that the federal government should define exempt religious organizations under a portion of the Civil Rights Act concerning religious freedom, rather than under a the ever-changing federal tax code.

The federal government currently exempts churches and their “auxiliaries” like church-run schools or programs. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision last year declared that “closely held” corporations can be exempted from the contraception mandate for religious reasons.

But the tax code requires even explicitly religious organizations unaffiliated with a specific church to apply for an exemption from the mandate. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals told the Little Sisters they still have to require a third-party to provide contraceptive coverage in July. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed last November to hear the sisters’ case this Spring.

Severino said federal agencies defined exempt religious organizations under the tax code because they were “just trying to find a neutral reason so they can say that they’re not targeting these groups.”

“Religious freedom in America is under attack,” Severino told the DCNF. “This (case) is going to be very important. This administration is trying to limit religious freedom as much as possible.”

This article was originally posted at the DailyCaller.com

Written by Dr. Daniel Boland, Ph.D.

I have tried to make sense of Mr. Obama’s latest utterance about religious freedom. I am having a difficult time celebrating his rhetoric.

Somehow the president’s recent words to the Islamic community in Baltimore about his regard for the religious freedoms of Americans fail to persuade and fall heavily upon the ear with a resounding lack of authenticity. His words of praise for religious freedom are again weighed down with multiple contradictions: witness his administration as it seeks to force the Catholic religious order, Little Sisters of the Poor, to provide birth control to their employees.

This politically correct attempt on the part of the Obama Administration to force the Sisters to act against their deeply-held, historically validated religious beliefs is morally and theologically repugnant to all faithful Catholics and should be so to all aware Americans. It seems beyond outrage that such a crass political act should be levied against the Little Sisters, a religious Order of Catholic sisters whose only work for 177 years has been–and remains–giving shelter and aid to poor, abandoned, and dying elders around the world.

By this act, our government violates the religious freedoms of these Sisters and exhibits legalistic disregard toward the manner of service and selfless care, self-restraint, and extraordinary moral behavior which is the daily rule of life for these extraordinary women. The Little Sisters of the Poor offer countless personal examples of explicit, public religious professionalism which is the basis of their profound generosity to those who cannot help themselves. Their lives and work provide constant and consistent examples of religious belief and commitment in action in their most admirable public form.

It is, thus, an indefensible travesty on the part of the Obama Administration, representing America, that these religious women are now forced to seek judgment from the Supreme Court to protect their fundamental moral and religious beliefs which run life-long deep in their Catholic culture and in the Church from which they draw their inspiration and support.

President Obama explicitly told his Muslim audience at the Baltimore mosque that he was speaking in his official role as President of the United States. During his presidency, he has repeatedly expressed great concern about and affiliation with the Muslim community both in America and around the world, even proclaiming Islam as a central ingredient of American history. Since the first attribute of authenticity is consistency, one is compelled to wonder to what extent Mr. Obama actually believes what he says–especially when he speaks to a select audience about their religious freedom and at the same time compels the Little Sisters of the Poor to seek costly judgment from the highest legal authority in the land.

Mr. Obama ended his speech by reminding Muslim Americans, “You are not alone, your fellow Americans stand with you.” And he reminded others that the country’s diversity “is not a weakness, that is one of our greatest strengths.” It would be reassuring to many Americans to hear Mr. Obama address the Little Sisters in similar fashion.

Because of his inconsistency in word and action, Mr. Obama–even at this late stage of his fading presidency–has yet to persuade many Americans that he truly believes the Constitution’s principles of guaranteed religious freedom do indeed apply to all American citizens. Many Americans remain unconvinced that our president is authentically concerned about the religious freedoms of all American citizens, including such politically incorrect miscreants as the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Worldview Conference with Dr. Wayne Grudem
We are very excited about our second annual Worldview Conference featuring world-renowned theologian Dr. Wayne Grudem on Saturday, February 20, 2016 in Barrington.

Click HERE to register today.  Seating is limited!

In the morning sessions, Dr. Grudem will speak on how biblical values provide the only effective solution to world poverty and about the moral advantages of a free-market economic system. In the afternoon, Dr. Grudem will address why Christians—and especially pastors—should influence government for good as well as tackle the moral and spiritual issues in the 2016 election.

We look forward to this worldview-training and pray it will be a blessing to you.

Click HERE for a flyer.