It’s almost become a part of the weekly news cycle: American citizens publicly tarred and feathered for professing their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Just this month, we watched a family-owned pizzeria close its doors after its owners received hate mail and death threats from around the country. Their offense? Giving the wrong answer to a question about whether they’d cater a gay wedding. Keep in mind that the restaurant had never actually turned down a gay customer. They were hammered for holding the wrong beliefs about a hypothetical scenario!

Major corporations are getting into the bullying act, as well. At least two state governments have now backed down or modified religious freedom legislation in response to pressure from companies like Walmart and Salesforce. Keep that in mind next time you think about shopping at Walmart.

And this culture-wide search-and-destroy mission is only accelerating. As Princeton’s Robby George writes in First Things, activists for the new sexual orthodoxy are “giddy with success and urged on by a compliant and even gleeful media.”

The message is clear: not only should Christians remain silent about gay marriage if we know what’s good for us, but we must be made to agree with and even celebrate what Scripture calls sin. As Ana Marie Cox recently said of Christians on MSNBC, “you’re going to have to force [them] to do things they don’t want to do.”

But gay columnist Frank Bruni recently took it to the next level in the New York Times, writing that it’s time Christians get with the program and “take homosexuality off the sin list.” The lived experience of same-sex couples ought to trump what he calls the “scattered passages of ancient texts” condemning his lifestyle. Wow.

As for freedom of religion, Bruni suggests a new definition: “freeing . .  . religious people from prejudices that they . . . can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.”

Yes, he actually wrote “rightly bowing.”

I’m reminded of a scene from C. S. Lewis’ “The Last Battle,” in which Shift the Ape explains to the poor creatures of Narnia why they’re being shipped off to the Calormene salt mines.

“You think freedom means doing what you like,” says Shift. “Well, you’re wrong. That isn’t true freedom. True freedom means doing what I tell you.”

Writing at National Review, Yuval Levin says what we’re witnessing isn’t so much the suppression of free exercise of religion as it is the establishment of a new national religion; the religion of secular liberalism. And dissenters must be forced to worship at its altar and affirm its creed of anything-goes sexuality.

Given the likely outcome of this summer’s Supreme Court case on same-sex marriage, Rod Dreher asks what will it be like to be a Christian in our brave, new society—and what will become of orthodox Christianity now that the price of professing it could be our credibility and livelihoods.

The answer, Dreher says, will depend a great deal on us. Will we hold fast to biblical teaching and refuse, in a manner of speaking, to burn incense to Caesar?

Friends, the fight for religious liberty is far from over. And as John Stonestreet and I have been saying again and again, it’s time for the Church to wake up, to pray, and to publicly defend our religious rights and our brothers and sisters under assault for their beliefs.

Originally posted at BreakPoint.org.

The New Rules of the Secular Left

The vast high-velocity moral revolution that is reshaping modern cultures at warp speed is leaving almost no aspect of the culture untouched and untransformed. The advocates of same-sex marriage and the more comprehensive goals of the LGBT movement assured the nation that nothing would be fundamentally changed if people of the same gender were allowed to marry one another. We knew that could not be true, and now the entire nation knows.

The latest Ground Zero for the moral revolution is the state of Indiana, where legislators passed a state version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Gov. Mike Pence then signed into law. The controversy that followed was a free-for-all of misrepresentation and political posturing. Within days, the governor capitulated to the controversy by calling for a revision of the law — a revision that may well make the RFRA a force for weakening religious liberty in Indiana, rather than for strengthening it.

Business, political, and civic leaders piled on in a mass act of political posturing. The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act became law in 1993 in a mass act of bipartisan cooperation. The Act passed unanimously in the U.S. House of Representatives and with 97 affirmative votes in the U.S. Senate. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law, celebrating the Act as a much needed protection of religious liberty. Clinton called religious liberty the nation’s “first freedom” and went on to state: “We believe strongly that we can never, we can never be too vigilant in this work.”

But, that was then. Indiana is now.

Hillary Clinton, ready to launch her campaign for President, condemned the law as dangerous and discriminatory — even though the law in its federal form has not led to any such discrimination. Apple CEO Tim Cook took to the pages of The Washington Post to declare that the Indiana law “would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors.” For its part,The Washington Post published an editorial in which the paper’s editorial board condemned a proposed RFRA in the state of Georgia because the law would prevent the state government “from infringing on an individual’s religious beliefs unless the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in doing so.”

So, The Washington Post believes that a state should be able to infringe on a citizen’s religious liberty without a compelling interest? That is the only conclusion a reader can draw from the editorial.

The piling on continued when the governor of Connecticut, Dannel Mulloy announced that he would even forbid travel to Indiana by state officials, conveniently forgetting to mention that his own state has a similar law, as does the federal government. The NCAA piled on, as did a host of sports figures from across the country. More than one pundit pointed to the irony of the NCAA trying to posture on a question of sexual morality, but the pile-on continued.

Law professor Daniel O. Conkle of Indiana University stated the truth plainly when he said: “The reaction to this law is startling in terms of its breadth–and to my mind–the extent to which the reaction is uninformed by the actual content of the law.” Similarly, University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock, a proponent of gay marriage, stated: “The hysteria over this law is so unjustified.” He continued: “It’s not about discriminating against gays in general or across the board . . . it’s about not being involved in a ceremony that you believe is inherently religious.”

Nevertheless, the real issue here is not the RFRA in Indiana, or Arkansas, or another state. The real issue is the fact that the secular Left has decided that religious liberty must now be reduced, redefined or relegated to a back seat in the culture.

The evidence for this massive and dangerous shift is mounting.

One key indicator is found in the editorial pages of The New York Times. That influential paper has appointed itself the guardian of civil liberties, and it has championed LGBT causes for decades now. But the paper’s editorial board condemned the Indiana law as “cover for bigotry.” The most chilling statement in the editorial, however, was this:

“The freedom to exercise one’s religion is not under assault in Indiana, or anywhere else in the country. Religious people — including Christians, who continue to make up the majority of Americans — may worship however they wish and say whatever they like.”

There you see religious liberty cut down to freedom of worship. The freedom to worship is most surely part of what religious liberty protects, but religious liberty is not limited to what happens in a church, temple, mosque, or synagogue.

That editorial represents religious liberty redefined before our eyes.

But the clearest evidence of the eagerness of the secular Left to reduce and redefine religious liberty comes in the form of two columns by opinion writer Frank Bruni. The first, published in January, included Bruni’s assurance that he affirmed “the right of people to believe what they do and say what they wish — in their pews, homes, and hearts.” Religious liberty is now redefined so that it has no place outside pews, homes, and hearts. Religious liberty no longer has any public significance.

But Bruni does not really affirm religious liberty, even in churches and in the hiring of ministers. He wrote: “And churches have been allowed to adopt broad, questionable interpretations of a ‘ministerial exception’ laws that allow them to hire and fire clergy as they wish.”

The ability of churches to hire and fire ministers as they wish is “questionable.” Remember that line when you are told that your church is promised “freedom of worship.”

But Bruni’s January column was merely a prelude to what came in the aftermath of the Indiana controversy. Now, the openly-gay columnist demands that Christianity reform its doctrines as well.

He opened his column in the paper’s edition published Easter Sunday with this:

“The drama in Indiana last week and the larger debate over so-called religious freedom laws in other states portray homosexuality and devout Christianity as forces in fierce collision. They’re not — at least not in several prominent denominations, which have come to a new understanding of what the Bible does and doesn’t decree, of what people can and cannot divine in regard to God’s will.”

Bruni issued an open demand that evangelical Christians to get over believing that homosexuality is a sin, or suffer the consequences. His language could not be more chilling:

“So our debate about religious liberty should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.”

There you have it — a demand that religious liberty be debated (much less respected) only if conservative believers will get with the program and, mark his language, bow to the demands of the modern age.

Christianity and homosexuality “don’t have to be in conflict in any church anywhere,” Bruni declared.

He reduced religious conviction to a matter of choice:

“But in the end, the continued view of gays, lesbians and bisexuals as sinners is a decision. It’s a choice. It prioritizes scattered passages of ancient texts over all that has been learned since — as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing. It disregards the degree to which all writings reflect the biases and blind spots of their authors, cultures and eras.”

So the only religion Bruni respects is one that capitulates to the modern age and is found “rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.”

That means giving up the inerrancy of Scripture, for one thing. The Bible, according to Bruni, reflects the biases and blind spots of the human authors and their times. When it comes to homosexuality, he insists, we now know better.

This is the anthem of liberal Protestantism, and the so-called mainline Protestant churches have been devoted to this project for the better part of a century now. Bruni applauds the liberal churches for getting with the program and for revising the faith in light of the demands of the modern age — demands that started with the denial of truths such as the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, miracles, the verbal inspiration of Scripture, and other vital doctrines. The liberal churches capitulated on the sexuality issues only after capitulating on a host of central Christian doctrines. Almost nothing is left for them to deny or reformulate.

It is interesting to see how quickly some can get with the program and earn the respect of the secular gatekeepers. Bruni cites David Gushee of Mercer University as an example of one who has seen the light. “Human understanding of what is sinful has changed over time,” Bruni quotes Gushee. Bruni then stated that Gushee “openly challenges his faith’s censure of same-sex relationships, to which he no longer subscribes.”

But David Gushee agreed with the church’s historic condemnation of same-sex relationships, even in a major work on Christian ethics he co-authored, until he released a book stating otherwise just months ago. Once a public figure gets with the program, whether that person is David Gushee or Barack Obama, all is quickly forgiven.

Bruni also notes that “Christians have moved far beyond Scripture when it comes to gender roles.” He is right to understand that some Christians have indeed done so, and in so doing they have made it very difficult to stop with redefining the Bible on gender roles. Once that is done, there is every reason to expect that a revisionist reading of sexuality is close behind. Bruni knows this, and celebrates it.

Taken together, Frank Bruni’s two columns represent a full-throttle demand for theological capitulation and a fully developed reduction of religious liberty. In his view, stated now in full public view in the pages ofThe New York Times, the only faiths that deserve religious liberty are those that bow their knees to the ever most costly demands of the modern age.

It is incredibly revealing that the verb he chose was “bowing.” One of the earliest lessons Christians had to learn was that we cannot simultaneously bow the knee to Caesar and to Christ. We must choose one or the other. Frank Bruni, whether he intended to do so or not, helps us to see that truth with new clarity.

Sources:

Frank Bruni, “Your God and My Dignity,” The New York Times, Sunday, January 11, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-religious-liberty-bigotry-and-gays.html

Frank Bruni, “Bigotry, the Bible, and the Lessons of Indiana,” The New York Times, Sunday, April 5, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/frank-bruni-same-sex-sinners.html

This article was originally posted at the AlbertMohler.com website.

America is in the midst of a seismic cultural shift in matters of faith, family, and freedom.

More than 35 states now issue same-sex marriage licenses. An increasing number of scholars and judges insist that the First Amendment only protects the freedom to believe—not the freedom to live out those beliefs. At least one state now compels employers to provide insurance coverage for elective abortions. Many cities nationwide ban religious employers from hiring and firing based on their religious convictions. Gender fluidity is gaining legal and political legitimacy.

Churches cannot afford to ignore the fallout of the sexual revolution. Churches that desire to maintain a faithful gospel witness increasingly feel the effects of these cultural changes.

Pastors are being asked to perform same-sex ceremonies and admit same-sex couples to marriage enrichment retreats. Churches face litigation for holding their employees—including pastors or music directors—to a biblical sexual ethic. Church administrators receive requests to use church sanctuaries for same-sex ceremonies. Pastors who teach the sanctity of human life and the creation institution of marriage are frequently labeled “political” and threatened with the loss of their church’s tax-exempt status.

These new political, cultural, and legal realities directly affect the church’s freedom to live out its faith. While most church decisions about internal governance or doctrine currently enjoy constitutional protection, churches cannot assume that these protections will stand indefinitely. Maintaining a gospel-centered witness in today’s culture requires not only standing firm on the truths of Scripture, but also taking affirmative steps to protect the church’s freedom to continue peacefully teach and live out its faith.

Here are five ways churches can protect their freedom to maintain fidelity to the faith.

1. Adopt a written statement of faith about marriage.

A church does not need to commit every detail of doctrine to writing. But marriage warrants special inclusion in church bylaws, statements of faith, or other policy documents, because the definition of marriage is hotly debated at the intersection of law, faith, and culture. A statement on marriage clarifies the church’s beliefs about marriage—both for the congregation and the culture—and serves as the starting point for any church decisions related to marriage and human sexuality.

2. Establish religious employment criteria.

Require all employees to affirm that they hold to the church’s statement of faith and doctrine and are willing to abide by them. Also ensure that each employee has a written job description. Each job description should go beyond listing the physical duties involved to specifying the position’s spiritual responsibilities and clearly explaining how it furthers the church’s mission. These details help reinforce the religious nature of the employment relationship.

3. Create a facility use policy.

If the church owns a facility that it permits others to use outside of normal church operation or events, the church should establish a written facility policy that details the terms under which it may be used. For example, the policy should establish an application and approval process, specifically detail the religious nature of the facility, and expressly prohibit uses that are inconsistent with the church’s religious beliefs.

4. Establish a written marriage policy.

A church should have a written policy detailing both the marriages that the church will recognize and also the circumstances under which the pastor will solemnize a union. This policy adds another layer of protection for the pastor who is asked to perform a wedding that he cannot, in good conscience, officiate.

5. Adopt a written membership policy.

Only those persons who “unite” with the church have consented to the church’s authority over them. As a result, churches with formal members have greater legal protection when it becomes necessary to exercise church discipline. Churches are encouraged to adopt a written membership policy that explains the procedure for becoming a church member, procedures for member discipline, and procedures for rescinding church membership.

Of course, this recommendation does not mean that a church should adopt a form of church government to which it does not subscribe. Churches can still have designated members who affirm they are committed to and part of a church body, even if there is no voting or say in church practices.

Alliance Defending Freedom has developed a resource to help churches accomplish these five steps. This resource is designed to help churches strengthen their governing documents and internal policies in order to avoid obstacles to gospel ministry. Included within the resource are sample statements and language that each church or ministry may adapt to suit its unique needs.

Should your church or ministry face threat of litigation for operating according to its faith, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys stand ready to defend you, free of charge.

Today’s political, legal, and cultural climate poses new challenges to gospel ministry. But by both addressing the challenges of today and taking affirmative steps for tomorrow, the church can protect its freedom to continue faithfully carrying out its mission.

Published at TheGospelCoalition.org

Growing numbers of voices are telling Christians “Keep your views to yourself!” “Stay out of the public square!” Well, what if we did?

Frank Capra’s classic Christmas movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” showed a despairing George Bailey, played by Jimmy Stewart, learning how the world would be without him. Well, perhaps we need a similar cinematic telling for all those currently telling Christians to stay out of the public square and to keep their thoughts about marriage, religious freedom, and the dignity of human life to ourselves. And maybe a few wobbly-kneed Christians need to see it too.

Just like George Bailey was stunned to discover what Bedford Falls would look like had he “never been born,” I think it may be similarly shocking to see what the world would look like today without Christianity’s influence.

For one thing, we wouldn’t have thousands of volunteers working in prisons to help incarcerated men and women return to their communities as productive citizens. We’d certainly see fewer hospitals and free clinics. After all, I’ve seen a lot of Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, and Catholic hospitals, but I can’t remember any Buddhist, atheist, or New Age ones, or for that matter food kitchens, or rescue missions, or adoption agencies, or disaster relief organizations, or entrepreneurial training programs. And good luck sustaining free, public education to the millions of students once religious schools shut their doors. When Christians “keep it to ourselves,” everybody loses.

Though many in the media don’t get that point, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof does, and good for him. “In liberal circles,” Kristof recently wrote, “evangelicals constitute one of the few groups that it’s safe to mock openly. And yet the liberal caricature of evangelicals,” he continues, “is incomplete and unfair. But I’ve been truly awed by those I’ve seen in so many remote places, combating illiteracy and warlords, famine and disease, humbly struggling to do the Lord’s work as they see it, and it is offensive to see good people derided.”

To make his point, Kristof points to just one example. On a recent trip to the war-torn nation of Angola, he met medical missionary Dr. Stephen Foster, who has been working there—without the world’s acclaim—for 37 years. The white-haired doctor, who is now 65, has stood firm against six-foot cobras, enraged Marxist soldiers, and horrible health and working conditions. One of his sons contracted polio; a daughter survived a cerebral hemorrhage. As Kristof relates, his son Rob says, “For a while I blamed my dad and his high-risk dedication to others. Today . . . I am no longer bitter or resentful. If me getting polio meant that thousands of lives were either saved or immeasurably improved by my father’s work, then so be it.”

So we should keep our faith to ourselves?

Or consider those like Dr. Kent Brantley or other Christian medical professionals, who courageously fought and are fighting Ebola at great personal risk. Should they leave the public square and stop acting on the basis of their beliefs? Are the guardians of so-called “civil rights” willing to go in their place?

Now it’s true that sometimes we Christians undermine our witness by wrong words and deeds, but it’s also true that we’ve brought a lot more to our neighbors and communities than many folks realize.

A few years ago, for instance, a University of Pennsylvania researcher found that urban congregations, such as First Baptist in Philadelphia, provide millions of dollars in services to their communities in everything from marriage counseling, to helping people off drugs and alcohol, to providing K-12 education.

So like Bedford Falls and George Bailey, our society really will miss us if we are cowed into a privatized faith that keeps religion safely inside the four walls of our own churches. Christianity is not only to be believed; it must be lived—and not just for our own benefit, but for the good of our neighbors. And now of all times, we must increase our work of restoration in our communities. But that doesn’t mean be silent. Like Jesus, let’s be about the business of sharing it, both in word and in deed. Even when others tell us to keep it to ourselves.

Originally published at BreakPoint.org.

Even before this year’s NCAA “Final Four” Basketball Championship in Indianapolis was set, much of the media’s attention had already pivoted to what one pundit called “the nightmare [looming] in Indiana.”

The “nightmare” being referred to was the new Indiana law that – we are being told – “essentially gives Indiana businesses the freedom to discriminate against gays and lesbians.”

“Well, why would Indiana do that?” you might ask. Well, it didn’t. It’s part of a shameless campaign to discredit that state’s version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Gov. Mike Pence signed into law last week.

And so far, the reporting has been somewhere between ignorant and flat-out dishonest.

In the ignorant category you have Charles Barkley’s statement that “As long as anti-gay legislation exists in any state, I strongly believe big events such as the Final Four and Super Bowl should not be held in those states’ cities.” With all due respect to Mr. Barkley, I doubt he has read Indiana’s law or was aware that 19 other states already have similar laws or that he has considered any legal analysis of what the law actually permits.

And in the dishonest category you have the lion’s share of media coverage touting a hypothetical scenario in which Bible-swinging restaurant owners chase away gay diners in the same way that Lester Maddox did with an axe handle against African-Americans.

No mention was made of what prompted the enactment of the Indiana law and others like it: Christians being forced, under penalty of law, to participate in ceremonies that violated their religious beliefs.

And hardly any mentioned that Indiana’s law was modeled on the federal 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which found overwhelming support from Democrats and Republicans, and was signed into law by President Clinton. And as Governor Pence has pointed out, in 1998, then-state Senator Barack Obama voted in favor of Illinois’ religious freedom legislation.

As Daniel O. Conkle, a law professor at Indiana University, wrote in the Indianapolis Star, the Indiana law “despite all the rhetoric” has “little to do with gay marriage and everything to do with religious freedom.”

And that’s exactly the point Governor Pence tried to make to anyone who would listen.

And here’s something you need to know: Professor Conkle is a supporter of gay rights, including gay marriage. So obviously, not everyone who supports the Indiana law is a “bigot.”

As Conkle points out, “granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld.” In fact, the bill only ensures them of “their day in court.” Once there, they’ll still have to compellingly argue that being required to, say, photograph a gay wedding, is an infringement on their religious freedom that does not serve a compelling governmental interest, or if it does, that this interest could not be furthered in a less intrusive manner. In other words, this bill is no license to discriminate.

Rather, it’s the kind of freedom that Americans have long taken for granted. All Americans, not just Christians. It’s why the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a Muslim prisoner in Arkansas could wear a half-inch beard.

And yet, an intolerant clique with their media partners would deny millions of Americans this right and excoriate Mike Pence for upholding it. As Eric Metaxas said in a recent email to me about this, we are at a tipping point. It’s game on. And we can’t let the media’s lies go unanswered.

So, three cheers for Mike Pence and the Indiana General Assembly for standing for the rights of citizens. You may want to send Governor Pence a supportive message. I bet he could use one right about now.

And get up to speed on the issue so you can tell the truth about this bill. Come to BreakPoint.org for a list of clear articles from those on both sides of the political aisle.

Originally Posted at ChristianPost.com.

Written by Joseph Backholm

A story out of Colorado this week demonstrates what many of us have been feeling for a while. When it comes to laws dealing with “gay stuff”, there really is no law. Only the preferences of the person making the decision.

You may have heard a story about Jack Phillips, a Denver baker who runs Masterpiece Cakeshop. After declining to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, The Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) found him in violation of state law and ordered him to undergo sensitivity training. They also ordered him to file quarterly reports with the state to see if he has turned away customers based on sexual orientation.

But there’s another case you may not have heard about.

In an apparent response to the Masterpiece Cakeshop dust up, a man named William Jack from Castle Rock, Colorado approached three bakeries (Azucar Bakery, Gateaux, and Le Bakery Sensual) and asked them to bake cakes critical of same-sex marriage.

In the case of Azucar Bakery, he requested a cake with two groomsmen holding hands in front of a cross with a red “X” over the image. The cake was also to include three statements “God hates sin. Psalm 45:7”, “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2” and “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8.”

To no one’s surprise, they declined.

In response, Mr. Jack filed his own complaint with the CCRC claiming that their refusal to bake the cake communicating his Christian opposition to homosexuality was discrimination based on creed; specifically his Christian faith.

Denying the charge of discrimination, the bakery claimed it refused to bake the cake because of the message not because of the religion of the person requesting it. They considered the message to be “discriminatory”.

In the end, the CCRC agreed with the bakery and concluded the refusal to bake the cake requested was not discrimination based on creed for three reasons.

First, they said the refusal was not because the person requesting it was a Christian but because the cake “included derogatory language and imagery.”

Second, they cited the fact that they had served Christians before as evidence that they don’t discriminate on the basis of creed.

Third, the bakery would also refuse to bake a cake that was critical of Christians.

If it feels like these are the same arguments that were made by Jack Phillips (and other businesses) who happily serve gay customers but are unwilling to be part of same-sex wedding, that’s because they are.

The CCRC summarized that, “ [T]he evidence demonstrates that the Respondent would have made a cake for the Charging Party for any event, celebration or occasion regardless of his creed. Instead, the Respondent’s denial was based on the explicit message that the Charging Party wished to include on the cakes, which the Respondent deemed as discriminatory.”

So, if the message on the cake is one you don’t agree with, you can decline. However, if the cake itself is a message you disagree with, you cannot decline.

That makes sense…to no one.

It is apparent that the CCRC sympathizes one perspective but not the other.

These arbitrary and contradictory results are the legal equivalent of the middle finger.

We’re in charge and you aren’t. That’s why.

Of course those bakeries should be free not to bake a cake that includes a message they disagree with. The problem is laws which permit people to act on one set of beliefs about a particular issue but deny people with the opposite opinion the same rights.

In fairness, arbitrary application of the laws based on the preferences of the person in power has been the norm not the exception throughout history.

But America has been an attempt to move away from that. It hasn’t been perfect, but despite abuses of power, we have aspired to create a world in which everyone is bound by the same laws in the same way.

As a result, we have worked to create a world in which people who were similarly situated could expect similar results in court.

Clearly, we have progressed beyond that. Because, you know…equality.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

Originally published by the Family Policy Institute of Washington.

In a recent article about the upcoming political protest in public schools sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), I referred to the “sickening sweetness” of increasing numbers of Christians. By that expression, I am not suggesting that Christians are sickening, as in disgusting. Nor am I referring to civility, kindness, compassion, or genuine love—which is inseparable from mercy, grace, truth, holiness, and justice.

Rather, “sickening sweetness” refers to the superficial “niceness” that so often passes for love within the body of Christ. It’s the equivalent of sugary candy that tastes oh-so-yummy, but provides no nourishment, nothing that can restore health to dying people. It sickens, rather than strengthens. Its sweetness attracts and deceives, making consumers feel good for a moment but contributing only to decay and death. It’s a cheap, easy counterfeit of biblical love, which Christians exploit to conceal the truth that they are avoiding the costly way of Christ. It ignores eternity while paving the way to eternal destruction.

When I refer to the sickening sweetness of Christians, I’m describing those Christians who misuse—make that torture—Scripture to argue that Christian bakers should make wedding cakes for homosexual anti-weddings.

I’m referring to Christians who misuse Scripture to defend keeping kids in school on the Day of Silence even as administrators and faculty use their schools to promote homosexuality as equivalent to heterosexuality and good.

I’m referring to Christians—including public school teachers and church leaders—who say nothing as five-year-olds are exposed to positive images of and assumptions about homosexuality and gender confusion in our taxpayer-funded schools.

I’m referring to Christians—including teachers and church leaders—who said nothing when the sacrilegious and egregiously obscene homosexuality-affirming play Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes was taught at Deerfield and Highland Park High Schools or when the deceitful Laramie Project is taught virtually everywhere.

I’m referring to Christians—including teachers and church leaders—who said nothing when The Perks of Being a Wallflower was included by public school teachers on a middle school recommended book list in Glen Ellyn, Illinois.

I’m referring to Christians—including teachers and church leaders—who say nothing when schools decide that restrooms no longer correspond to objective biological sex but rather to the disordered desires of confused children.

The exegetical positions that theological contortionists twist themselves into in their effort to avoid acting in accordance with Scripture on matters related to serving or attending same-sex anti-weddings are evident when Christians say, “But Jesus spent time with sinners, including even prostitutes and tax collectors.” Christians who say this conveniently omit inconvenient parts of these biblical accounts. Jesus didn’t merely hang out, eat,  and chew the fat with sinners. He spent time with them, defining what constitutes sin, and calling them to repent of their sins and follow him.

And Jesus did not spend his time with sinners facilitating, participating in, or celebrating their sin. Jesus would not help a prostitute solicit johns or celebrate her career path. Jesus would not help tax collectors cheat their neighbors or celebrate their ill-gotten gains. Jesus did not sit passively by smiling benignly in the presence of men and women who were lost in spiritual darkness and at risk of spending eternity separated from God.

Some who claim to be Christians say that God does not hate, ignoring that God does, indeed, hate. He hates sin and so too should followers of Christ, even as we love those in need of the redemption we have found through God’s grace.

Purveyors of sickening sweetness claim that Christ came to bring peace, ignoring that he also came not to bring peace but a sword that will divide even families.

The peace Jesus brings is a peace constituted by reconciliation with a holy God. This peace does not include, nor will permit affirmation and celebration of acts that God abhors.

Since the fall of man, there has been enmity between God and Satan. Jesus came to bring peace by destroying the enemy—not by affirming and celebrating the sinful activity in which Satan tempts humans to engage.

Some Christians offer the unbiblical argument that Christians should never be angry, whereas God commands us to be angry, but sin not. The salient questions are what constitutes a sinful expression of anger, and what constitutes a sinful absence of anger about that which we should feel and express anger.

In a novel but futile attempt to ennoble cowardice, Andrew Walker writing on First Things advocates fiscal fungibility. He penned an open letter from a fictitious Christian baker to his customers acknowledging that he would be caving in to Leftist tyranny and bake cakes for homoerotic anti-weddings, but that he would donate his 30 pieces of silver to organizations that are willing to suffer for Christ.

Walker argues unpersuasively that “If Caesar insists that bakers must be made to bake cakes or else close up shop, we’re going to see to it that Caesar’s edicts get undermined by channeling resources designed to fight Caesar.”

I think Jesus said something slightly different: “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22: 21). Our gifts, time, and labor are God’s.

In a blog post Jessica Kantrowitz argues that  Jesus’ command to his followers that “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles” constitutes a mandate to provide goods and services for same-sex faux-marriages.

It’s important to note that Kantrowitz admits to believing that “gay marriage” is not immoral,” so we know that even as she cites Scripture as the authority for baking cakes for same-sex faux-marriages, she rejects biblical authority on both marriage and homoeroticism.

Kantrowitz ignores critical differences between being commanded to carry a soldier’s pack and being asked to bake an anti-wedding cake. In the first instance, a Christian is being forced to do something, whereas in the contemporary case, a baker is being asked. Second, there is nothing inherently immoral about carrying a pack for someone—not even for a Roman soldier—whereas volitionally making a cake to adorn a homosexual anti-wedding is, indeed, immoral.

The only way that creating a product to enhance an anti-wedding can be construed as morally neutral would be to argue that an anti-wedding is ontologically identical to a true wedding. But at some level even Leftists must recognize that as false. Would Kantrowitz make this argument in regard to a commitment ceremony between a 40-year-old and a 14-year-old? Would she make the same argument in regard to a commitment ceremony between two brothers? If plural unions are legalized—as they will be in the not too distant future—would she argue that Christian bakers have a biblical mandate to create goods and provide services for a polygamous or polyamorous wedding?

Would she make this argument in regard to a commitment ceremony between a person and an animal? This is not to suggest that a homosexual anti-wedding is identical to a zoophile’s anti-wedding. It’s to suggest that Kantrowitz likely holds a prior and unspoken assumption about same-sex faux weddings. In addition to believing that they are inherently moral, which she has already admitted believing, she likely believes same-sex anti-weddings are, in reality, weddings.

What if the government commanded Christian restaurant-owners to refuse to serve blacks? Would Kantrowitz cite Matthew 5:41 as proof that Christians have a biblical obligation to comply? Is Matthew 5:41 an absolute command for Christians always to do the bidding of non-Christians, including when force is not involved and the act requested violates Scripture? Was Jesus’ command intended to compel Christians to carry a pack that they knew would serve a profound evil and even to do more in the service of the evil? Would Kantrowitz argue that as a Christian she has a biblically mandated duty to engage in an activity that she believes is profoundly immoral and which she believes God detests (e.g., refusing to serve blacks in her restaurant or providing goods for a “wedding” between a human and an animal).

And then there are those other pesky biblical passages that point uncomfortably to God’s countercultural mandate:

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Eph. 5:11)

Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. (James 1: 2-4)

And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.  For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. (Mark 8:34-35)

Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. (1 Pet. 4: 12-16)

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. (John 15: 18-21)

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matt: 10: 34) 

 [A]nd anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. (Matt. 10: 38)

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matt. 5: 10, 11)

Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. (2 Cor. 4: 1-2)

How many rationalizations will Christians, in their fear and desperation, attempt in order to avoid doing what they must know is expected from those who claim to love Jesus? God is calling his people in America to deny themselves, to take up their crosses and follow him, and to rejoice when people falsely say all kinds of evil against us.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote this in The Cost of Discipleship:

The messengers of Jesus will be hated to the end of time. They will be blamed for all the division which rend cities and homes. Jesus and his disciples will be condemned on all sides for undermining family life, and for leading the nation astray; they will be called crazy fanatics and disturbers of the peace. The disciples will be sorely tempted to desert their Lord. But the end is also near, and they must hold on and persevere until it comes. Only he will be blessed who remains loyal to Jesus and his word until the end.

And let’s not forget that our children are watching us. Perhaps we can set an example of courageous, faithful self-sacrifice for them, and perhaps we can gain a moment more of freedom for them and their children.

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

CLICK HERE for Details

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

Indiana and Arkansas lawmakers headed back to the drawing boards recently to rewrite language for their states’ respective Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA), due to heavy backlash from businesses and advocates of homosexuality.

The angry opposition to religious freedom is the exact reason every state needs legal protections for faith.

Every American, regardless of political or religious views, should be free to live and work according to their conscience without fear of punishment and backlash from the government. Regardless of what advocates of homosexual behavior say, our government was formed to be freedom’s greatest protector, not its greatest threat.

AFA sent Action Alerts into Arkansas and Indiana early last week, calling on the state’s citizens to urge their governors to sign the initial religious freedom measures put before him by their state’s lawmakers. They were good bills.

Last Wednesday, in the wake of pressure, Hutchinson instead called for changes to Arkansas’ religious freedom bill. He signed the revised bill on Thursday. Similarly, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed his state’s revised bill on Thursday.

We have often shared case after case of Americans who were forced into making business decisions that were not in line with their faith convictions, such as bakers, florists and photographers who were pressured into providing services for same-sex weddings – or punished for not doing so – even though their convictions dictated otherwise.

Americans should never be asked to violate their convictions against homosexual behavior by endorsing it through their businesses. Our nation thrives only when we tolerate a diversity of opinions and not allow the government to punish citizens for their beliefs.

Written by Kevin D. Williams

In Indiana, in Arkansas, and in the boardroom

There are two easy ways to get a Republican to roll over and put his paws up in the air: The first is to write him a check, which is the political version of scratching his belly, and the second is to call him a bigot. In both cases, it helps if you have a great deal of money behind you.

Tim Cook, who in his role as chief executive of the world’s most valuable company personifies precisely the sort of oppression to which gay people in America are subjected, led the hunting party when Indiana’s governor Mike Pence signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, while Walmart, a company that cannot present its hindquarters enthusiastically enough to the progressives who hate it and everything for which it stands, dispatched its CEO, C. Douglas McMillon, to head off a similar effort in Arkansas, where Governor Asa Hutchison rolled over immediately.

There are three problems with rewarding those who use accusations of bigotry as a political cudgel. First, those who seek to protect religious liberties are not bigots, and going along with false accusations that they are makes one a party to a lie. Second, it is an excellent way to lose political contests, since there is almost nothing — up to and including requiring algebra classes — that the Left will not denounce as bigotry. Third, and related, it encourages those who cynically deploy accusations of bigotry for their own political ends.

An excellent illustration of this dynamic is on display in the recent pronouncements of columnist and gay-rights activist Dan Savage, who, in what seems to be an effort to resurrect every lame stereotype about the shrill, hysterical, theatrical gay man, declaimed that the efforts of those who do not wish to see butchers and bakers and wedding-bouquet makers forced by their government at gunpoint to violate their religious scruples is — you probably have guessed already — nothing less than the consecration of Jim Crow Junior. “Anti-black bigots, racist bigots, during Jim Crow and segregation made the exact same arguments that you’re hearing people make now,” Savage said. Given the dramatic difference in the social and political position of blacks in the time of Bull Connor and gays in the time of Ellen DeGeneres, this is strictly Hitler-was-a-vegetarian stuff, the elevation of trivial formal similarities over dramatic substantial differences. The choices for explaining this are a.) moral illiteracy; b.) intellectual dishonesty; c.) both a and b.

Adlai Stevenson famously offered this definition: “A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.” We do not live in that society.

Originally published at NationalReview.com

In a shocking turn of events, cowardly, ignorant Republican lawmakers in Indiana have proposed an amendment that turns the Religious Freedom Restoration Act upside down. The Associated Press is reporting that Indiana Republican lickspittles are offering the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as a propitiatory sacrifice to the angry “gay” gods:

The amendment to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act released Thursday prohibits service providers from using the law as a legal defense for refusing to provide services, goods, facilities or accommodations. It also bars discrimination based on…sexual orientation[or] gender identity….

Matt Barber, attorney and editor-in-chief of the political website BarbWire, makes clear the implications of this noxious amendment:

What was intended as a shield to protect religious liberty has now become a sword to destroy it. What was intended to defend people of faith against being forced by government, under penalty of law, to affirmatively violate their First Amendment-protected liberty of conscience, has now been turned into a government weapon that compels people of faith to violate that conscience. This is a complete 180. If this is the final version, it would be better if this “RFRA” had never even been introduced. Pence must veto this and clarify that no person with a sincere religious belief against sin-based “gay marriage” may be compelled in any way, shape or form, to participate in that counter-Christian event. If he does not, then he has become an enemy to religious liberty.

To witness an embarrassing display of flabby political  spin and public emasculation, click here to see Indiana Republican flim-flammers genuflect before America’s new ravenous and brutish idols who have plundered marriage, children, churches, schools, rainbows, and now the Constitution.

What happens when citizens buy the lie that “all that matters are fiscal issues”? Fools, cowards, and worse get elected.

It’s a good thing our founding documents were not written by these Indiana Republicans.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send an email message to Gov. Pence to ask him to stand strong for true religious liberty and against the prevailing politically incorrect winds.  Gov. Pence needs to know there is near universal disagreement with this move, from the Christian pro-family movement.

If the link above does not work, please use this email address:  mpence@gov.in.gov.

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

CLICK HERE for Details

In the wake of a pro-LGBTQ, media-driven campaign against Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), Gov. Mike Pence and leaders of the Indiana legislature are backtracking to appease the liberal political mob that has cynically recast the law as the “License to Discriminate.”

Good people everywhere are now intimidated from speaking plain truths about the homosexual-bisexual-transgender agenda. Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) is not. The distortions and media hype attacking Indiana’s religious freedom law are obfuscating some key fundamentals in this debate. It is not the purpose here to dig into the “legaleze” about the law (for that, see this Reason.com piece) but rather to expose the core hypocrisy of pro-LGBTQ progressives on “discrimination.”

Homosexual activists and their sycophants in the media (e.g., CNN’s homosexual anchor/activist Don Lemon) are cunningly building upon their distortions of the RFRA to demand a pro-homosexual special-rights law in the Hoosier State.

It would be the cruelest of ironies if the media-driven backlash against Indiana’s religious freedom law were used to push through a statewide “gay rights” law in Indiana. Such pro-homosexual laws and corporate policies have been the engine driving PRO-LGBT DISCRIMINATION against people of faith for decades—all in the sweet-sounding name of “equality.” For example, the “gay” movement’s bullying of the Boy Scouts of America began with a lawsuit that relied upon New Jersey’s pro-homosexual “sexual orientation” law.

The pro-family movement has long referred to so-called nondiscrimination laws based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as “special rights” because genuine civil rights are not based on disordered, immoral sexual behavior and gender confusion. These Orwellian laws and corporate policies actually foment discrimination in the name of “non-discrimination.” That’s liberalism for you.

Our cherished American freedoms come ultimately from God, as recognized by our national charter, the Declaration of Independence, which appeals to “Nature and Nature’s God.” Homosexual behavior–which cannot produce life–is against both. Witness the grossly disproportionate STD rates linked to “men who have sex with men.”

It is ludicrous to posit “civil rights” based on homosexuality and gender rebellion as “constitutional.” But it is downright un-American to argue—as many LGBTQ activists do—that in a nation founded by people fleeing religious oppression, “rights” based on sexual sin should trump Americans’ freedom to uphold biblical sexual morality and real marriage between man and woman.

The LGBT Lobby and the media have raised the issue of potential discrimination in Indiana. Let’s talk about discrimination.

With the rise of “gay power” in the West has come an abundance of victims of pro-homosexual Political Correctness. All over the world, Christians and moral-minded citizens have been victimized by a liberal, elitist pro-homosexual orthodoxy that increasingly brooks no dissent. The media have trivialized the zero-sum conflict between “gay rights” and freedom of conscience as being merely about wedding cake bakers–but the escalating “LGBTyranny” goes far beyond that:

–> People are losing their jobs or being denied entry into their desired profession (e.g., counseling) because they espouse truth that homosexual behavior is immoral. Allstate Insurance Co. fired Christian Matt Barber (founder of Barbwire.com) after he wrote a column—on his own time—critical of the militant “gay” agenda.

–>  Christian students have been denied entry into college counseling programs simply because their conscience does not permit them to affirm homosexual relationships. In the United States today you are more likely to be punished or fired for OPPOSING homosexuality than you are for “being gay.” (Meanwhile, many corporations and colleges—egged on by the “gay” lobby–are now engaging in pro-homosexual Affirmative Action—giving special preference to homosexuals. So much for LGBTQ victimhood.)

–>  Homosexual activists have successfully lobbied for laws in California, New Jersey and the District of Columbia that BAN minors with unwanted same-sex attractions from pursuing healthy, heterosexual change through therapy. The leftists at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) are using their bevy of lawyers to sue a tiny Jewish ex-“gay” group called JONAH — to drive them out of business. The LGBT activists’ animus toward EX-homosexuals belies their phony rhetoric touting “diversity” and “inclusion.”

–>  In the name of transgender “rights,” “non-discrimination” laws are allowing biological men to use public women’s restrooms, and boys to use girls restrooms and locker rooms in schools. Thus women and girls are losing their safe spaces and their right to privacy.

–>  Homosexual activists and the Religious Left are demanding that even Catholic schools hire (or not fire) openly homosexual and even “gay-married” teachers whose lifestyles defy historic Catholic teachings.

If government can compel a Christian or Orthodox Jewish businessman to participate in a ceremony that attaches sinful homosexuality to “marriage,” then the State can compel ANY American citizen or institution to violate ANY of their cherished beliefs. That is the essence of tyranny.

Disagreeing morally with homosexuality is not “bigotry,” “hate” or “animus.” Since when did sodomy—which has been taboo for centuries; is condemned unequivocally in Scripture; and is defined by American wordsmith Noah Webster as “a crime against nature”—become sacrosanct?

Legalized homosexual “marriage” is a grave moral evil and an unprecedented sign of decadence in the West. It is the right and duty of every true Christian to oppose it. But no small business owner—whether religious or not–should be compelled to participate in a same-sex “wedding” that not only glorifies homosexual sin but often does it in God’s name.

Liberals and homosexual activists love to cry “Bigot!” but there is plenty of anti-Christian bigotry on their side: see this nasty Tweet by influential Indiana LGBTQ activist Bil Browning mocking “Jeebus” (Jesus Christ) and this article about the National LGBTQ Task Force celebrating a documentary about a play that portrays Christ as “gay” and the one-time homosexual lover of Judas.

Politically speaking, it seems bigotry is OK as long as it advances the “progressive” agenda to impose mandatory acceptance of homosexuality and gender confusion on everyone.

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

CLICK HERE for Details

Written by R.R. Reno

None of the dire outcomes predicted by those campaigning against the Indiana RFRA have materialized in jurisdictions that already have versions of the law. Aside from the specific matter of participation in a gay wedding, there has not been a single case in which someone has claimed a religious right to refuse to serve or sell to gays or lesbians. Employment? There exists only one case from 1985—and in that case the court denied the claim to a religious exemption from anti-discrimination laws. Facts belie the outcry and expose it for the propaganda effort that it is.

This campaign of misinformation comes at a cost. For some people, RFRA protection is a matter of life and death.

Take Mary Stinemetz, a Jehovah’s Witness in Kansas who needed a liver transplant but would not accept a blood transfusion for religious reasons. To get such an operation, she would have to go a hospital in Nebraska. Kansas Medicaid, which had a policy of only covering in-state procedures, refused to cover the transplant (even though the Omaha procedure would have cost less than the in-state one with a blood transfusion).

Stinemetz litigated, claiming religious exemption from the policy, but Kansas had no RFRA. State attorneys argued she had no right to the exemption. After going through the appeal process, the Kansas Supreme Court determined that the state constitution implied RFRA-like protections and granted her the exemption. But it was too late. Her health had deteriorated to the point where a transplant was futile.

She died in October 2012.

We don’t hear about Mary Stinemetz. That’s because the propaganda about the Indiana law and other RFRA laws blankets reality and hides the true human costs of inadequate protection of religious freedom. This epitomizes the elitism of the gay rights movement, which is in many respects a lobby for the One Percent. Two rich lawyers from New Jersey simply have to be able to compel a florist in Denver to make arrangements for their wedding.

If getting rid of Indiana’s law comes at the cost of the lives of people like Mary Stinemetz, well, that’s too bad.

R. R. Reno is editor of First Things.

Angie’s List, the online service that provides consumer reviews of service professionals, publicly endorsed anti-Christian bigotry by opposing an Indiana law designed to protect religious liberties and freedoms.

Last week, Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) after the state legislature overwhelmingly supported it. Twenty states now have passed the law, with Arkansas and Georgia currently considering it.

The Indiana law is identical in all fundamental respects to the 1993 federal RFRA signed into law by President Bill Clinton after it passed the U.S. House unanimously and the Senate 97-3.

Unfortunately, Angie’s List has joined with thousands of homosexual activists (including lesbian Ellen DeGeneres) in opposing religious freedom for all people in Indiana.

In response Angie’s List CEO Bill Oesterle announced the company is immediately putting plans “on hold” for a $40 million expansion of its headquarters in Indianapolis.

Angie’s List implies support for the concept that Christian business owners should be prosecuted by law if they don’t violate their deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs by bowing to homosexual activist demands, as is already happening in states without RFRA:

• Washington: Florist Barronell Stutzman fined by the state for not providing flowers for a “gay” wedding. Now her home and personal savings are at risk.
• New Mexico: Photographer Elaine Huguenin was ordered by the state to give a lesbian $7,000 for declining to take pictures of a lesbian wedding.
• Oregon:  Aaron and Melissa Klein were fined $150,000 by the state for refusal to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding based on religious objections.
• Kentucky: Blaine Adamson was ordered by the city of Lexington to undergo ‘sensitivity training” for refusing to print T-shirts for a gay pride festival.

Angie’s List is a bully, plain and simple. They have chosen to bully the city of Indianapolis, the state of Indiana and Christians everywhere by financial intimidation and threats.

TAKE ACTION:  If you have an account with Angie’s List, we urge you to cancel it right away in defense of religious liberty in America. Be sure to let them know why you’re leaving.

Even if you don’t have an account, click HERE to send an email to Angie’s List CEO Bill Oesterle. Or you can call them at (888) 944-5478.  Let them know that his company’s support for religious discrimination is an affront to Christians.

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

CLICK HERE for Details