Already in April, 2009, an article in the Washington Post documented how, “Faith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom.”

This was confirmed by Georgetown Law Professor Chai Feldblum, appointed by President Obama to serve on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and herself an out and proud lesbian, when she remarked that when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

Recent court cases have further confirmed Feldblum’s views, and it is now the Attorneys General in different states who are leading the charge against Christian-owned businesses that refuse to provide floral arrangements or bake cakes or do photography for same-sex wedding ceremonies because of their religious convictions. (Bear in mind that these companies always served the LGBT community, and some of them had LGBT employees; their issue was providing services for a ceremony that violated their consciences and religious beliefs.)

Many people now have the opinion that “you can’t discriminate in the public square,” meaning that freedoms of speech, conscience, and religion do not carry over to public businesses, a position that the ACLU plans to pursue aggressively, declaring war on religious exemptions.

But this argument cuts both ways, and those advocating against the right for a business to adhere to certain religious principles or matters of conscience also need to consider the following scenarios. (The first two were suggested to me on my Facebook page by a young man who preaches on the streets and on college campuses.)

1. What if I asked a gay-owned t-shirt shop to make me a street preaching shirt that said, “It is not OK to be Gay.” If he declined, would that be discrimination based upon my religious beliefs? (Or, what if he was asked to print up t-shirts quoting Leviticus 18:22, stating that it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man, supplemented by a picture of two men holding hands with a red slash symbolizing “No” running across the picture?)

2. What if I was hosting a street preacher conference and we were going out on campus, preaching against homosexuality, and I asked a gay photographer to come along and take photos for us for my ministry. If he said no, would that be discrimination based upon my religious beliefs?

3. What if the organizers of an ex-gay conference asked a gay-owned printing shop to print up flyers and posters announcing the conference and proclaiming, “You don’t have to be gay”? If they refused, would they be guilty of discrimination, thereby breaking the law?

4. What if a psychologist who helped her clients overcome unwanted same-sex attractions asked a gay-owned website designer to help increase her web presence with a new website announcing the success of her practice and with an aggressive SEO (search engine optimization) campaign? If the company refused to do business with her, should they be codified as bigots and prosecuted by the law?

Changing the focus, let’s consider these scenarios:

5. An Orthodox Jewish videography company is asked to record a Jews for Jesus outreach event with the express purpose of using the video tape to raise funds for Jews for Jesus. Should the Orthodox Jewish videographer be required to video the event and professionally edit the tape? Should the Attorney General take this videographer to court for refusal to comply based on religious convictions?

6. An Orthodox Jewish caterer is asked to prepare steak and chicken dishes for a large wedding, sharing the kitchen with another caterer who will be preparing shrimp, lobster, and pork dishes, in direct violation of the requirements of Jewish law. Should the caterer be allowed to opt out?

7. A devout Muslim photographer is asked to cover the dedication of a new Hindu temple, with the goal of preparing a photo display celebrating the beautiful statue of Krishna imported from India. Should the Muslim be required to violate his monotheistic beliefs in the service of idolatry?

8. A custom car painting company owned by conservative Christians is asked to paint the sides of a van with sensual images of scantily clad women posed in compromising positions and with mild obscenities surrounding the images. Should this company be taken to court if they refuse to paint the van based on their religious beliefs? If so, is there any custom paint job they could be allowed to decline?

9. A printing shop owned and run by born-again Christians is asked by Satanists to print up flyers inviting people in the neighborhood to attend their rally called, “God is dead, Satan rules.” On the back of the flyers, the text reads, “Only a fool would believe the Bible.” Can the Satanists rightly take the Christian company to court for declining their business?

And on and it goes. I for one have no problem saying that in each of these cases, the owners should be allowed to say no to the potential business because of their religious or moral convictions.

What do you say?

This article first appeared at the Townhall.com blog. You can see the original article and comments HERE.  

A new report by the Evangelicals Council for Financial Accountability says that the government’s attempts to regulate the political involvement and speech of 501(c)(3) groups, particularly churches, is ineffective. A combination of factors, such as the vagueness of laws, inconsistent application of the law, and the fact that current IRS code infringes on the free speech rights of both individuals and churches leads many to believe the law needs to change.

Many pastors are familiar with the 1954 Johnson Amendment which attempts to remove the voice of pastors and churches from all things political. This unconstitutional amendment was inserted into the IRS code with the promise that all non-profits groups, especially churches, will lose their tax exempt license for engaging in “political speech.” The question is often asked, “What constitutes political speech?” To which most government officials clear their throat and quickly change the subject.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that the Johnson Amendment is clearly a violation of the constitutional free speech rights of pastor’s and their churches, many have been threatened into silence. The result is an America where pastors, the men once on the forefront of cultural education according to biblical principles, have been replaced by movie stars, rappers, and Planned Parenthood. The effects are obvious.

The report argued: “The IRS will not (and should not) enforce the prohibition in such faith communities en masse.”

Current political climate against speech deemed politically incorrect is more hostile than ever. While the government likes to claim “free speech” for people bashing Christians and the God of Christians, that same government is almost actively pursuing civil rights charges against speech bashing Islam, race, and sexual orientation. The bias against the right of Christians to speak freely according to their faith is undeniable.

Just in case someone wanted to try and deny that Christians are being pursued for speaking according to their faith, consider a recent case involving both America and Africa. An American pastor, Scott Lively, is being sued for “crimes against humanity” by a homosexual rights group in Uganda for speaking out against the homosexual lifestyle while he was in Uganda.

A federal judge has allowed the charges to be brought despite the fact that the United States has rejected the international treaty, Alien Tort Statute, which would provide the only legitimate recourse for the group. The reason this is serious is because if the case continues to go forward it threatens the free speech rights of American citizens under the First Amendment and opens U.S. citizens up to lawsuits from international groups and individuals. A recent article writes:

“…[T]he ruling from Judge Michael Ponser in a case brought by Sexual Minorities Uganda against Pastor Scott Lively of Abiding Truth Ministries could mean much more. It could establish that an international consensus disavowing long-held biblical standards could trump the U.S. Constitution. SMUG alleges Lively must be punished for criticizing homosexuality, calling his speech a ‘crime against humanity’ in violation of ‘international law.’ The plaintiffs allege that the Alien Tort Statute in the United States allows them to make the charge in the U.S. Lively’s attorney, Horatio Mihet of Liberty Counsel, said his client’s preaching is protected by the Constitution.”

Stories like this have the negative effect intended upon many pastors which ultimately causes silence. Fearing retribution from the government, riot’s in their communities, and other unintended consequences many pastors are simply choosing to keep silent on “controversial issues” like homosexuality and abortion. The problem of course is that this goes against the example of Jesus. Jesus showed grace to every person He encountered, but He also showed truth and refused to back down from it.

The bottom line is that pastors and churches need to be more involved in preaching and teaching on these issues. Surely we can’t sit back and let Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson speak for us pretending to speak for the “evangelical” majority. We have truth on our side and need to share it often with a culture that desperately needs truth and grace. A church with the right statements in its Constitution and By-Laws can be legally protected from abusive lawsuits. Documents such as “7 Things Every Church Should Have in Their Constitution and By-Laws,” developed by Alliance Defending Freedom are excellent defenses against legal attacks.

I suppose we could all “quit America” and seek an island in the middle of the ocean for refuge. At least one family tired of government over-reach decided to do just that. And while it sounds nice, it doesn’t help our neighbors or communities when Christians armed with truth cut and run.

Jesus told us that in the last days these “perilous times” would come. It’s not a surprise. How we handle these times is of utmost importance and must be decided before we are faced with trying circumstances. Stand strong. Speak boldly. Offer truth and grace.

This article first appeared at the Engage Family Minute blog. You can see the original article HERE.  

Written by Joseph Backholm

If we’ve heard it once, we’ve heard it a million times.  Discrimination is bad and people who do it should be publicly scorned.  I get it. 

But what exactly does it mean to say you don’t discriminate? 

Do you eat every time you have the opportunity? Do you believe everything you’re told?  Do you hire everyone who applies for a job and assign positions randomly so as to not discriminate against the incompetent?   

The reality is, we all discriminate and we all know it. There is no law banning discrimination generally or else seven year-olds would be buying hand guns and blind people would get driver’s licenses. 

Non-discrimination laws are themselves discriminatory because they forbid certain choices and many forms of discrimination are downright healthy.  No, felon, you cannot babysit my children.  

We failed to clarify that our war on “discrimination” was actually a war on a specific kind of discrimination and in doing so we failed to reinforce the idea that some discrimination is like music; sometimes it’s good and sometimes it’s very, very bad. 

Today’s social engineers have taken advantage of our failure to define the terms by framing many of their attempts to control us as fighting discrimination.  This allows them to self-righteously dismiss those who might critique their policies as supporters of discrimination. 

The results are both dishonest and bizarre. 

Last week, Washington State said that Catholic hospitals can’t contract with the local hospital district because they “discriminate” by not performing abortions.  However, their objection to discrimination in this context is, as always, a one-way street.  If you want to give a baby life, Planned Parenthood has nothing for you, but they still get $25 million a year from Washington State government and over $300 million from the federal government.    

Essentially, it’s ok to discriminate in the kind of maternity services you provide so long as you do it in a way they like.   

A naked guy (who now says he’s a girl) in Olympia, WA has been walking around the women’s locker room at Evergreen State College in his anatomically male birthday suit in front of children as young as six years-old.  Evergreen has taken the position that preventing him from doing so would be discrimination based on “gender expression”, which is a protected status under the law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. 

That same non-discrimination law is being used to sue Arlene’s Flowers, a florist in Richland, Washington who chose not to perform floral services for a same-sex wedding. 

So, as applied, one law simultaneously requires young girls to be with naked men in the women’s locker room but forbids small businesses from declining to be part of a celebration they personally disagree with.   

In a similar case, the New Mexico Supreme Court said that their non-discrimination law allows a $6,600 fine to be assessed against a photographer who declined to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony.  This, in the words of the court, is the “price of citizenship.” 

Perhaps government just doesn’t support the conscience rights of business owners anymore.   

It turns out that’s not totally true either.     

Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn, who is no right-winger, has suddenly come storming to defense of business owners.  He recently told FoxNews that “We have businesses that are stepping up, that are setting forth what their values are. And again, they have rights too. And they have a right to not invite people onto their premises…”  Sounds like a victory for florists and wedding photographers everywhere, right?

 Except it’s not.   

He wasn’t defending the rights of people whose values reflect a natural understanding of marriage, but businesses owners who don’t want to do business with people who carry guns.  I have no reason to believe Mayor McGinn would be nearly as supportive of the right of a business owner to set forth their values in the context of marriage.  

Of course declining to do business with someone for any reason is “discrimination” but so is telling a business owner they have to do business with someone.  In years gone by, that was also called slavery.  Regardless, the arbitrary way that politicians are defending the rights of business owners is a great example of how “discrimination” is bad only when it allows someone to make a choice I disagree with. 

The current strategy of “discriminating to end discrimination” is creating policy that is just as confused as the strategy would suggest.  

Perhaps it is time we actually start thinking about the policy we’re creating and balance our desire for a world in which people treat each other kindly with other values as well; values like protecting the innocence of our children, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of association, religious liberty and the rights of the individual.  Things that we used to value back before we launched a well-intentioned but undefined war on discrimination based on this newfound right not to have your feelings hurt.   

In the end, I’ll likely conclude that people should have the freedom to turn away customers who carry guns, but in doing so I will probably also discover that it’s not the end of the world if people have the freedom to do things I wouldn’t do. 

Or we could continue down the current path, where businesses become slaves to their customers and we’re forced to explain to our little girls why there are naked men in the women’s locker room-all in the name of not discriminating. 

Joseph Backholm has served as the director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington (FPIW) for three years.  He received his Bachelors from the University of Washington and his law degree from Seattle University. Born and raised in Aberdeen, Washington, Joseph and his wife live with their three daughters and one son in Washington.

This article first appeared at the FPIW’s blog. You can see the original article and comments HERE.  

Despite his “concerns about [the] government limiting parental choice on the care and treatment of their own children,” Governor Chris Christie signed into law a ban on ex-gay therapy for minors, thereby committing an outrageous act against both the people of New Jersey and his own Catholic faith.

Buying into the standard gay activist talking points, Christie explained that “on issues of medical treatment for children we must look to experts in the field to determine the relative risks and rewards,” because of which he felt this government intrusion into doctor-patient relationships was justified.

As for Christie’s personal views, he stated that, “I’ve always believed that people are born with the predisposition to be homosexual. And so I think if someone is born that way it’s very difficult to say then that’s a sin. But I understand that my church says that, but for me personally I don’t look at someone who is homosexual as a sinner.”

New Jersey is now the second state to sign a ban on “sexual orientation change efforts” (SOCE) for those under 18, even with parental consent, following California (surprise!), although the California bill has already been challenged in the courts.

On a practical level, this means that a 17-year-old girl who was raped at the age of 14 and now feels a repulsion towards men and an attraction towards women cannot seek professional help to get to the root of her feelings, even if her parents back her decision.

That same young woman, however, would be allowed to seek professional help to develop her lesbian identity, even without the backing of her parents.

This is equality under the law? This is tolerance? This is a victory in the war against bigotry and discrimination?

And if this same young woman lived in California and was convinced that she was actually a boy trapped in a girl’s body, she could now choose to use the boys’ bathroom and even play on the boys’ basketball team, without any scientific diagnosis required.

In fact, it would be perfectly legal for her to undergo hormone therapy to help make her more masculine, soon to be followed by sex-change surgery. Yet if she said, “For many reasons, I’m uncomfortable with my same-sex attractions,” it would be illegal for her to receive counseling. What kind of madness is this?

Gender is now entirely subjective, based on nothing more than one’s personal perceptions, while sexual and romantic attractions are allegedly innate and immutable. Put another way, you are not necessarily born male or female, despite the biological and chromosomal evidence, and you can change from male to female. But you are born gay, and you cannot possibly change to straight.

What about all those who claim to have changed sexual orientation?

They are to be vilified, mocked, discounted, and silenced. In fact, they can be freely discriminated against, as Grammy Award winner and gospel superstar Donnie McClurkin just learned when Washington DC Mayor Vincent Gray disinvited him “from performing at a concert commemorating the 50th anniversary of the 1963 civil rights March on Washington and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘I Have a Dream.’”

Why? Because he broke one of today’s biggest PC commandments, namely, “Thou shalt not be ex-gay,” which McClurkin is, which means that being gay is not innate and immutable. (This would have to be admitted, at least for some people.)

Yet the McClurkins of this world are now ignored (and worse) while testimony from someone like Brielle Goldani (born a male), which was apparently fabricatedbased on a movie script, helped push the New Jersey ban through.

What about the overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrating clearly that SOCE is harmful and destructive? It doesn’t exist.

Christie relied on a study conducted by a task force appointed by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 2007 which concluded that “efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates.”

Yet this task force consisted entirely of gay activist psychologists and their allies, which would be the equivalent of asking Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to head a study of whether racial discrimination against blacks existed in America or asking Al Gore and Greenpeace to investigate whether man-made global warming existed.

In fact, gay activist bias in the APA has become so extreme that no less a figure than Dr. Nicholas Cummings, a past president of the APA, has become an outspoken critic of the attack on SOCE, arguing in a recent USA Today editorial that, “A political agenda shouldn’t prevent gays and lesbians who desire to change from making their own decisions.”

Dr. Cummings states that he personally helped “hundreds” of homosexuals change their orientation to heterosexual while helping many others “attain a happier and more stable homosexual lifestyle.” (Cummings, it should be noted, is a self-described life-long liberal who supports same-sex “marriage.”)

He writes that “contending that all same-sex attraction is immutable is a distortion of reality. Attempting to characterize all sexual reorientation therapy as ‘unethical’ violates patient choice and gives an outside party a veto over patients’ goals for their own treatment.”

He adds that, “Whatever the situation at an individual clinic, accusing professionals from across the country who provide treatment for fully informed persons seeking to change their sexual orientation of perpetrating a fraud serves only to stigmatize the professional and shame the patient.”

Gov. Christie has now become party to government intrusion on doctor-patient relationships, thereby serving as a useful pawn of the gay activist agenda, perhaps to his temporary political gain.

But when common sense and compassion prevail again, Gov. Christie’s decision will only serve to stigmatize and shame him.

This article by Dr. Michael Brown first appeared at the Townhall.com blog. You can see the original article and comments HERE.  

Washington, DC, may have violated its own anti-discrimination ordinance in asking an award-winning gospel singer who was delivered from homosexuality not to attend a special event.

Donnie McClurkin was to appear at the 50^th anniversary of the Martin Luther King, Jr. march in Washington which took place this past weekend. But Mayor Vincent Gray, under pressure from homosexual activists, reportedly asked McClurkin not to attend. (See sidebar)

But McClurkin, who was the headliner for the concert, says in a video statement that it is “furthest from the truth” that he “withdrew” from the concert.

Greg Quinlan, president of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gay & Gays (PFOX), believes McClurkin’s civil rights have been violated, according to a 2009 ruling by DC Superior Court Judge Maurice Ross.

“[Judge Ross] stated that the broad nature and broad scope of the civil rights ordinance gives protection to include ex-gays,” explains the PFOX leader. “So what the city has done, what the mayor has done, is violate the civil rights ordinance of the District of Columbia – and Donnie McClurkin should sue.”

Quinlan says discrimination against former homosexuals is nationwide because “gay” activists don’t want to admit that leaving the lifestyle is possible.

“People need all the information; they need all the truth,” exclaims Quinlan. “Someone chooses to live as a homosexual, they have a right to sin; but I also have a right to follow God and change my life and in accordance with his Word, according to his directions.

“And therefore I need to know and others need to know what the truth is … and I and others stand as a proof to that and so does Donnie McClurkin.”

Originally posted at OneNewsNow.com

An LGBT activist group called DOJ Pride would like for all DOJ employees to not just accept the homosexual lifestyle, but to affirm and support it in a vocal way. As they made clear, “silence will be interpreted as disapproval.” Sounds like a great place to work, right? Mat Staver, of Liberty Counsel recently commented on the unprecedented rate at which President Barack Obama and his administration are implementing the radical LGBT agenda:

“It is only the beginning under this administration. This administration has used the federal agencies including the U.S. Military to push the LGBT agenda. It is implementing the LGBT agenda in an unprecedented way, not just in the Department of Justice, but in the USDA, FBI, CIA, and in every agency that exists under the federal jurisdiction of the executive branch…If a private corporation sent out this email to its employees, it is likely that the employee would have a cause-of-action against the employer for forcing him or her to engage in these kinds of activities.”

Unfortunately, I agree. This is just the beginning of a push to not merely tolerate homosexuality but to force all people to accept and affirm the lifestyle regardless of religious convictions. The threat to pastors, churches, and religious schools and institutions is clear and present. Click HERE for original article.

Pastors are supposed to be protected from anti-discrimination laws if they preach against homosexuality or refuse to perform same-gender civil union or marriage ceremonies. That may become a thing of the past at some point in the future.

CBN‘s Brody File raised the question of that at the recent Pastors and Pews events in Des Moines, Iowa, and Texas Senator Ted Cruz points out that Norway, for example, has passed a law requiring pastors to perform same sex wedding ceremonies.

“And I think there is no doubt that the advocates who are driving this effort in the United States want to see us end up in that same place.”

View video of Cruz’s response

In Senator Cruz’s home state of Texas, a draft ordinance is being considered that would bar anyone who speaks against homosexuality or the transgender lifestyle from running for political office or being appointed to city boards and commissions. Businesses and their subcontractors would not be able to contract with the city if they oppose homosexual lifestyles.

See more at OneNewsNow.com.

In their efforts to redefine marriage, most homosexual activists become apoplectic at the suggestion that there is more to their efforts than just their  purported goal of achieving “marriage equality.” They dismiss the comments of homosexuals like lesbian journalist Masha Gessen who states that the institution of marriage “should not exist,” and that homosexual activists are “lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there,” as the extreme views of just a few radicals.

What cannot be dismissed, however, is that time and again homosexual activists have proven through their actions that the redefinition of marriage isn’t their only goal, but rather government enforced acceptance and celebration of the LGBT lifestyle. Here are just a few portents that shouldn’t be ignored:

• Washington State is suing a Christian florist who declined to provide floral arrangements for a homosexual “wedding” ceremony. The state is threatening thousands of dollars in fines and a requirement that the elderly florist provide floral arrangements to any homosexual couple that seeks her services.  (Read more HERE.)

• The Christian owners of an Oregon bakery were contacted by the Oregon Department of Justice and told that they are being investigated because of a discrimination complaint that followed their refusal to violate their beliefs by providing a wedding cake for a lesbian “wedding” ceremony.  (Read more HERE.)
   
• A Christian owner of a bed and breakfast in Hawaii has been ordered to provide a room to any same-sex couple that wants to stay there, thus violating her religious convictions. (Read more HERE.)

• And in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the owner of Elane Photography declined to provide her skills and services for a lesbian commitment, explaining that doing so would violate her conscience as a Christian. As a result of a complaint being filed with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, a fine of $6,600 was issued against this small business for discrimination based on “sexual orientation.” This case is pending a hearing before the New Mexico Supreme Court.  (Read more HERE.)  

There are many more cases like these, and many more will be coming down the litigation pike. In each of these cases, homosexual activists prove that what they really want goes far beyond “marriage equality” or “tolerance.” And they clearly demonstrate their lack of tolerance for any dissenting opinions.

In each of these cases, the homosexuals involved could simply have sought the services of a vendor who held no moral objections to same-sex relationships. Instead, they chose to use the heavy hand of government to coerce and punish those who do not share their beliefs. 

Finally, consider the current bill to redefine marriage in Illinois (SB 10). This proposal has been labeled by law professors on both sides of the marriage issue the “worst in the nation” when it comes to protecting religious liberty and freedom of conscience. In a letter to state representatives, the Thomas More Society warns that if SB 10 passes, Illinois’ religiously affiliated hospitals, schools, and organizations like the Knights of Columbus as well as businessmen and women of faith will face costly lawsuits not dissimilar to the ones listed above.

If the concern of homosexual activists were simply about gaining “marriage equality” as they claim, why would proponents oppose legal protections for all people of faith? Why wouldn’t proponents add specific language to SB 10 to protect the free exercise of religious belief and an individual’s right of conscience, which would protect their right to decline to provide goods, services, and accommodations to those seeking government recognition of same-sex unions as “marriage”?

Because this isn’t merely about “marriage equality.” It’s about quashing every semblance of opposition to the LGBT political agenda through every governmental entity at their disposal: Congress, state legislatures, Presidential Executive Orders, or the judicial or quasi-judicial branches of government. It has nothing to do with marriage “rights” and everything to do with religious bigotry.

While it is important that we stand up to defend the institution of marriage, it is vital that we understand that the agenda is far more insidious and far-reaching than many realize. Once you understand how far they want to take this agenda, it is unconscionable to sit on the sidelines.

[Editor’s note:  If you would like to read more about how religious liberties are eroding in the wake of the LGBT political agenda, I encourage you to read this article from World Magazine about what is happening in Canada and how it may be a precursor for the United States.]

Help protect marriage & family now!
Click HERE to support IFI’s work in the public square. 

The Hobby Lobby craft store chain has won a major legal victory in its battle to avoid compliance with the federal contraceptive and abortion drug mandate when the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a U.S. District Court to re-examine Hobby Lobby’s petition for a temporary injunction blocking enforcement of the mandate against the firm. 

The full panel of the Tenth Circuit ruled that Hobby Lobby had “established a likelihood of success that their rights…are substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and have established an irreparable harm.” 

The Court concluded that Hobby Lobby had legitimate claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The judges ruled that the right to free exercise of religion includes corporations.    

“The protections of the Religion Clauses extend beyond the walls of a church, synagogue, or mosque to religiously motivated conduct, as well as religious belief,” the judges wrote.  “Religious conduct includes religious expression, which can be communicated by individuals and for-profit corporations alike.” 

“We are encouraged by this decision,” said David Green, founder of Hobby Lobby Stores.  “We believe that business owners should not have to choose between following their faith and following the law.”  

“My family and I believe very strongly in our conviction that life begins at conception,” Green explains.  “The emergency contraceptives that we would be forced to provide under this mandate are contrary to that conviction.” 

Hobby Lobby faced fines of $1.3 million per day for failing to comply with the contraceptive and abortion drug mandate.  That mandate, issued by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, took effect on January 1st.    

The mandate requires all health insurance plans issued in the United States to provide “free” coverage of all contraceptives approved by the Food and Drug Administration.  The FDA definition of “contraceptives” includes abortifacient drugs and devices.   

The Department of HHS just announced “revisions” to the rules governing how the mandate applies to religious organizations.  While organized churches and their “integrated auxiliaries” are exempt from the mandate, other religious institutions are not. 

Under the latest rules, groups who are operated as non-profit entities, hold themselves out as religious organizations, and oppose contraceptive coverage based on religious objections, will not have to “pay” for such coverage in their health insurance plans. 

However, such groups will still be required to cooperate with their insurers or third-party administrators to ensure that the “free” coverage of contraceptives is provided to their employees. 

Obama Administration officials have painted the latest religious exemption rules as a compromise.  Catholic and Southern Baptist religious leaders have derided the “accomodation” as a sham.   

Click HERE to support the work & ministry of IFI. 

I intentionally waited to share my thoughts on the SCOTUS rulings from last week. Did you see all those articles that flooded newsfeeds and blogs? I perused over a hundred in two days myself. But the press is slowing down as other issues, like immigration and the economy take their place at the forefront of people’s minds. So now seems like a good time to share my own comments on what can only be described as puzzling rulings.

If we are to believe a recent headline, we can all rejoice that the “Traditional Marriage Movement [is] Gaining Steam.” Of course, the Supreme Court did just axe Section 2 of the federal DOMA law. While liberal media outlets and pro-homosexual groups are touting a “major victory” as a result of the rulings, legal analysts agree that not much has really changed. Bethany Monk of Citizenlink wrote:

“The Court struck down only part of the federal marriage law defining the institution as a union between one man and one woman for the purpose of interpreting and administering all federal laws and programs. Without Section 3, the federal government will not be able to define marriage for its own federal policies and federal laws; it must accept whatever states decide about same-sex marriage.”

This is the consensus I’m seeing from a number of legal analysts and appears to be consistent with the actual wording of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Practically speaking this means that DOMA still stands, except for the part that prohibits the federal government from granting benefits associated with marriage to same-sex couples living in states where homosexual marriage has been legalized. 

I suppose this might be discouraging for some, but the reality is that it is one of the better outcomes as opposed to the Supreme Court striking down the entire law – which they did not. 

And for the record, no one is quite sure at this point of the implications of the court’s ruling on Prop 8. Essentially, the court said it refuses to interfere with a state voter initiative, a good decision by the court. The court then returned the issue to the state, also a good decision, and vacated (erased) the appeals court decision for lack of standing to rule. Some say this means Prop 8 is still the law of the land until a proper appeal is brought, others believe Prop 8 was struck down. On this point, Ken Klukowski writes:

“On Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that only the losing defendants in that case–the governor and attorney general of California–had standing to appeal that decision. When they refused to do so, Prop 8’s official sponsors filed the appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and pursued it all the way to the Supreme Court. Since the official sponsors lacked standing to defend Prop 8, the Supreme Court refused to rule on the merits, and also vacated (i.e., threw out) the Ninth Circuit’s decision. But that means Prop 8 is still the law in California.”

So what we have is a bit of confusion over what the court actually did. If I understand the legal analysis to this point the court essentially voided one part of DOMA while leaving the rest intact and turned Prop 8 back over to California and refused to interfere with a state matter; leaving Prop 8 as the law of the land for the time being. The fact is it could have been much worse.

Many expected the court to issue a sweeping Roe v. Wade decision on marriage and legalize same-sex “marriage” in all 50 states. But they didn’t. They saw the error of Roe and refused to make the same mistake twice.

Would it have been nice if the court would have upheld all parts of DOMA and told California that Prop 8 stands? Yes! It would have cleared up a lot of confusion and avoided a lot of legal battles that will now take place. But it also would have set a dangerous precedent in which the Supreme Court interferes in state voter initiatives; a precedent that reduces liberty and tramples the free will of the people. No one wants that.

Homosexual advocates can be excited about the court striking down section 3 of DOMA, but the reality is that it now subjects them to the same “marriage penalties” heterosexual couples face. But it still doesn’t change section 2 which states that no state can be forced to recognize the same-sex union of another state. In other words, West Virginia cannot be forced to recognize the homosexual “marriage” of a couple married in Washington. This means a homosexual couple is not granted the benefits of a married couple in West Virginia. So it seems to be a very insignificant victory, if a victory at all.

Yes, I’m disappointed with the DOMA ruling. But even more to the point, I am concerned that this is just the beginning.

The headlines from groups like the ACLU and Human Rights Campaign after the Supreme Court rulings made it clear that this is just the beginning for the push to normalize and legalize homosexual “marriage” in all 50 states. If Prop 8 is in fact still law in California you can bet that a voter initiative to have it overturned is underway this very minute. Update: According to recent articles the stay placed on the ban of Prop 8 from being enforced for being unconstitutional has been lifted by an appeals court thus legalizing same-sex “marriage” once again in California.

But I’m even more concerned for what this means for the church in America. Dr. Russell Moore made a statement that bears repeating:

“In another sense, though, the marginalization of conjugal marriage in American culture has profound implications for our gospel witness. First of all, marriage isn’t incidental to gospel preaching. There’s a reason why persons don’t split apart like amoebas. We were all conceived in the union between a man and a woman. Beyond the natural reality, the gospel tells us there’s a cosmic mystery (Eph. 5:32). God designed the one-flesh union of marriage as an embedded icon of the union between Christ and his church. Marriage and sexuality, among the most powerful pulls in human existence, are designed to train humanity to recognize, in the fullness of time, what it means for Jesus to be one with his church, as a head with a body.”

The fundamental goal is to redefine marriage and to erase any semblance of Christ and His church from our culture. It’s not to attain equality or benefits, those are distractions designed to pull at heart strings and dominate the narrative while the underlying goal is advanced.

People living in rebellion to God don’t want the truth staring them in the face; moral absolutes preach a truth that cuts to the heart. So the only thing left for those in rebellion to do is destroy any absolutes.

I think the pregnant question is how will the church respond? Will it continue to tolerate a culture of divorce, co-habitation, and infidelity in marriage that threatens to destroy the family? Will it continue to skirt the issue of homosexuality in order to not “offend” anyone? Or will the church finally start teaching a complete model of biblical sexuality and marriage that boldly addresses all these issues? It’s not unloving to teach the truth of Scripture. It is however, unloving to teach only a half-truth while ignoring the whole truth.

While poorly decided U.S. Supreme Court cases are a dime a dozen, prior to Wednesday, two stood alone as the most wretched and constitutionally groundless in American History. First was the 1857 Dred Scott decision. Among other things, it robbed African-Americans of both their U.S. citizenship and their dignity.

Next came the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade. It has robbed over 55 million U.S. citizens of their very lives. For the first time in American history, the high court imagined a phantom constitutional right for women to dismember alive their own pre-born children.

Both of these cases are blights on American history. Fortunately, the first, Dred Scott, has been officially relegated to the dustbin of judicial disgrace, while the second, Roe v. Wade, continues to be used as justification for mass genocide. With each passing day, the bodies of the innocents pile-up like God’s chosen at Auschwitz.

Tragically, this past week we hit the unholy trifecta. A third precedential abomination was added to the mix. On Wednesday, the high court handed down two cases concerning the pagan left’s abjectly bizarre efforts to redefine the age-old and immutable institution of marriage (Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor). The more egregious of the two opinions, Windsor, presumes to invalidate Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), granting limited federal recognition to sin-centric and sodomy-based same-sex “marriage.”

Not only did this 5-4 decision effectively deconstruct the institution of legitimate marriage, removing all ethical and legal justification for barring similar such perverse “marriage” amalgamations as “gay marriage” (i.e., multi-party or incestuous nuptials) – it also laid the groundwork to force the 37 “marriage reality” states to join the remaining 13 in a corporate “marriage equality” delusion. This is not just judicial activism; its judicial tyranny – a potentially fatal self-inflicted wound to the high court’s yet waning legitimacy.

Still, while much will be written about Windsor from a legal standpoint, for now, let’s focus on another of the decision’s inevitable outcomes: Anti-Christian persecution. If, through judicial fiat, “gay marriage” ultimately becomes the law of the land, tens-of-millions of Christians (as well as Jews and Muslims) will be forced to choose between obedience to God and obedience to Caesar – between fidelity to conscience and government oppression.

Millions of us have already made that choice.

As we’ve now seen in states that fancy mock “gay marriage,” for instance, the only way to force Christian individuals and business owners – such as bakers, photographers, innkeepers and florists – to lend their talents to sin-centered “gay weddings” is through the power of the police state. This amounts to a systemic, immoral and profoundly unconstitutional trampling of the First Amendment.

What follows will be a deviant-sexual-behavior-based “LGBT” suspect minority class with all the associated trimmings. In the eyes of government, Bible-believing Christians will be treated as modern-day racists. Any outward expression of the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic will be trumped by newfangled “gay rights” and deemed verboten. For all intents and purposes, Christianity will be criminalized. This is not mere speculation. It’s been the plan all along.

Case in point: Chai Feldblum, President Obama’s EEOC commissioner – a lesbian activist who supports “plural marriage” – has promised as much. She admits that progressives “want to revolutionize societal norms” and believes that “gay sex is a moral good.” She calls the clash between religious liberty and “sexual liberty” a “zero-sum game,” meaning someone wins and someone loses. Guess who loses? Feldblum has “a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

Even so, Wednesday, after the offending high court opinions were announced, I was reminded by a close friend and fellow Christian attorney that, “God is in control, and that has to be more than a slogan at times like this.”

Since, no doubt, the Obama NSA has already read our entire email exchange, I thought I’d go ahead and share excerpts with you as well. My colleague’s insights are profound. I found them encouraging. I hope you do, too.

“Amen,” I replied. “At the risk of sounding a bit apocalyptic, I’m fully convinced that this is part of His divine plan – perhaps to begin separating the wheat from the chaff. We have arrived: ‘As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.’ Matthew 24:37.”

“I agree with you,” he responded, “and that conviction makes all this much easier. What depresses me is the astonishing disconnect and irrationality that sin so easily produces, and how quickly it spreads; we are truly sheep and fully as stupid without a Good Shepherd.

“In my 35 years as a Christian, I never seriously believed we might end up in prison for our faith – except, perhaps, for something like a pro-life demonstration. This is the first time it seriously occurs to me that the trajectory of the nation is such that it is possible in five to 10 years. Oddly, this thought does not discourage or scare me; in fact, it’s almost a joyful thought that we might have the privilege to suffer for our faith. Rejoice greatly when men revile and persecute you for my name’s sake, for your reward is great in Heaven (a rough paraphrase of Matthew 5:12).

“It may be that the truly toughest tests we had were earlier in our lives,” he continued, “before we got fully engaged and in the movement. … Now we’re part of networks with support from like-minded people, and we’re largely insulated from what the opposition can do to us. The real heroes are our clients who speak up at the risk of losing their livelihood, getting thrown out of school, or getting death threats from the tolerance crowd. I feel now like my faith costs me less than when I was in private practice before hostile judges and antagonistic media hit-men.”

“You nailed it,” I replied. “What an honor that our Creator chose us before time began to be part of a Gideon’s army of truth-tellers and defenders of the faithful. It’s an amazing time to be alive. But, as you mentioned, although we’re on the front lines, we also have tremendous support. It’s quite liberating to be written-off by the world and, consequently, free to speak and behave in a way that reflects the reality that we couldn’t give a rat’s behind what the world thinks of us. Those we represent rarely have that luxury.

“Whether it’s one day or hundreds of years,” I continued, “I really believe we are living in the last days (in the total scheme of time and space). I just hope that when and if the time comes, the Holy Spirit gives me the strength of character to not only refuse to deny His Truth, but to be like our martyred brothers and sisters who walked up and kissed the stake before being burned alive on it.

“Anyway, that’s enough trying to cheer each other up for now,” I joked. “Keep on keepin’ on, my friend.”

Do I really believe American Christians will be burned at the stake over counterfeit “gay marriage”? No. Do I believe Christians will face real persecution, such as loss of livelihood, civil penalties, physical abuse or even jail? Absolutely.

Still, come what may, we Christ followers must always remember this admonition from Romans 12:12: “Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, [and] faithful in prayer.”

In other words, mock “marriage” or not: Keep on keepin’ on, my friend.

(Go to MarriageSolidarity.com to pledge no surrender on marriage).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted at AFA.net.

President Barack Obama has announced his “strong  opposition” to efforts in Congress to protect the religious freedoms of members of the U.S. Armed Forces. 

U.S. Representative John Fleming (R-LA) and U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) have offered amendments in their respective chambers to the National Defense Authorization Act.  The amendments would require the military branches to accommodate actions and speech of service members which reflect “the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the members.” 

Rep. Fleming’s amendment has been adopted by the House Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Lee’s amendment has been approved by the Armed Services Committee in the Senate.  President Obama says he opposes the amendment because it would result in a “significant adverse effect on good order, discipline, morale, and mission accomplishment.” 

Rep. Fleming deplores the President’s stance on his amendment.  “This administration is aggressively hostile toward religious beliefs that it deems to be politically incorrect.  For many of our men and women in uniform, their faith and religious beliefs are what sustains them through the enormous pressures and stresses of the battlefield.  The First Amendment rights of our military members must be protected.” 

There have been stunning incidents of anti-Christian and anti-religious actions by military officials in recent weeks.  In one case, the U.S. Army Reserve used training materials that identified “evangelical Christians” and Catholics as “religious extremists,” in the same vein as Al Quaeda, Hamas, and the Ku Klux Klan. 

In the latest case, the Defense Department had warned military personnel that they could be disciplined and even court-martialed if they shared their faith with fellow service members. 

It was further revealed that the Pentagon was developing its religious liberty policies with active consultation from Mike Weinstein, an atheist activist.  Weinstein has called evangelical Christians “fundamentalist monsters of human degradation” and a “national security threat.” 

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, bemoaned the President’s efforts to scuttle the religious liberty language, saying “the Administration has now gone beyond accommodating the anti-Christian activists who want to remove any vestige of Christianity from the military, to aiding them by blocking this measure. This chilling suppression of religious freedom is driving faith underground in our military and will eventually drive it out.  That undermines the moral foundation of the world’s most powerful military and the country they serve.”

Click HERE to support Illinois Family Institute.

From the Liberty Council

Washington, DC—Two federal courts of appeal have dealt a setback to the ObamaCare Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate. Yesterday a federal appeals court in Denver, sitting en banc, sided with the preliminary injunction request of Hobby Lobby, a Christian, family-owned arts and crafts chain with 500 stores in 41 states.

Hobby Lobby Founder and CEO David Green drew a line in the sand and said, “We believe people are more important than the bottom line and honoring God is more important than turning a profit.” The court of appeals sent the case back to the lower district court to review the request for the injunction, but based on how the opinion is written, the lower court will almost certainly issue the preliminary injunction.

Last week a federal district court in Pennsylvania granted a preliminary injunction for Geneva College, the first relief granted to a nonprofit college. Federal Judge Joy Flowers Conti ruled: “Three Supreme Court decisions support Geneva’s argument that there is a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to its assertion that it will suffer a substantial burden under the [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] RFRA.”

Based on its religious beliefs, Geneva College refused to provide the so-called contraceptive mandate, which includes abortion-inducing drugs and devices, as well as sterilization.

Liberty Counsel’s case, on behalf of Liberty University and two individuals in Liberty University v. Geithner, is still pending at the Forth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, presented oral argument in that case on May 17, 2013.

The Liberty University case presents the nation’s broadest challenge to ObamaCare, challenging (1) the entire employer mandate, (2) the HHS abortion mandate for employers, (3) the abortion funding forced upon individuals, and (4) the failure of ObamaCare to comply with the Origination Clause.

“The ObamaCare contraception and abortion mandate is the most serious violation of religious liberty,” said Staver. “ObamaCare is a train wreck with the natural right to the free exercise of religion. ObamaCare forces Christians and people of faith to either violate their deeply held religious beliefs to comply with the law or violate the law to comply with their faith. The government has lost its way when it forces this kind of choice upon its citizens,” concluded 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.

I unashamedly believe that pastor’s must not simply take a position on the critical issues facing our culture, but must be ready and willing to stand up and speak up. It is no longer adequate or acceptable to merely espouse a view, or be a “silent witness” on these issues. What is critical to the defense of life, and the preservation of traditional marriage and family is the vocal support by America’s pastors and Christians.

As we all know, it is the “squeaky wheel that gets the oil.” And while Christians have been trying to live “squeaky clean” lives of silent apathy, a very vocal minority has made advancements in their immoral agenda that leave us shaking our heads. What do we expect when we refuse to engage in the conversations or take action? If no one is willing to oppose their godless agenda we can only expect to endure further erosion of the biblical values and beliefs that made this country great.

Personally, I feel a burden not simply to stand or be vocal, but to be a watchman on the wall sounding the alarm to rouse Christians and churches to action. Part of this burden comes in the form of realizing that if we don’t speak others will be glad to speak for us. And for the record, I’m not a big fan of letting others insert words into my mouth, or my faith.

Take this woman for example. She is a self-described Christian that is really irritated that a pre-school graduation ceremony included what has been described as an “overtly Christian prayer.” On top of it all this “professing Christian” partnered with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, an atheist organization, to send a letter to the school district asking them to stop praying at their ceremonies.

Here I am working diligently with groups like the Family Policy Council of West Virginia, Alliance Defending Freedom, and Family Research Council to preserve these religious freedoms for Christians across America. Yet this woman, speaking for Christians, is helping our opposition to strip our freedoms in the name of atheism.

Even more disturbing is a pastor that recently wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post decrying the tradition of standing to sing “God Bless America” at baseball games! Yes, you read that correctly, this is a “pastor” that finds it extremely annoying that people “are forced” to stand and sing “God Bless America” during the course of the game.

Dennis Prager penned a line by line response to this minister’s absurd objection that I highly commend to you. Suffice it to say Prager disagreed stringently with the good reverends objections. As a pastor I simply cannot think of a solid reason to oppose such a tradition. On the surface it is a beautiful paring of church and state that reminds us just how deeply rooted our nation has been in God’s Word and the faith of the American people. As a Christian it’s exciting to hear so many people sing a song that is in many ways a prayer of thanks and petition of blessing on our land. As an American it brings great pride to know this country was indeed blessed by God because we were founded on His Word.

Yet this “pastor” is speaking for us all as he tells the nation that this “empty ritual” is annoying and should cease. Worse still is the fact that he purports to speak from a biblical perspective, an “authority” on God’s Word that weekly leads a congregation. Again, his remarks will further embolden our opposition in their desire for a society that completely segregates expressions of faith from the public sector.

What is curious about this account is that the pastor is really concerned for the “secular humanist” attending the baseball game. He asks, “What does the good secular humanist do during this song?” I say this is interesting because in the first account a self-professing Christian elicits the help of an atheist organization to oppose prayer at a school graduation. And here, a pastor seems more concerned with making secular humanists comfortable at baseball games than in preserving American traditions and religious freedom.

I would say to the pastor, you ought to be more concerned with the eternal soul of the secular humanist than in whether or not he is uncomfortable singing “God Bless America.” What better way to start a conversation that can lead to the Gospel than with a song rooted in the protection and blessing of Almighty God. This pastor apparently has his priorities off-center (they seem a bit left-center).

Perhaps the most disturbing account comes from Iowa where a group of religious professors are arguing that the Bible actually supports multiple types of marriage rather than the traditional one man one woman version. In a recent interview the trio of professors argued a biblical “argument against same-sex marriage is wholly unsustainable. We all know this, but very few scholars are talking about it, because they don’t want to take the heat.”

Ironically, the group makes flimsy arguments that would be shredded if they served them to leading scholars of the Bible such as Ravvi Zacharias, William Lane Craig, or Norm Geisler. But the point remains that these “biblical scholars” are speaking on behalf of all Bible scholars and pastors. By speaking they have been able to insert their flawed beliefs into the discussion and undermine the foundation we seek to create.

So pastor’s, Christians, the decision is yours. You’re free to continue in silence, refusing to preach or teach on these critical issues that continue to be discussed all around you. Just know that if you make such a decision there is plenty of people willing to speak up boldly in your name. Also be aware of the fact that we will continue to lose discussions and watch our rights be stripped as this vocal minority gains steam due to our silence.

My encouragement to you is to actively teach your congregations how to engage these discussions with the people around them from a biblical perspective. Teach grace, truth, and love. Because as we see from the example of Christ, we must be willing to love people so much that we will risk offending them for the sake of biblical truth.

For me, I’m not willing to sit by and allow someone to speak for me; especially when the people speaking are saying things so inconsistent with Scripture and patently false that they will serve to lead others astray.