A national survey
by Democrat pollster Pat Caddell revealed overwhelming support for key
provisions of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) - which is critical
legislation to protect our rights as Americans.
The bill,
introduced by Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), says
that the federal government "shall not take any discriminatory action
against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or
acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is
or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual
relations are properly reserved to such a marriage."
The poll revealed that more than two in three Americans are opposed to
forcing an individual or business to participate in something like same-sex
marriage against their wishes.
An even more staggering 82% of Americans believe that a wedding
photographer who has deeply held religious beliefs in opposition to same-sex
"marriage" should be able to say no to photographing the ceremony.
And seven in ten Americans believe that protecting gay couples from
discrimination and protecting religious liberty can both happen simultaneously.
Despite the
overwhelming support of Americans, you can be certain that the current
administration and other activists will be looking for opportunities to punish
supporters of traditional marriage and will
be actively seeking to force us to drop any opposition to same-sex
"marriage."
Need proof? A top lawyer for homosexual activists already told
the Supreme Court they'd be looking at whether Christian Colleges could
continue to enjoy religious tax exemption if they don't recognize homosexuals
as married even though doing so violates their deeply help beliefs.
And just yesterday, The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that a Denver
baker who wouldn’t make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple cannot cite
his religious beliefs as a defense because it would lead to discrimination.
This same
baker, Jack Phillips, also refuses to
bake Halloween cakes because he believes Halloween comes from Satan. So far, no
devil worshipers have sued.
Like other bakers who have been caught in similar setups laid
out by homosexuals, Phillips said he has no qualms about serving homosexual
customers at his bakery, but he won't participate in a homosexual wedding.
A wedding is generally considered a sacrament in Christian churches,
so to mock that sacrament is seen by many believers as a slap in the face to
God.
Proponents of same-sex "marriage" try to tell us that allowing homosexuals to marry will not affect anyone else, but I don’t see that being the case as time moves on. It appears as though allowing for personal conscience is not in the cards.
But I can’t help but think that, even if I were a protected class, I would never force someone to do something that violated his personal beliefs. How would a homosexual person feel if he were forced to do something that violates something in his belief system? Why do homosexual rights matter more than anyone else’s and since when can the government force someone to provide any service against his will? Isn't that called slavery?
Proponents of same-sex "marriage" try to tell us that allowing homosexuals to marry will not affect anyone else, but I don’t see that being the case as time moves on. It appears as though allowing for personal conscience is not in the cards.
But I can’t help but think that, even if I were a protected class, I would never force someone to do something that violated his personal beliefs. How would a homosexual person feel if he were forced to do something that violates something in his belief system? Why do homosexual rights matter more than anyone else’s and since when can the government force someone to provide any service against his will? Isn't that called slavery?
The First Amendment Defense Act was developed by Republicans who objected to the Supreme Court striking down the marriage ban last June. If it were to be enacted it would be the equivalent of Indiana's RFRA law on steroids. We all know how that played out. FADA if enacted, would instantly revoke every Federal gay rights measure and nullify future measures. It would give anyone the right to descriminate against anyone because of the way the law is defined. This kind of legislation should never have a hearing much less be enacted.
ReplyDeleteAgain I'll spell it out for you Jack Phillips broke the law. The gay couple took advantage of an anti discrimination law in Colorado where the baker is located. The law states that businesses can not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Phillips has lost 40% of his business since the law suit started three years ago. Whenever a business owner atemps something like this he better understand the law.
The only religion I know of that reefers to marriage as a sacrament is the Catholic church. Civil marriage is not a sacrament.
The LGBT community has spent, I have spent my life conforming to the way others would have me act. NONEXISTENT! In the CLOSET! Seen but not heard from! Yes Julie every LGBT person alive has been forced to do something against their will. I had to do it for 62 years. That's why our rights matter so much. You need to report all the facts,not just the ones you like.
Mark Cichewicz
I can pretty much guarantee that if an LGBT-run sign shop was approached by an individual wanting them to print signs denouncing homosexuals for their upcoming convention, that sign shop would refuse their business. But, Christians refusing to bake a cake to avoid participating in the celebration of sin? That’s not allowed. Such an amazing double standard!
DeleteDo you remember the story of Colorado bakery store owner Marjorie Silva who refused to make cakes that contained two Bible verses she disliked? What were those two verses, you ask? “God hates sin. Psalm 45:7” and “homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22”. The cakes also had an image of two “grooms” holding hands with a large red “X” over them. You guessed it – she was pro-LGBT and the Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled that she had the right to refuse service because of the “derogatory language and imagery”.
It’s amazing that the “right to NOT be offended” is now trumping free speech and freedom of religion with most everything involving the LGBT community. Isn’t the concept of protecting speech specifically intended to protect that speech which is most offensive? We definitely need FADA because this is getting ridiculous.
Isn't that what your doing? Your doing it in this blog rather then a sign. Isn't it what you have done all your life? YES you have been discriminating through Bible virse using your God for leverage. Admit it you hate the LGBT Community. If you were Hitler you would kill us. You are a homophone just like he was. Only you and Julie would like FAFDA it runs gay people out of town but it takes a lot of other people with it. It's obvious you don't understand the law in this legislation and in Colorado where the baker was sued. Mark
DeleteAnother thing, if anyone else out there reads this.
DeleteGoogle Marjurie Silva for the true story about what was at stake. Don't take PAUL DOVEINIS word for anything he writes unless you errify the truth. Mark
Mark,
DeleteFor God’s sake, please put aside the anger and start thinking clearly! I DO NOT hate the LGBT community just like I DO NOT hate someone involved in adultery, pornography, etc. My positions have ALWAYS been consistent. Your anger is preventing you from seeing that consistency. If I was a baker, I would happily bake cakes for anyone that came into my store (male, female, gay, straight, black, white, old, young, etc.). Even if I wanted to, I could not discriminate against anyone from the LGBT community because sexual orientation is imperceptible. I can’t look at someone and tell whether they’re gay or straight! The only time that my cake-selling business would become an issue is if someone came into my store asking me to provide a cake for the celebration of sin (i.e. a same-sex “wedding”). At that point, I would respectfully decline and provide a list of other bakeries that would be more than happy to fulfill their needs. That’s the distinction that you CONTINUALLY and STUBBORNLY FAIL to acknowledge. The old cliché “love the sinner, but hate the sin” is not actually found in the Bible but Jude: 22-23 is the closest parallel. Jude tells us to “save others” who are headed for eternal judgment while at the same time “hating even the garment polluted by the flesh” which is a reference to the debauched, sinful life of the person you’re commanded to save. We DO NOT hate anyone in the LGBT community, but we DO HATE the sin.
My CONSISTENT position has always been that people should not be forced to do what goes against their deeply-held convictions. An LGBT-run sign shop should NOT be compelled to provide anti-gay signs for an anti-gay convention. A Jewish barber should NOT be compelled to carve a swastika into a neo-Nazi’s buzz cut. And, Christians should NOT be compelled to provide services that go against their religious convictions. That last example is the one that the LGBT community won’t swallow because you don’t want to abandon your sin and you can’t stand anyone who points out the sin of homosexual behavior.
Your correct about the gay signs and anything else hatefully such as Silva the baker turning down Bill Jack for wanting over the top hatefully language and images on a cake in a city that has laws against discrimination and just as he was doing you are using the Bible in a hatefully manner. You make yourself the judge. Silva had t shirts printed that said God loves everyone...let them eat cake. She also received 2000 positive emails and 4 hatefully ones defending Mr Jack. Stop talking about the religious aspics long enough to consider the law. Mark
DeleteYeah, those biblical verses were “over the top”! I guess when someone quotes ANY verse from the Bible that condemns homosexual activity, it’s “over the top”. Stop embracing a double-standard, Mark! Stop allowing Silva her right to deny service but NOT allowing Christians to do the same. Stop comparing anyone who points out the sin of homosexuality with “Hitler”. Stop calling them “homophobes”. Grow up, Mark. Your behavior reminds me of a child who throws a tantrum when told that they can’t leave the table until they’re finished eating their broccoli. You’re an adult, but you’re not able to provide any meaningful response to the Scriptures that I’ve pointed out and you’re not able to refute the clear logic that I just provided in my 10:14 AM post. The fact that you won’t respond with anything meaningful, and the fact that you can only resort to name-calling, simply demonstrates the bankruptcy of your position.
DeleteJesus had nothing to say about homosexuals.
DeleteI avoided the reference you made to Corinthians because arriving at the translation is not an easy task. Malakoi and arenokoitai two Greek words, the first-soft, sometimes used to describe a garment, nowhere else in Scriptures it used to describe a person. The church understood it as a soft or weak morality, later changed to those who engage in masturbation. Later as masturbating became more popularly accepted the word was used to denote homosexuals. Malakoi=soft.
The second word remains a mystery, found nowhere else in Scripture. So this word was left up to the translator, mistranslation could have taken place. It goes on and on. The final English translation leaves no dote but it is after the fact. Also there are many other reasons why a lot of the old testament is unreadable. I believe the Bible to be the word of God, but not the words of God. It was written by many writers over thousands of years. The accounts were heard more often then read. One could go on and on.
As I said put your Bible away, the law was broken in Colorado. The cake Bill Jack wanted was out of hate, you know it. The cake a gay couple wants is out of love. Marriage Equality...the Old Testament had no cosept of. Can you honestly say a baker should design a cake with the N word on it because of freedom of speech. How is that you condone the actions of Bill Jack. What was the point of that cake in the 1st place.
I'm frustrated because people like you have been coming after the LGBT COMMUNIT for years. And as soon as public opinion makes a C change you cry persecution. What religion are you anyway?
Mark
Mark,
DeleteJesus also had “nothing to say” about wife-beating, bestiality, or heroin-addiction. You need to understand that ALL Scripture is God-breathed and relevant for us (2 Timothy 3:16) and not just the words of Jesus in a red-letter edition of the Bible. Jesus DID reiterate God’s standard of a one man/one woman marriage many times (such as Matthew 19:4-6).
In 1 Corinthians 6:9, the Greek terms “arsenokoites” and “malakoi” are references to “both” sides of homosexual conduct. One refers to the “dominant”, and the other to the “submissive” (soft). That’s why some English translations of the Bible will specifically translate both words (“effeminate” and “homosexuals”, like the NASB), and some will combine them (“men who practice homosexuality”, like the ESV). Paul’s message has nothing to do with “describing a garment”, as you write, because the entire context refers to sexual behavior. In the same verse (v. 9), he writes neither “fornicators” (sex outside of marriage), nor “adulterers” (married people engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage), nor “effeminate”, nor “homosexuals” shall inherit the kingdom of God. Paul’s audience was familiar with the Septuagint (the “LXX”, the Greek translation of the O.T.) and we can tell that that was his “Bible” when he preached to the Gentiles and when he formed his vocabulary. In Leviticus 18:22, in the LXX, (stating that a man shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman), it reads: meta arsenos (arsenos-male) ou koimethese koiten (koiten-to lie sexually, have intercourse) gunaikos. Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians uses Leviticus as the context. That’s why he starts verse 9 with “do you not know ?”. They were familiar, or should have been, with what he was stating. There’s also good news in verse 11 because he says “and such WERE some of you” before coming to Christ.
I’m not “coming after” the LGBT community - I’m just trying to shed light. And, I am a saved Christian who’s simply trying to be faithful to God and to His Word.
The only one who sees your light was the three of us. Now it will be you and Julie. Have fun patting eachother on the back. Your made for eachother. I should have known better. Discrimination is discrimination.
ReplyDeleteTruth is truth no matter if everyone in the world rejects it. And, ultimately, you either accept God's truth or make excuses not to. Everyone will make that choice.
ReplyDeleteGod has evolved!
ReplyDeleteLeviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual unseemliness – Lev. 15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
It’s too bad that people simply cut & paste from the internet. I guess it’s much easier to do that than to actually take the time to formulate your own thoughts. Your pasted letter is a fairly well-known one that was originally sent to Dr. Laura Schlessinger by a “professor” which, apparently for some people, gives it much more credibility. There’s also a popular and widely-circulated TV episode of “The West Wing” where Martin Sheen, portraying a US President, gives a similar “lesson” to a Bible-believing lady. And, of course, it’s all designed to portray Christians as simple-minded, “unaware” of their own inconsistencies, etc. These arguments are intended as “GOTCHA” moments! Unfortunately, it just shows that highly-educated people can be just as ignorant about the Bible as the garden-variety unbelievers. When you actually take the time to understand the distinctions between God’s various laws, to recognize that Israel was a theocracy in the Old Testament, to recognize the reasons that certain laws were given, etc., letters like these become “icons of ignorance”. Sadly, the people circulating them usually never come to that realization.
DeleteIn the spirit of “cut & paste”, please refer to my very brief explanation, posted as an “August 7, 2015 at 2:46 PM” reply, of God’s various laws found here (part of Julie’s blog):
http://jszyd.blogspot.com/2015/07/court-decision-diminishes-meaning-of.html
After understanding the basic distinctions in God’s laws, do you see how foolish such letters sound? The “why isn’t my neighbor being put to death for working on the Sabbath?” arguments sound like they could be coming from a kindergartener. And, it’s not evidence for God’s “evolution”. I understand that all of us can be ignorant about many topics, but why embrace WILLFUL ignorance and why allow that ignorance to keep snow-balling?
Perhaps all you deserve is a cut in past. You only quote the Bible, what about the law Mark mentioned in Colorado? Didn't those people brake the law?
DeleteThe First Amendment Defense Act Provides No New Protections Under the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteThe Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides meaningful and weighty protections for both individuals and religious organizations from burdensome government intrusion. In recent years, federal courts have interpreted the First Amendment to protect religious organizations ability to proselytize and to freely express their beliefs without government interference. Federal courts have also broadly interpreted existing exemptions from federal civil rights laws, affirming religious organization’s ability to make decisions concerning employment to a wide variety of employees – from teachers to administrative staff – based on religious convictions. No religious organization or clergy is required to sanction or perform same-sex marriage under any federal or state law.
The First Amendment Defense Act is Tantamount to State Sanctioned Discrimination.
This Act would allow organizations and businesses contracting with the federal government to circumvent critical federal protections designed to protect same-sex couples and their families from harmful discrimination. It would also enable federal employees to refuse to fully perform their duties if they believe they conflict with their objection to same-sex marriage. For example, an employee at the Department of Veterans Affairs could refuse to process a claim for survivor benefits for the same-sex spouse of a servicemember.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in U.S. v. Windsor andObergefell v. Hodges, same-sex married couples are entitled to all federal spousal benefits regardless of where they live. Under this Act, however, individual businesses could run roughshod over the civil rights of these couples and deny them the spousal benefits they have earned and deserve. Employers could refuse to approve an individual’s request for FMLA leave to care for a sick same-sex spouse, or file an employee’s spousal benefits as married in an ERISA plan based on their religious objection to same-sex marriage.
This Act would also compromise the impact of current non-discrimination protections for LGBT people and their family. For example, Executive Order 11,246 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity by federal contractors. However, under this Act, the federal government would be required to continue to contract with a business with a record of discriminatory employment practices against married gays and lesbians if that employer cited their belief that same-sex marriage was wrong as a the reason for the discrimination. Other federal lifeline protections could be compromised by this Act. Currently, hospitals receiving Medicare and Medicaid must allow a patient to have any visitor they request—including a same-sex spouse. Under this Act, a hospital could state that allowing such visits would sanction same-sex marriage and would be a violation of their religious liberty. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has also recently issued guidance that shelters receiving HUD grants must not discriminate against same-sex married couples. An organization could cite this Act and provide their religious conviction against same-sex marriage as a reason to put a same-sex couple back on the street.
The Right to Believe is Fundamental. The Right to Use Taxpayer Dollars to Discriminate is Not.
The U.S. Constitution provides strong protections for individuals and organizations to exercise religion and to freely speak about beliefs. Nothing in federal law, including the right to receive exempt tax status, a federal grant or contract, or other federal benefit, can be denied on the basis of a sincerely held religious belief. However, the federal government has an equally strong obligation and interest in eradicating harmful discrimination. Acts that discriminate against a third party – an employee, a hospital patient, a homeless family – have no business being funded by the federal government.
Matt McTighe, campaign manager for Freedom for All Americans, said in a statement the bill “does nothing to advance religious freedom, but it does attack the economic well-being of LGBT Americans all across this country.
ReplyDelete“Every American should have the freedom to live their lives without fear of discrimination,” McTighe said. “At a time when a supermajority of Americans want to move forward with comprehensive protections for their LGBT friends and loved ones, it’s disheartening to see that some lawmakers are still aggressively pushing legislation that singles out hardworking Americans for harm.”
Did you read that Julie...a supermajority of Americans are in favor of the LGBT community. I don't think you standing on the wrong side of history stands a chance. Mark Cichewicz
Every time I hear about “being on the wrong side of history”, I chuckle. Isn’t ALL of recorded history on OUR side (one man/one woman marriage)? Here’s a link to a very sobering article written from a woman who lives in Canada. The negative ramifications of same-sex “marriage” are huge.
Deletehttp://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/
THIS IS WHAT THE LAW SAID IN COLORADO NOT THE BIBLE!A three-judge panel on the Colorado Court of Appeals found the Lakewood-based Masterpiece Cakeshop violated the 2014 Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act for refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. MarkCichewicz
ReplyDelete“Masterpiece remains free to continue espousing its religious beliefs, including its opposition to same-sex marriage,” the decision says. “However, if it wishes to operate as a public accommodation and conduct business within the State of Colorado, CADA prohibits it from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation.”
Here is another example of how Julie and other extreme conservatives streches the truth. The owners of this business deserve the fine.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the Gortz Haus Gallery is not a “church,” as Cruz repeatedly labels it. The gallery was a church, but when the Odgaards bought it, they converted it from a house of worship into a bistro, flower shop, art gallery, and wedding venue—in other words, a business. Second, the video strongly implies that the Odgaard’s business was forced to stop hosting all weddings because the state fined it into oblivion. That is not true. The Iowa Civil Rights Commissioned fined the Odgaards just $5,000—and insisted that they must stop refusing service to same-sex couples. It was the latter ruling by which the Odgaards could not abide. Betty Odgaard says the gallery stopped hosting weddings because “we didn’t have a choice.” In fact, the gallery stopped hosting weddings because the Odgaards couldn’t bear to serve gay and bisexual clientele.
Belief in any supreme being is willful ignorance. Use your own inherent morality and enjoy life. It's not everlasting.
ReplyDeleteThere’s too much evidence NOT to believe in THE Supreme Being. Start with an examination of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and you’ll soon recognize that Supreme Being.
Delete“Inherent morality” sounds nice but the concept quickly leads to moral relativism because most every society usually ends up discarding the OBJECTIVE source of morality. For example, OBJECTIVE morality says life begins at conception; moral relativism says it might not start until birth which allows for something as barbaric as partial birth abortion. OBJECTIVE morality says all life is precious; moral relativism says some if it should be exterminated (a la Nazi Germany and their idea of a “master race”). OBJECTIVE morality says marriage can only be one man/one woman; moral relativism will eventually say that any person(s) can marry any other person(s) as long as there’s some vague concept of love involved.