http://www.macon.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/article72556537.html

State senator defends religious freedom legislative efforts 

A couple of weeks ago, I was highly critical of the efforts of proponents of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and particularly of State Sen. Josh McKoon, R-Columbus. The senator did a smart thing: He reached out and asked for the opportunity to explain his position directly to you. After the cuffing he took, I figured I owed him that. Here is what he had to say:

There are two components to protecting religious freedom in our state: Adoption of a Religious Freedom Restoration Act and a First Amendment Defense Act.

Religious freedom is a second-class right in Georgia. Every other right protected under the First Amendment (free press, free association and free speech) receives the highest level of constitutional scrutiny while the right of free exercise of one's religious beliefs is relegated to a much lower level. An inmate in a federal prison in Georgia has greater protection of his religious freedom than you or I do from our state or local government.

Why is that? Because the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the federal RFRA doesn't apply to states or local governments. Since then, 31 other states have adopted their own RFRA standard. What is the impact of not having RFRA? In our state we have seen religious student organizations kicked off college campuses, students in public schools ordered not to read religious material on their own time, references to religious texts like the Bible scrubbed from football playbooks, students disqualified from athletic competitions for wearing clothing with Scripture references and, in one school district, a total ban on the use of school facilities by people of faith at any time. In Kansas, another state that did not have RFRA, a Medicaid patient was denied life-saving treatment and later died due to the state's decision not to accommodate her religious belief.

The assault on people of faith not only comes from ham-fisted bureaucrats but also due to a coordinated campaign of lawsuits from out-of-state groups that do seek to establish a religion in our state: atheistic secular humanism. Passing a state RFRA would ensure Georgians have the same protection from interference of their religious freedom from state and local government that they have enjoyed from the federal government. We should act to ensure government remains a neutral referee with respect to different religious traditions instead of becoming a player on the field advocating for one set of beliefs over another. A state RFRA would achieve the balance necessary to maintain our tradition of religious freedom for all without fear of repression by government.

Since the Supreme Court redefined marriage last summer, there are new threats to religious freedom. Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged several such threats in his dissenting opinion to include student housing at religious colleges, religious adoption agencies that believe in traditional marriage and the tax exempt status of houses of worship that teach traditional marriage. Do we want to strip houses of worship that teach traditional marriage of their tax exempt status? Do we want to revoke accreditation of private, religious K-12 schools that teach traditional marriage? Do we want to deny professional licenses to counselors and others because they hold a sincere religious belief in traditional marriage? Do we want to shutter adoption agencies that limit their placements to opposite-sex, married couples?

The First Amendment Defense Act merely prevents state or local government from punishing people of faith for their sincerely held religious beliefs. This carefully considered statute would not diminish the rights of same-sex married couples in any respect, but rather ensures that this new right does not lead to a collateral attack on our tradition of safeguarding religious freedom for all without the government passing judgment on the religious views of individual faith traditions.

We have a clear choice. Take no action and watch courts shutter faith-based adoption agencies as has occurred in Massachusetts, Illinois and the District of Columbia. The other choice is to allow the elected representatives of the people to create a predictable legal environment that reinforces religious freedom for all. We should not wait for courts to make bad law to take corrective legislative action. We should pass RFRA and FADA to ensure people of every faith tradition need not fear government retribution if they hold religious beliefs unpopular in certain quarters.

What action can you take to make a difference? First, please share this column with your friends, family and associates. Second, find out who your state legislators are and let them know that you want these measures passed. Third, call Gov. Deal and let him know you want these protections in Georgia law. With your help we can adopt these common-sense reforms.

You can reach Dick Yarbrough at yarb2400@bellsouth.net; at P.O. Box 725373, Atlanta, GA 31139; online at dickyarbrough.com or on Facebook at www.facebook.com/dickyarb.

Sent from my iPhone

http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/03/christian-targeted-for-personal-destruction-has-new-hope/

CHRISTIAN TARGETED FOR 'PERSONAL DESTRUCTION' HAS NEW HOPE

Barronelle Stutzman

The Washington Supreme Court has agreed to review the case against a florist who was penalized for following her Christian faith and refusing to support a “gay wedding” with her artistic talent.

The brief order from the Supreme Court of Washington was signed by Barbara Madsen, the chief justice, and said tersely that the court would “retain this case for hearing and decision.”

The fight involves penalties that the state is imposing on Barronelle Stutzman, a longtime florist who was accused of discrimination when she declined to violate her Christian faith and provide her artistic talents for the same-sex “wedding” being planned by a longtime customer.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is working on court on behalf of Stutzman, explained at issue are the penalties and attorneys’ fees a lower court ordered her to pay “for declining to use her artistic abilities to design custom floral arrangements for a longtime customer’s same-sex ceremony.”

The lower courts ruled that not only was Stutzman liable as a business operator, but her personal assets and property also were at risk.

Stutzman had referred the customer, Rob Ingersoll, to several other florists who would provide him with quality products and services.

David Limbaugh’s book chillingly documents the destructive “transformation” of the United States — get “The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama’s War on the Republic”

She considered him a friend at the time, having done business for many years, and still does, she wrote in a recent commentary in a Seattle newspaper.

“As a Christian, weddings have a particular significance. Marriage does celebrate two people’s love for one another, but its sacred meaning goes far beyond that. Surely without intending to do so, Rob was asking me to choose between my affection for him and my commitment to Christ. As deeply fond as I am of Rob, my relationship with Jesus is everything to me. Without Christ, I can do nothing.”

See a video about the case:

She continued, "I've never questioned Rob's and Curt Freed's right to live out their beliefs. And I wouldn't have done anything to keep them from getting married, or even getting flowers. Even setting aside my warm feelings for them, I wouldn't have deliberately taken actions that would mean the end of being able to do the work I love or risk my family's home and savings.

"I just couldn't see a way clear in my heart to honor God with the talents He has given me by going against the word He has given us."

She wrote, "I sold flowers to Rob for years. I helped him find someone else to design his wedding arrangements. I count him as a friend. I want to believe that a state as diverse as Washington, with our long commitment to personal and religious freedoms, would be as willing to honor my right to make those kinds of choices as it is to honor Rob's right to make his."

"Barronelle and many others like her around the country have been willing to serve any and all customers, but they are understandably not willing to promote any and all messages," said ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner. "We hope the Washington Supreme Court will affirm the broad protections that both the U.S. Constitution and the Washington Constitution afford to freedom of speech and conscience."

"No one should face personal and professional ruin simply for exercising these foundational freedoms," added ADF Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. "Americans clearly oppose unjust government actions that force people to create expression against their will."

The same issue has erupted all across America, and, in fact, around the world. Bakers, photographers and venue owners are facing penalties and punishment from various U.S. governments for following their Christian faith.

In the United Kingdom, a family that owned a bakery was ordered penalized for refusing to violate its faith and promote same-sex "marriage," a decision that was put on hold when a government lawyer intervened amid speculation that the anti-discrimination laws being used for the prosecution actually violate international human rights protections.

In the Stutzman case, the ADF explained, "The case boils down to this question: is there room in our tolerant, diverse, and freedom-loving society for people with different views about the nature of marriage to establish their 'religious (or nonreligious) self-definition in the political, civic, and economic life of our larger community…?' The trial court's and [the state's and the ACLU's] answer is 'no….' This is contrary to the best of our historical and constitutional traditions, which mandate that citizens who hold non-majoritarian views be given room to express them and not be coerced, punished, and marginalized through force of law.

"The trial court's and [the state's and the ACLU's] view – that there can never be a free speech exception to public accommodation laws – endangers everyone," the brief continued. "If correct, then the consciences of all citizens are fair game for the government. No longer could a gay print shop owner decline to print shirts adorned with messages promoting marriage between one man and one woman for a religious rally. Nor could an atheist painter decline to paint a mural celebrating the resurrection of Christ for a church. Indeed, no speaker could exercise esthetic or moral judgments about what projects to take on where a customer claims the decision infringes on his or her rights under the WLAD [Washington Law Against Discrimination]."

The ADF's logic is being challenged by no less than Barack Obama.

The president, who has been trying to reframe the Constitution's protection of religious rights to the narrower "freedom to worship" rather than "freedom of religion." went a step further in an address to a homosexual festival.

He said at the Democratic National Committee's LGBT Gala in New York that the Constitution's protections for "gay" rights trump the protection for religious rights.

"We affirm that we cherish our religious freedom and are profoundly respectful of religious traditions," he said. 'But we also have to say clearly that our religious freedom doesn't grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights."

Obama said that "even as we are respectful and accommodating of genuine concerns and interests of religious institutions, we need to reject politicians who are supporting new forms of discrimination as a way to scare up votes."

The conflict was exacerbated when the Supreme Court last June created a right to "same-sex marriage," overturning the votes of people in a majority of states.

The Obergefell opinion, in a narrow 5-4 vote, included a perfunctory acknowledgement of the constitutional free exercise of religion.

However, in practice, religious rights are succumbing to the "right to gay marriage," as illustrated in the case of Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis.

A federal judge jailed Davis for six days after she refused to follow his order to violate her Christian faith and to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

David Limbaugh's book chillingly documents the destructive "transformation" of the United States -- get "The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama's War on the Republic"

Obama, at the "gay" festival, also quoted Harvey Milk – a San Francisco city official whose biography describes how he had a penchant for sex with young boys – as a hero of the movement.

"Harvey Milk once said, 'If a gay person makes it, the doors are open to everyone.' But to those of us who've made it through those doors, we've got a unique obligation to reach back and make sure other people can make it through those doors, too," Obama said.

"We have a responsibility to stand up to bigotry not just against us, but against anybody, anywhere. We have a responsibility to stand up for freedom – not just our own freedom, but for everybody’s freedom. We speak up to condemn hatred against anybody – gay or straight, black or white, Christian, Muslim, Jew, non-believer, immigrant because we remember what silence felt like when hatred was directed at us, and we've got to be champions on behalf of justice for everybody, not just our own."

See WND's Big List of Christian Coercion about this very topic.

Sent from my iPhone

http://christianindex.org/georgia-religious-freedom-being-held-in-the-balance/

GEORGIA RELIGIOUS FREEDOM BEING ‘HELD IN THE BALANCE’

Georgia Religious Freedom Being ‘Held in the Balance’

thinkstockphoto.com

As I write, the 30th day (“Crossover”) has now come and passed under the gold dome. The most significant piece of legislation so far has been the Pastor Protection Act  (HB 757) that passed out of the Senate with an amendment that will protect individuals (ex. counselors), churches, private schools, private colleges, adoption agencies, nonprofit organizations, and businesses from adverse government action because of their beliefs on marriage. This bill, having already passed from the House without this amendment, now has to be voted on again with the Senate’s amendment.

Here is where the problem lies. If the House does not agree with the changes made in the new language, the bill goes to a conference committee where it can be changed. If that happens we will not know what the bill will have in it until the vote is taken on both sides of the chambers.

As Georgia Baptists, we have been asking the House to leave the bill as it is. We want broad-based protection for all Georgians, not just the pastor and the church buildings. The LGBT activists, the Chamber of Commerce, and media are promoting only pastors, churches, and faith-based nonprofits. They overwhelmingly asked the legislature and the governor to not protect the business community from public accommodation laws, which will force these businesses to promote, support, and participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies.

You have all heard about the bakers, the florists, and photographers being made to comply with government laws, facing fines and being driven completely out of business. Do we want that here in Georgia? I am writing to tell you: it is coming. There is a public accommodation law that has already been passed by the House Judiciary Committee that has included the word “sex” in relation to public accommodation.

News flash: “sex” in our day is not defined as sex was years ago. This is the first step toward forcing businesses to conform to the LGBT agenda or get out of business. Pastors, this will have an impact on your churches! These businesses are owned and operated by the people who give and supply the resources to allow our churches to fulfill the Great Commission.

The opposition forces I face at the Capitol are passionate and aggressive in letting their voices be heard above everyone else’s. But the church, as a whole, is too quiet on these matters. We are simply allowing opportunities to get away from us. This is why I am asking for your help! We must not let the government do to us what Hitler did to the pastors and churches of his day. He got them to accept his protection from government action if they would agree to stay out of government. He basically said, you take care of the church and leave government to me. Pastors, this is happening before our eyes today!

I know that all of us are busy and overwhelmed with information. But if we don’t respond to this challenge today, we will look back and see when we lost an opportunity to defend our 1st amendment rights. Our 1st amendment rights include the free exercise of religion, and that includes preaching and living out the gospel in everyday life. And, we must also remember the persecution our children will be facing. Please heed this warning: We will be made to care, if we don’t right now.

So please be looking for my next alert. Thank you all for what you are doing.

Sent from my iPhone

Religious freedom law could harm Ga.’s economy

http://www.myajc.com/news/news/opinion/religious-freedom-law-could-harm-gas-economy/nncZH/

Religious freedom law could harm Ga.’s economy 

By Anthony M. Kreis

Proponents of religious freedom legislation are selling Georgians a false bill of goods that unnecessarily threatens civil rights and could harm the Peach State’s economy.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) would allow religious objectors to sidestep the requirements of laws if their religious exercise is “substantially burdened,” unless the government demonstrates the law serves a compelling governmental interest and there’s no less restrictive means to accomplish it.

LGBT Georgians worry RFRA could undermine the few municipal protections in place guarding against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. They worry RFRA could embolden bad-faith actors to mistreat them. Legislation supporters counter that these fears are unfounded because their proposal mirrors a 22-year-old federal law and similar state legislation.

The “nothing to see here” defense proponents offer is not persuasive, given the harsh anti-gay rhetoric coming from some grassroots RFRA supporters. Georgia legislators can easily defuse these criticisms. Indeed, the legislation could (and should) exempt anti-discrimination laws from religious objections. The fierce opposition to a civil rights “fix” strips the veneer from arguments that the legislation’s intent is unrelated to LGBT people and nondiscrimination laws.

Indiana went down this road— enacting a RFRA without civil rights protections — and disastrous economic consequences followed when the state was boycotted in protest. The damage was significant. The International Association of Fairs and Expositions, for example, chose San Antonio over Indianapolis partially due to the hostile environment ensnaring Indiana’s RFRA. The Disciples of Christ canceled a convention estimated to bring $5.9 million in spending to Indianapolis. The governors of New York, Connecticut, and Washington prohibited official state travel to Indiana. Major cities followed suit.

In response to RFRA, Angie’s List pulled a $40 million Indianapolis headquarters expansion proposal, which would’ve brought 1,000 jobs. Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff pledged to reduce Salesforce.com’s presence in Indiana. Similarly, Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman wrote to customers that it would be “unconscionable to imagine that Yelp would create, maintain, or expand a significant business presence in any state that encouraged discrimination.”

While conventions pulled their business from Indiana and corporations pledged to reduce their footprint in the Hoosier State, others expressed concern about the state’s reputation. Indiana Business Research Center’s director argued that the state’s ability to attract talent because of RFRA might stall the state’s economic growth. Perhaps this is why state officials paid nearly $400,000 for a public relations campaign to restore the state’s image.

While the original intent behind legislation like RFRA was to protect religious minorities, companies and organizations recognize that the mobilizing rhetoric behind the recent religious liberty debate has not focused on disfavored or powerless religious groups. Rather, the major forces supporting a Georgia RFRA see it as a tool to impose their discriminatory interests.

Georgia must learn from Indiana and not invite economic hardship. We should have a process of negotiation and debate about ways to simultaneously advance the civil rights of all Georgians. Blunt measures designed to protect one side and browbeat another should not succeed.

Anthony M. Kreis is a Ph. D candidate at the University of Georgia’s School of Public and International Affairs where he specializes in LGBT issues and civil rights law reform.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/28934547/principal-says-he-was-fired-for-leading-volunteer-prayer-meeting?config=H264

Principal says he was fired for leading volunteer prayer meeting

Switch to full site

A Meriwether County high school principal claims he was  fired after he prayed with a group of students during a volunteer Christian meeting.

Dr. Michael Lehr said he just wants the facts to come out and that he's relying on his faith to get him through this.

News Radio 106.7's Nathalie Pozo spoke with several students and parents who are outraged this happened to what they call a kind, dedicated, well respected man. Now, the community is rallying behind him.

“It is breaking our hearts its breaking our hearts… because it is not supposed to be like this,” one parent said.

Last Wednesday, during a volunteer Fellowship of Christian Athletes meeting, the Manchester High School principal said he filled in for the organization's leader and read scripture as well as prayed with students in attendance.

“Because this is a Christian community and I want my daughter to pray,” said another parent.

Dr. Lehr who did not want to speak on camera said he had his annual evaluation two days later with the county's school superintendent. He says at that meeting, Superintendent Carol Lane put him on indefinite administrative leave for the remainder of his contract which expires in June for leading prayers at the FCA meeting. 

“What do you expect at a Christian meeting except prayer and Bible reading,” one parent noted.

“I want prayer in this school. I am proud to see our football team take a knee and pray before and after games. And also in clubs and we're just shocked,” said parent Angila Waddell.

Dr. Lehr said he is now focused on finding on a new job in order to support his family.

News Radio 106.7's Nathalie Pozo reached out to Superintendent Lane but the superintendent did not return calls or e-mails asking for comment.

Sent from my iPhone

AJC: RFRA TABLED IN GEORGIA

http://www.myajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/meeting-on-religious-liberty-bills-fate-cancelled/nkhWp/?ecmp=ajc_social_facebook_2014_politics_sfp#__federated=1

Meeting on ‘religious liberty’ bill’s fate canceled

Sunday, March 29, 2015

By Aaron Gould Sheinin

A specially called meeting of the House Judiciary Committee set for Monday was cancelled, leaving the future of the ‘religious liberty’ bill in doubt.

The committee was to meet at 10 a.m., to likely decide the fate of a controversial bill for this year. But a member of the committee, who asked not to be identified for fear of angering leadership, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution the meeting was off. The committee member did not know if it would be rescheduled, but with lawmakers only meeting in session Tuesday and Thursday before ending their 2015 session, time is rapidly expiring on Senate Bill 129.

The back-and-forth on the bill comes as Indiana deals with the backlash from adopting a similar law that has led to calls of boycotts and the potential loss of tens of millions of dollars in tourism and economic development. Indiana Gov. Mike Spence on Sunday told ABC News the law is not about discrimination but refused to say whether it would permit a business owner to refuse service to someone with whom they disagree.

In Georgia this past Thursday, in a surprise 9-8 vote, the Judiciary Committee voted to amend Senate Bill 129 to add language making clear the bill could not be used to discriminate against anyone already protected by any local, state or federal law. It was quickly tabled by supporters who said adding anti-discrimination language “gutted” the bill.

The amendment was sponsored by Rep. Mike Jacobs, R-Brookhaven, and the deciding vote cast by Rep. Beth Beskin, R-Atlanta. Beskin, just a day before in subcommittee, had voted the other way — to deny the same protections against discrimination. Jacobs and Beskin, along with Rep. Jay Powell, R-Camilla, the other Republican to vote for Jacobs’ amendment, were vilified by conservatives.

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-you-should-know-about-religious-freedom-restoration-acts

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACTS

Yesterday Governor Mike Pence of Indiana signed into law the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The action has drawn sharp criticism by people and politicians who directly oppose religious freedoms and by those who are simply unaware of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the federal model for Indiana’s new law.

Here is what you should know about these types of religious freedom legislation:

What is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act?

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion. The legislation was introduced by Rep. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993 and passed by a unanimous U.S. House and a near unanimous U.S. Senate with three dissenting votes. The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

According to the text of the law, the purposes of the RFRA are:

 (1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and

(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

Here are the remarks Al Gore and Bill Clinton made on signing the legislation (a transcript can be found here):

Why was the RFRA needed?

As the text of the RFRA notes, the purpose of the legislation was to restore a prior standard of religious exemptions. Legal scholar Eugene Volokh identifies four periods in modern American history that relate to religious freedom exemptions:

Pre 1960s — Statute-by-statute exemptions: Prior to the early 1960s, exemption for religious objections were only allowed if the statute provided an explicit exemption.

1963 to 1990 — Sherbert/Yoder era of Free Exercise Clause law: In the 1963 case Sherbert v. Verner the Court expressly adopted the constitutional exemption model, under which sincere religious objectors had a presumptive constitutional right to an exemption because of the Free Exercise clause. This decision was reaffirmed in the 1972 case, Wisconsin v. Yoder. During this period that Court used what it called “strict scrutiny” when the law imposed a “substantial burden” on people’s religious beliefs. Under this strict scrutiny, religious objectors were to be given an exemption, unless denying the exemption was the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest. But during this period, as Volokh notes, “The government usually won, and religious objectors won only rarely.”

1990-1993 — Return to statute-by-statute exemptions: In Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court returned to the statute-by-statute exemption regime, and rejected the constitutional exemption regime.

1993-Present — Religious Freedom Restoration Act era: In 1993, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which gave religious objectors a statutory presumptive entitlement to exemption from generally applicable laws (subject to strict scrutiny).

If we have the RFRA, why do we need religious freedom legislation at the state level?

RFRA was intended to apply to all branches of government, and both to federal and state law. But in 1997 in the case of City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court ruled the RFRA exceeded federal power when applied to state laws. In response to this ruling, some individual states passed state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that apply to state governments and local municipalities.

Which states have state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Acts?

Currently, 19 states have a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (AL, CT, FL, ID, IN, IL, KS, KY, LA, MO, MS, NM, OK, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, and VA). Ten other states have religious liberty protections that state courts have interpreted to provide a similar (strict scrutiny) level of protection (AK, MA, ME, MI, MN, MT, NC, OH, WA, and WI). With some exceptions (such as Mississippi), the state versions are almost exactly the same as the federal version.

What exactly is “strict scrutiny”?

Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a “compelling governmental interest,” and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest. For a court to apply strict scrutiny, the legislature must either have significantly abridged a fundamental right with the law's enactment or have passed a law that involves a suspect classification. Suspect classifications have come to include race, national origin, religion, alienage, and poverty.

Aren’t state RFRA’s about discrimination against homosexuals?

None of the RFRA’s even mention homosexuals, nor are they about discrimination. As University of Notre Dame law professor Rick Garnett explains, regarding the Indiana law:

[T]he act is a moderate measure that tracks a well-established federal law and the laws of several dozen other states. Contrary to what some critics have suggested, it does not give anyone a “license to discriminate,” it would not undermine our important civil-rights commitments, and it would not impose excessive burdens on Indiana’s courts. . . .

The act’s standard is applied in many jurisdictions across the land and it has long enjoyed support from across the political spectrum. This standard is not new; we have plenty of evidence about how it works. We know that courts have not applied it to require excessive accommodations or exemptions from anti-discrimination laws and civil-rights protections. Fighting invidious public discrimination is, American courts agree, a public interest of the highest order. Contrary to the concern quoted in the recent Tribune piece, a business owner or medical professional who invoked the act as a “license” to engage in such discrimination would and should lose. The act creates a balancing test, not a blank check. . . .

Why then do so many people claim it is about discrimination of homosexuals?

Mostly because of biased and incompetent reporting by the media. Last year Mollie Hemingway wrote a blistering critique of reporting on the issue in which she said, “we have a press that loathes and works actively to suppress this religious liberty, as confident in being on the ‘right side of history’ as they are ignorant of natural rights, history, religion and basic civility.”

Not much has changed since last year. Many media outlets identified the Indiana bill as being “anti-gay.” Unfortunately, rather than being outraged at finding they were lied to by politicians and journalists, most Americans will not bother to learn the truth and will remain ignorant about these important laws that protect our “first freedom.”   

Sent from my iPhone

http://kylewingfield.blog.ajc.com/2015/02/26/when-all-else-fails-bring-up-the-klan/

When all else fails, bring up the Klan

Not content with labeling religious-liberty advocates as tantamount to homophobes and child abusers, Georgia Equality now says they would aid and abet the Ku Klux Klan. In the South, especially, hardly any accusation is more severe.

In this case, it is also absurd.

The accusation came on the letterhead of Michael Bowers, the former state attorney general hired by Georgia Equality to issue an opinion on the bill. It was billed as news that the man who once defended Georgia’s sodomy law had flipped sides, but wouldn’t the surprise have been if he’d contradicted his client?

Either way, Bowers’ letter outlining his opinion is a dog’s breakfast of mismatched legal references in search of a coherent theory, spiced with a few hyperbolic claims in search of headlines.

Bowers’ letter manages both to state the legal test the bill would establish — that government actions which violate a person’s free exercise of religion must serve a “compelling government interest” via the “least restrictive means” — and to imply the bill offers a get-out-of-jail-free card to anyone claiming religion as a defense anytime. He both acknowledges the language of the bill is “virtually identical” to that of a 22-year-old federal law and claims the effects of such language in Georgia are unknowable.

He both waxes eloquently about the rule of law and ignores that the bill establishes a clear legal test for courts of law to use in settling free-exercise disputes. He both warns the bill could be used to justify parents’ refusal to vaccinate their children and fails to observe the state’s vaccination law has long included a religious exemption.

Most notably, and like other critics before him, Bowers both raises the prospect of rampant discrimination and fails to offer a single example of discrimination upheld by a court since the bill’s language was adopted by the federal government and a majority of states. Perhaps that’s why he resorted to wild-eyed speculation about the Klan.

“(I)t is no exaggeration that the proposed (bill) could be used to justify putting hoods back on the Ku Klux Klan,” Bowers writes, citing the state Anti-Mask Act that effectively outlawed the hoods.

In fact, in 1990 the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the Anti-Mask Act as serving a “compelling state interest” via a “de minimis” restriction on a Klansman’s freedom of expression. Bowers ought to remember that one; he was attorney general when that case was argued.

By definition, nothing can be less restrictive than that which is “de minimis.” It is ridiculous to think the law would be thrown out in a free-exercise case when essentially the same standard was met in a free-expression case.

But harping on the legal arguments, such as they are, takes away from the real problem with raising the specter of hooded terrorists returning to Georgia. It is plainly an attempt to shut down debate altogether.

Not every critic of the bill has been so implacable. And maybe Bowers doesn’t care what legislators think of him. After all, a good lawyer simply advocates his client’s position.

But legislators should remember who his client was when deciding which advocacy groups they can work with in the future.

See More Posts

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.canonandculture.com/christianity-and-tolerance-in-the-public-square/

Christianity and Tolerance in the Public Square

In Washington state, a florist who has employed and served gay people for years, but who declined to arrange flowers for a same-sex ceremony, faces the potential forfeiture of her home and life savings.

In Atlanta, a decorated fire chief lost his job for self-publishing a book that dared to offer an opinion on sexuality that historic Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all affirm.

In Oregon, the owners of a bakery face up to $150,000 in penalties for declining to bake a cake for the wedding of a gay couple.

There are countless other examples that could be shared, but they all follow this pattern: Run your business or institution according to your faith; or publicly express moral or religious convictions that don’t celebrate homosexuality or gay marriage, and you’re liable for very real consequences such as fines, lost employment, and the harassment and intimidation that follows from media exposure.

According to this rigid ideology, indecent views that run contrary to so-called “mainstream” and enlightened opinions on sexuality cannot be tolerated or given quarter in the public square. Though supposedly guided by a blind relativism that denies any ordered purpose to our sexuality, this dictatorship of sexual relativism is very insistent that you comply with its demands as a matter of moral obligation and justice because, as political theorist Matt Franck presciently warns, “there is no good reason for the new legal order to make room for ‘conscientious’ religious dissenters, for clearly their consciences are malformed and unworthy of respect.”

A 2009 paper from the Heritage Foundation explained just how traditional marriage proponents would be pushed out of the public square:

Arguments for same-sex marriage, although often couched in terms of tolerance and inclusion, are based fundamentally on the idea that preserving marriage as unions of husband and wife is a form of bigotry, irrational prejudice, and even hatred against homosexual persons who want the state to license their relationships. As increasing numbers of individuals and institutions, including public officials and governmental bodies, embrace this ideology, belief in marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman likely will come to be viewed as an unacceptable form of discrimination that should be purged from public life through legal, cultural, and economic pressure.

This prescient quote brings us to our current moment, where we see, increasingly, the targeting and marginalization of religious persons by a community that foretold of a laissez-faire approach to sexuality.

Those of us who believe that marriage is the exclusive, unalterable union of a man and woman were promised that all that the LGBT community wanted was equal treatment like everybody else. They advertised a “live and let live” mentality that would supposedly allow for difference in viewpoint.

We were told a lie, many of which knew was a lie to begin with. As the LGBT activist wing reveals its true intentions, there can apparently be no grand bargain where religious conservatives who disagree, civilly, on important matters of sexuality can co-exist alongside gay persons who desire to live free lives as well.

History reveals that when one group gains cultural favor over another, it typically overreaches, going to extremes to mercilessly subjugate their enemies to whatever table scraps are left over. That’s the phase we’re in now. In these circumstances, détente is discarded. Instead, embattlement and entrenchment passes on to the next generation.

It is the activist wing of the LGBT community that has settled the terms of the current debate, pitting the gay community against religious conservatives, wishing to extract every last pound of flesh they can from who they view as their troglodytic oppressors.

Religious conservatives don’t desire this. We want freedom for all. We desire magnanimity, tolerance, and compromise. That means, under reasonable standards, allowing all persons, religious or not, the freedom to live according to their sincerest convictions. It means instead of filing suit against a Christian florist, allowing for the free market to solve the problems of needing a floral arrangement for a gay wedding.

That also means freedom for gay persons to live meaningful lives, too. It means acknowledging that gay persons are citizens. Though the favor hasn’t been returned to religious conservatives, it means not coercing a baker to bake a cake with a religious belief about marriage that she does not agree with. It means recognizing that hiring or firing on the basis of sexual orientation, rarely, matters as a condition of employment eligibility. Religious conservatives stand ready to live at peace. Yes, we welcome the debate about whose vision of sexuality maximizes human flourishing, but that debate can be persist without punishing those who disagree. Public debate by private citizens is what makes America so unique and exemplary. Let’s not litigate public debate out of existence.

Tragically, all we’ve seen thus far is the vanquishing of those whose beliefs are different, but we will not beg for the constitutional rights that are inalienably ours. We will not assent to the dhimmitude of the Sexual Revolution. The unknown is whether the LGBT community will accept this.

Those who believe in a religious or moral conviction that marriage is conjugal, meaning between a man and woman, should continue to advance the cause of why the conjugal view of marriage is rational, true, and best serves the needs of civil society. They should also pursue every policy mechanism that protects against encroaching, coercive legal strictures that turns ordinary, hard working citizens into litigants and law-breakers.

Pluralism and true tolerance requires magnanimity. The culture wars grow colder as these disputes pit Americans against Americans, not just Christians against the community. As Christians, one of the most loving things we can bring to society is an advocacy for a genuine civic pluralism. But we’ll need the other side to play, too.

Sent from my iPhone

GA HB 218: "Preventing Government Overreach on Religious Expression Act."

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=fa4108bc-ea3f-41ba-ae93-7eb98dcb6f44&c=c7fede00-1b41-11e3-a181-d4ae5292bb50&ch=c8346cf0-1b41-11e3-a1cf-d4ae5292bb50

Religious freedom must be protected in Georgia, and we need your help to make that happen! We are asking everyone to help light up the State Capitol switchboard by making a few calls this week to your elected officials urging them to support religious freedom legislation.

Contact the following:

1. Gov. Deal - urge him to put his full support behind religious liberty legislation. Phone: 404-656-1776 / Online Contact/Email Form 
2. Lt. Governor Casey Cagle - urge him to put his full support behind religious liberty legislation. Phone: 404-656-5030 / Online Contact/Email Form 
3. Speaker David Ralston - urge him to put his full support behind HB 218*. Phone: 404- 656-5020 /  E-mail: David.ralston@house.ga.gov
4. Your state representative - urge them to support HB 218.*
5. Your state senator - urge them to support religious liberty legislation when the senate bill is introduced.

How to find your state senator and representative: 

1. To find your state senator and state legislator, go to http://openstates.org/find_your_legislator/

and type in your home address.   

2. Once you have determined your state legislators, go to the following web sites for mailing address, e-mail address, and phone and fax numbers:   

State representative
State senator

 

*Rep. Sam Teasley filed the House version of the religious liberty bill titled "Preventing Government Overreach on Religious Expression Act." The bill has a new number: HB218. The Senate has not filed their bill yet.

 

Religious freedom is the bedrock of all other liberties and valued as one of our most cherished constitutional rights. Protecting religious freedom was so important to our Founders they placed it at the top of the list of the Bill of Rights. Isn't it time that we step up to protect religious freedom here in Georgia? Future generations are depending on us. Contact your state legislators today and urge them to stand on the side of religious freedom and support HB218.

 

Click here for CWA of Georgia talking points.  

Click here for CWA religious freedom resources.