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

http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/02/bible-verse-too-hot-for-school-killing-fundraiser/

BIBLE VERSE TOO HOT FOR SCHOOL, KILLING FUNDRAISER

Actor Jim Caviezel portraying Jesus in “The Passion of the Christ.”

A Colorado college has decided to kill a fundraising program that sold personalized name plates for athletic facility lockers rather than allow one to feature the Bible reference Colossians 3:23, because if people looked it up, they would find the verse includes the word “Lord.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom on Friday filed a notice dismissing its lawsuit against Colorado Mines, explaining the school had “removed all donor nameplates from its football locker room rather than allow a former football player to include a Bible reference.”

Last year, the dispute erupted when the college promoted the program without any restrictions on the messages donors were allowed to inscribe.

Donors to a new Clear Creek Athletics Complex were allowed to dictate an inscription for a personalized nameplate that would be placed in the new football locker room.

See what American education has become, in “Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children.”

Michael Lucas, who played defensive nose tackle for the school and graduated in 2003, made a $2,500 donation and requested “Colossians 3:23 and Micah 5:9.”

But the message was rejected by the school, the ADF lawsuit explained, because one of the Bible verses includes the word “Lord.”

“CSM officials objected because they said, after the fact, that nameplate quotes could not include the words ‘Lord,’ ‘God’ or ‘Jesus’ or make reference to Bible verses that contain those words. They claimed that to allow them would be a violation of the First Amendment,” ADF said.

However, the lawyers argued that the First Amendment actually protects such speech.

Furthermore, the school’s official policy prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion.

And slogans such as “Give ‘Em Hell” and “Take your whiskey clear” were approved by the school.

On Friday, ADF confirmed the school withdrew the lawsuit after it decided “to end the fundraising program associated with the nameplates.”

The school’s president, Paul Johnson, told school supporters in a letter that the original program was canceled, and the decision was made to “remove all existing plaques.”

“All plaques have been removed, whether or not they contained a quote,” he wrote.

He said a new program with strict limits on what will be posted was being launched.

The application form for the new program specifies “No free text quotes.”

He wrote, “Mines never intended for the new locker room to be a public forum for individual expression, nor do we believe anyone could reasonably assert that a private locker room would be viewed as a public space.”

But the campus is supported by tax dollars, as are most public universities.

“Although we strongly stand behind the merits of the original fundraising program and our decision to maintain the locker room as a private space for the football program, rather than a public space for expression, we also wish to remove any potential for further misunderstanding,” he said.

That’s why there are substantial restrictions on the new program, he explained.

“Public colleges are supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, but the School of Mines has indicated it prefers anti-religious hostility,” said ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer. “It’s ridiculous and sad that the school felt the need to punish everyone who participated in the program simply because it could not stomach a Bible reference on one plaque – a reference that was not even going to include the text of the verses.”

ADF explained the original program specifically “allowed individuals to express a personalized message on their nameplates without any stated restrictions.”

The organization said the school now “oddly claims in the letter that it didn’t intend to allow ‘individual expression.'”

“The school initially imposed no restrictions – or even guidelines – on the type of message a donor could include, and contrary to what the school argued, the First Amendment protects – not restricts – a simple reference to a Bible verse in this context,” said ADF Senior Counsel David Hacker. “Because the school apparently feared a simple Scripture reference would be like asbestos on the locker room walls, it decided to purge any trace of free expression from the facility.”

See what American education has become, in “Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children.”

School officials had told Lucas that whatever he put on the nameplate could not include, nor could it even reference, a verse with the words “God, “Lord” or “Jesus.”

They told him: “The U.S. Constitution and our university policy prohibiting unlawful discrimination are the bases for our not permitting biblical inscriptions on the lockers. As a state university, we must be very attentive to the separation of church and state, and avoid even the appearance of promoting or supporting one particular religion or set of religious beliefs over others.”

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