Posted on 06/15/2009 12:42:02 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
As more states-like Iowa-approve same-sex “marriage,” conservatives are claiming that freedom of religion is in peril. Same-sex “marriage” supporters accuse them of engaging in hysterical gay-bating. Who’s telling the truth?
Let me share some stories with you from an excellent news broadcast produced by National Public Radio. Then you decide.
Two women decided to hold their civil union ceremony at a New Jersey pavilion owned by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association. This Methodist group told the women they could not “marry” in any building used for religious purposes. The Rev. Scott Hoffman said a theological principle-that marriage can only exist between one man and one woman-was at stake.
The women filed a discrimination complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights. The Methodists said the First Amendment protected their right to practice their faith without being punished by the government. But punish the Methodists is exactly what New Jersey did. It revoked their tax exemption-a move that cost them $20,000.
Then there’s the case of the Christian physicians who refused to provide in vitro fertilization treatment to a woman in a lesbian relationship. The doctors referred her to their partners, who were willing to provide the treatment. But that wasn’t good enough. The woman sued. The California Supreme Court agreed with the woman, saying that the doctors’ religious beliefs didn’t give them the right to refuse the controversial treatment.
In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities was told they had to accept homosexual couples in their adoption service, or get out of the adoption business. They chose correctly-get out of the business.
In Mississippi, a mental health counselor was sued for refusing to provide therapy to a woman looking to improve her lesbian relationship. The counselor’s employers fired her-a move that was backed up by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In New York, the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University refused to allow same-sex couples to live in married student housing, in keeping with the school’s orthodox Jewish teachings. But in 2001, the New York State Supreme Court forced them to do so anyway-even though New York has no same-sex “marriage” law.
In Albuquerque, a same-sex couple asked a Christian wedding photographer to film their commitment ceremony-and sued the photographer when she declined. An online adoption service was forced to stop doing business in California when a same-sex couple sued the service for refusing, on religious grounds, to assist them.
Convinced? Clearly, homosexual “marriage” and religious liberty cannot co-exist-because gay activists will not allow them to. As marriage expert Maggie Gallagher puts it, same-sex “marriage” advocates claim that religious faith “itself is a form of bigotry.”
Tune in tomorrow, for I want you to learn how you can help protect both our religious rights and marriage itself. I know this may sound alarmist, but it’s true. If we don’t work to stop this juggernaut, we may soon find ourselves hunted down at work, at school, and even at church-as others have been-by those determined to force us to accept as a moral good what God calls evil.
_______________________________________________________
From BreakPoint. "BreakPoint" and "Prison Fellowship Ministries" are registered trademarks of Prison Fellowship
Yeah, but the Republican moderates tell us that we should embrace same sex marriage in order to capture the libertarian vote.
Bookmark.
You don't think throwing away millions of evangelical & Catholic votes in favor of the 0.4% of the electorate that votes libertarian is a good trade-off?
Which begs the question... If the church had known ahead of time standing on principle would cost them their tax exemption ($20,000 of Caesar's money), would the church have relented?
I've always said that it has never been about the "right" of gays to marry. It is about letting the 2% or so of the population who is homosexual redefine the institution of marriage for the other 98% of us.
This article is further proof. If I, as a straight male, sought marriage counseling from someone who politely declined because he said he was gay and not qualified or inclined to offer advice to straight couples, I would thank him for his honesty and find another counselor.
But the gay mafia doesn't see it that way-- they see anyone who won't support their worldview as enemies to be suppressed or bankrupted.
Let's get the facts straight. Iowa did not approve same-sex marriage. Iowa passed a defense of marriage act declaring same-sex marriage illegal. The Iowa Supreme Court took it upon itself to "re-write" that law through raw judicial power, giving us no choice but to take the unpleasant path of amending our state constitution in order to enforce the will of the supposedly sovereign people of the state.
They should just start a gay religion, and that would be the end to it.
EXCELLENT! Since employers can refuse to hire 'homophobes,' surely this means landlords can refuse to rent to sodomites ... right?
/sarc
Why not? On the commercial grounds that you are protecting your property from destruction by fire and brimstone.
It’s not just the gaystapo that thinks that way.
The left in general desires to use the power of the state to punish and exterminate ideological opposition.
They already have one: "secular humanism."
That only makes things worse.
You caved to an extra-constitutional ruling from your would be Kritocrats. You accepted both immorality and your servitude.
Nobody's caved yet, Clyde. Use your eyes to read what people post. Then use your brain to understand what the words mean. Then you can use your fingers to respond. It works best when you do things in that order.
There is essentially no difference, in practice, between secular humanism and Satanism.
Uh yeah, Satanists are honest about what they believe in.
I’m from Iowa..and we, the people, had NO say in the same-sex marriage debacle! It was, as usual, judges passing laws from the bench. If you had put this to a vote in Iowa, I can guarantee you that it would NOT have passed! Question..how could a photographer be SUED for turning down a photo shoot? Maybe she had another shoot scheduled for that day! I am so sick and tired of these bleeding heart liberal judges making up the rules as they go along..this needs to be stopped NOW!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.