Yes, Threats to Religious Liberty Happen Here

Advocates of same-sex marriage are classifying Biblical teachings as “hate speech.”

Some on the left are criticizing Senator Ted Cruz’s recent comments about how the drive to redefine marriage may threaten religious freedom — but a closer inspection of the issue reveals his worries were accurate, prescient, and maybe even too cautious.

In an interview with Cruz, David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network raised the concerns that many Christians are now expressing: “A lot of Christian scholars, when they talk about the marriage issue, they see it as a religious-freedom issue . . . as in essence going down this line toward potential ‘hate speech’ from the pulpit,” Brody said. In reply, Cruz pointed to problems abroad. “If you look at other nations that have gone down the road toward gay marriage, that’s the next step of where it gets enforced,” he said. “It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages, who speak out and preach Biblical truths on marriage. That has been defined elsewhere as hate speech, as inconsistent with the enlightened view of government.”

A cogent remainder that the left’s attempt to make same-sex marriage the law of the land is intended to do a lot more than simply permit same-sex couples to be considered legally ‘married’. It is intended to marginalize the core Judeo-Christian beliefs that are the underpinning of our constitution and our society by calling them ‘discriminatory’ and subject to punishment from the state.

The First Amendment was really intended to restrict Christianity. I think that argument will be made very soon. Possibly by Chief Justice John Roberts.

I don't think that they made 1A to restrict "Christianity" per se, but possibly to prevent denomination wars, most of the Founders representing many Christian denominations.

Also, note that Thomas Jefferson had indicated that the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Founding States had reserved government power to regulate religious expression uniquely to themselves, regardless that they had made the 1st Amendment to prohibit such powers entirely to Congress.

"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed (emphasis added); …" --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

From the article:

>>>Georgetown University law professor Chai Feldblum, an appointee to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, argues that the push to redefine marriage trumps religious-liberty concerns:<<<

Chai Feldblum is a degenerate, plain and simple. In a better time he would not be appointed to ‘anything’ but instead would be deported for his inherent moral turpitude.

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.