Archive for the ‘Religious Freedom Restoration Act’ Category

Make Calls to Rehear The Marriage Case!

July 6, 2015

Janet Porter of Faith 2 Action Ministries is encouraging all Americans who believe that natural marriage is God given (has always been and should continue to be only the union of one man and one woman) to make phone calls to Attorney General Mike DeWine (800-282-0515 ) and ask to have the case reheard.


Rehear the Case

July 06, 2015


Are you upset about what the Supreme Court did to marriage? Now, there’s something you can do about it.

We can ask the court to rehear the case because two justices violated the federal law which states, “Any justice… of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
[ 28 U.S. Code § 455]

Justices Kagan and Ginsburg both officiated homosexual so-called weddings, which disqualifies them from ruling on the case.

Ask Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine to file a motion for rehearing the marriage case at: 800-282-0515 because it was illegally rendered. Ask him to call for a motion for rehearing the case.

Does THIS look like impartiality to you?

Restrain the Judges

“Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality may reasonably be questioned.”

–28 US code #455 – Disqualification of justice, judge or magistrate judge

Supreme Court Rule 44 allows a party to file a motion for rehearing within 25 days of the June 26 hearing. That means if Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine files a motion before July 29th, the case can be reheard–without Justices Ginsburg and Kagan.

The dissenting justices didn’t want to risk antagonizing the Justices before the April oral argument, but there is no reason to ignore this now. If you read the dissenting opinions, they are scathing–Justice Scalia calls the decision a “threat to American Democracy”–and he is right. Now there is something you can do about it.

Call the number below with this message:

Please file a motion for rehearing the marriage ruling because Justices Ginsburg and Kagan violated Federal law by not recusing themselves.

Attorney General Mike DeWine: 800-282-0515


It only takes four Justices to accept a case.

We HAVE the Four:

Roberts:  “Just who do we think we are?”  “The Majority’s decision is an act of the will, not legal judgment.  The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or the Court’s precedents.”

Scalia:  “A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy…Thus, when the rights of persons are violated, the Constitution requires redress by the courts.

Thomas:  “…to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation:  no social transformation without representation.”

Alito:  “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

Five people should not be able to take away the votes of 50 million Americans.

The Motion for Rehearing could literally protect the voter in nearly 40 states, our state constitutions, the institution of marriage, and our Freedom of Speech and Religion.

Think that is worth a call to Attorney General DeWine?  800-282-0515.


Never give up! Please help in this endeavor by sharing it everywhere on social media!

Thank you,


Hat tip: Faith 2

John Roberts’ dissent in Obergefell that blow the majority’s opinion out of the water.

June 30, 2015

Charles Krauthammer appeared on the O’Reilly Factor and explained why America is changing so rapidly.  One reason that this decision is seen by at least 40% (if the polls being revealed are correct) of Americans, which is 128 million of us (if, again, the polls are correct) as wrong is that the judiciary, according to the Constitution, does not have the right to create new law.  Those of us that disagree with this ruling do so for several reasons. The biggest one is the fact that many Americans know that the Supreme Court is not supposed to make new law!  That is what the Legislative branch is for, and the legislatures of each state where making such decisions through the voting process within their states. Thirty of our fifty states had passed laws declaring that the thousands of years old definition of marriage (instituted by God) should remain as the union of one man and one woman.  Unfortunately, liberal judges in the courts started to strike down these decisions.  But several states gained court decisions that upheld the We The People decisions that were voted on within their states.  Was it right to just sweep them away as the Extreme Court did?  No.  Of course not!

The second reason why this ruling was wrong is because two judges who performed homosexual marriages should have recused themselves from this decision.  The third reason why is the chief justice’s dissent which explained why this should not have been done the way that it came down.

Near the end of his 29-page dissent, Roberts registered this strongly worded reprimand:

“If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

In other words, the Constitution was completely ignored in this case!

But that’s not the only reason for Justice Robert’s dissent in this case. The Federalist provides: Here Are The 11 Most Devastating Quotes From John Roberts’ Gay Marriage Dissent.


The dissent of Chief Justice John Roberts, however, contains a number of real gems. Here are 11 quotes from John Roberts’ dissent in Obergefell that blow the majority’s opinion out of the water.

On the proper role of the federal judiciary:

[T]his Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.

Nowhere is the majority’s extravagant conception of judicial supremacy more evident than in its description—and dismissal—of the public debate regarding same-sex marriage. Yes, the majority concedes, on one side are thousands of years of human history in every society known to have populated the planet. But on the other side, there has been “extensive litigation,” “many thoughtful District Court decisions,” “countless studies, papers, books, and other popular and scholarly writings,” and “more than 100” amicus briefs in these cases alone. What would be the point of allowing the democratic process to go on? It is high time for the Court to decide the meaning of marriage, based on five lawyers’ “better informed understanding” of “a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.” The answer is surely there in one of those amicus briefs or studies.

The truth is that today’s decision rests on nothing more than the majority’s own conviction that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that “it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.” Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences adopted in Lochner.

On the constitutional basis for a right to same-sex marriage:

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational.

The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent.

The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage, and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with “[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife.”

Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.

On the natural and historic basis of the institution of marriage:

The premises supporting th[e] concept of [natural] marriage are so fundamental that they rarely require articulation. The human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs through sexual relations between a man and a woman. When sexual relations result in the conception of a child, that child’s prospects are generally better if the mother and father stay together rather than going their separate ways. Therefore, for the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond.

On how the majority opinion basically requires legalization of polygamy/plural marriage:

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.

When asked about a plural marital union at oral argument, petitioners asserted that a State “doesn’t have such an institution.” But that is exactly the point: the States at issue here do not have an institution of same-sex marriage, either.

On what our Founders would think about five unaccountable oligarchs in robes deciding what does and doesn’t constitute marriage:

Those who founded our country would not recognize the majority’s conception of the judicial role. They after all risked their lives and fortunes for the precious right to govern themselves. They would never have imagined yielding that right on a question of social policy to unaccountable and unelected judges. And they certainly would not have been satisfied by a system empowering judges to override policy judgments so long as they do so after “a quite extensive discussion.”

You can read the full opinion here.

These eleven points help explain exactly why at least 128 million Americans have the right to also dissent on this decision!  Yet, we are being viciously attacked and demonized by the supposedly “tolerant” leftists on the winning side.  However, two days did not go by before the gay gestapo activists stated their continued goal to destroy our First Amendment freedoms.

When people say “it’s all about marriage equality” or “equal protection” we all should respond with a question regarding that other awful decision on abortion over 30 years ago:

That was another sweeping decision made by the Extreme Court that also took away States rights on protection of babies in the womb.

Back to the topic.

Charles Krauthammer also shared three reasons why America has been in the throes of secularism since Darwin.  He did state that at least our churches are not empty like many churches in Europe.

The secular left realized that it wasn’t going to win in the public square, so they had to go through the culture.  Many parents can no longer resist what is being pushed in the social media, Hollywood, and the rabid progressive push found in non-Christian colleges and universities.

Bill O’Reilly explained why Americans should not be forced to participate in homosexual marriages. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows them to re-define marriage. But that is what they did. Justice Kennedy, in his opinion, stated that the ruling was done to provide equality.  But the consequences of this bad decision go much further! Rush Limbaugh explains it very well!


Now, that debate’s been shut down because Anthony Kennedy and his four renegades rode in, shut off the debate, and determined, “Right here it is! It’s right there in the 14th Amendment, see? See? It’s right there, that people in this country who are not happy ’cause they’re left out of things have a right to be included in those things, and it says it right there in the 14th Amendment.” It does? “Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! It’s right there.” I don’t see it. “Well, you have to be a lawyer and be thinking like we do to see it. But it’s there.”

A-ha. The same thing that happened with abortion. See, there’s gonna… The culture has now, society has now been roiled and the debate is gonna rage on. It’s not over. It isn’t gonna be over, because never forget this. No matter what victories the left, the socialists, the liberals, the Democrats, whatever you want to call ’em — no matter how many victories they have — it is never enough. No matter how much money they get to spend, no matter how much money they get in benefit, no matter what it is that they demand, it is never enough.

Do you know why? Because when Justice Kennedy and the rest of these people talk about dignity and self-esteem. That’s exactly what’s on the table here. I don’t care if it goes gay marriage to Obamacare. I don’t care what the issue is. The Confederate flag? You’ve got people over there who are miserably unhappy about something, and they believe that getting something — taking something away — from other people will make them happy. And it never does. It’s never enough.

And it’s going to be the case with gay marriage. It is not going to make them feel the way they want to feel. It’s not going to erase whatever baggage they have. It never is. This is not specific to gay marriage. It’s specific to liberals, because their targets, their quests or what have you, are rooted in a void, if you will. I think they’re absent God in many cases in their lives. Not just gays. I’m talking about the global warming crowd. Everybody who denies the existence of God in favor of a different god somewhere over here, it’s not enough.

[In] fact you could almost say, if you study leftists — the welfare state, the benefits state, whatever you want to call it — the more they get, the angrier they become. The more they get, the more unhappy they become. This is something that I have noticed, particularly these past six years. Black America’s angrier than it’s ever been. Various special interest groups on the left are angrier, more unhappy than they’ve ever been, while at the same time we are hearing it’s the greatest week for Obama in his presidency last week.

[So] as I was saying, to “fix” that, you have to take other parts of the Constitution that do exist and deemphasize them or ignore them. Freedom of speech and religious liberty. And I’m telling you, it’s a toss-up which is gonna come first. No, it’s not. Religious liberty. The attack on religion is next, on organized religion. There’s already… I got a couple of stories in the Stack about leftists making an immediate concerted move to remove the tax exempt status from all churches if they will not perform homosexual marriages.

It’s not enough for you out there to say, “Okay, well, the court said gay marriage is legal, fine.” That’s not enough. You must actively embrace it. You must actively support it. You may not oppose it. You may not even dis it. In fact, folks, in Kennedy’s opinion… Get this. In Kennedy’s majority opinion, when talking about religious liberty (this is just so big of him), he grants that people of religious disagreement will continue to have the right of dissent.

But he didn’t say anything about the right to practice religious liberty. Not in this decision. They made all kinds of references — a couple/three — that if you are a deeply religious person, a priest or a pastor of a church, you’re free to dissent, meaning you’re free to tell people you disagree. But you are not free to act on it. In other words, “You can’t deny the constitutional right we just ordained. You can argue against it, you can say you don’t like it, and you’ll be okay. But you cannot practice that. You can not!”

Any person with any semblance of logic, reason, and wisdom can plainly see that important decisions like these are being made outside of what is written in the Constitution. Those on the other side of the issue may have the right to their own beliefs, but they don’t have the right to demonize and punish those who disagree! Our belief in natural marriage – as it was instituted by God – has been a life-long personal and religious belief for me and millions of other Christians. We should continue to have the right to follow the Bible, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and our own religious consciences and convictions.

My next post will discuss how and why such moral depravity as this bogus decision is being forced upon Americans and why Bible based Christians recognize such sinful actions as signs of the times pointing towards Christ’s return.

Hat tips to all links.

The Homosexual Agenda is the Biggest Threat to the Right of Free Speech and Religious Liberty Today.

June 15, 2015

In my previous post, Where Sin Abounded, Grace Abounded Much More, a comment was posted by someone with the screen name of “Frannie.”

Just a note about “Frannie.” She (he? one never knows these days…) is one of the typical drive-by trolls who doesn’t engage in further conversation after she/he has posted her tiresome talking points.  This is very typical of liberal-leftist-progressives (more appropriately called programmed-regressives because a large portion of their ideology lines up with the old socialist/communist failed, evil and dangerous ideas of the past) and needs to be exposed!

My bet is that she/he never even returned to this blog to see my response. She/he may even be a paid operative by the 0bummer/Soros/Jarrett propagandists who are systematically trying to ruin our nation and are particularly hateful towards Christians and Jews.

This homosexual “marriage” issue has the most nefarious intentions. See this link because it is a good history lesson on how we got to where we are today regarding the fact that:

The homosexual agenda is the biggest threat to the right of free speech today.

Also see a book The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today that was written back in 2003 and you will realize how prophetic it was regarding what is happening today!

The explosion of government intrusion (regarding their support for all homosexual agenda groups and other anti-Christian radical groups) is one of the most pressing issues that is being used to silence churches.   As the website link states:

 Growing government intrusion into the affairs of the Church is posing a serious threat to church autonomy and our most basic religious freedoms. Pastors are being censored, the proclamation of God’s Truth is being blocked, and churches are being discriminated against and threatened with punishment.

[By] perpetuating the myth of the so-called “separation of church and state,” radical anti-Christian groups have been able to persuade public officials to silence religious expression. In a growing number of cases, government officials are seeking to revoke church tax exemptions…seize their land…stop their community outreach ministries…deny them equal access to public buildings…and restrain their pastors from preaching biblical Truth as it relates to “political” issues and candidates. In essence, by using fear, intimidation, and disinformation, the government is determining what your pastor and church can do and say.

Christians who think that they are being “non-judgmental,” “kind,” “considerate,” “welcoming,” “tolerant,” and “loving” for the homosexual agenda need to wake up! They are ignoring the reality of the fact that our current government (and the vicious activists behind it) are NOT interested in tolerating a diversity of opinions, but are actually using the government to punish fellow citizens who have different views.

Fortunately, this one-way street form of “tolerance” can be defeated when we stand firm in our convictions and fight against the liberal court decisions which can be overturned.

Look up Blaine Adamson’s case. This man was used to being approached by many groups to create messages in his print shop for various events. He has needed to turn down business when he was given offensive messages that he refused to print (which is his right as a businessman). When approached to print up shirts promoting an upcoming pride festival, he politely explained that he could not do it. He even offered to send the group to another printer who would be willing to print the shirts and match his price. But that wasn’t enough. The homosexual activists filed a complaint against him and the Human Rights Commission ruled that Blaine had engaged in illegal discrimination (so…what else is new?). The commission then ordered Blaine to attend a government-run re-education program (sounds like what the Nazis did in WWII !!!), and to print materials that promote messages that violate his conscience and deeply held convictions.

The good news is that the troubling ruling has been overturned through the work of Alliance Defending Freedom Legal Counsel, Jim Campbell, who argued the case. The decision affirms that “the government can’t force citizens to surrender free speech rights or religious freedom in order to run a small business.

This victory is an important first step in protecting the right of Christians in Kentucky, and everywhere, to live and work according to their faith.


This recent decision in Blaine Adamson’s case is an encouraging sign that our stand for religious freedom is paying off.

Religious liberty here in America is being threatened even more pervasively than ever before! You can read about all of the examples at the above link and also over at the Alliance Defending Freedom website.

I would like to encourage all Christians who read this blog to help support this organization which is tirelessly working to defend everyday believers from attacks on faith and freedom. They are busy preserving religious freedom – not just for now, but also for your children and grandchildren.

Please visit the website and donate!

Alliance Defending Freedom

Thank you!

In Christ and for Liberty and Freedom,


Hat tips to all links.


Update on 6/18/15:

Western Journalism: Legalized Gay Marriage Will Have This Huge Impact That No One Thought About

What God has Joined Together, Let Man Not Separate

May 16, 2015

 photo Mark10_6-9.jpg

H/T for graphic:

The upcoming Supreme Court case on homosexual “marriage” will most likely come down to the usual 5-4 decision.  That leaves the entire case most likely in the hands of Justice Anthony Kennedy – who is the usual “swing” vote on the court.

Recently, I read a comment at another blog that Kennedy has a lesbian sister.  Uh Oh…will his personal relationship with his sister convince him to vote with the liberals?  Possibly.

However, Kennedy did receive an amicus brief from a now grown, adult child of lesbian parents.  In fact, five other adult children of homosexual parents are now willing to stand up and submit amicus briefs on the issue of same-sex marriage, opposing its legalization by the Supreme Court.

You can read about it all at Truth Impact: Modern Myth: All it Takes to Make a Family is LOVE

In the above linked article, Meg writes that growing up with same-sex parents causes the children to be raised in brokenness. “Something precious and irreplaceable has been taken from us. Two loving moms, or two dads, can never replace the lost parent.”

Of course, this is not what the homosexual activists want to hear because it hurts their claims. The “all is well” myth of homosexual parenting has many dissenters.

Excerpt from the article:

 Love matters, but accepting and promoting same-sex parenting promotes the destruction of families, not the building of families.”

The myth that “love makes a family” is driving modern social policy, and it is a critical argument in the case being made to legalize same-sex marriage across the states. As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to announce its decision in June, there are the voices we hope they have not overlooked—the voices of the children raised by same-sex couples. If they have listened well to their voices, this might just be what tips the balance.

As one columnist observed, “Just when it seemed that a Supreme Court victory for gay marriage had no obstacles in sight, the issue of gay parenting has been reopened for serious questioning. The interrogators are no longer preachers, social scientists, or gay rights advocates, but children of gay couples themselves.”

Katy Faust, who was raised by her mother and her lesbian “partner,” has written an open letter directly to Justice Anthony Kennedy on behalf of children raised by homosexual parents, or “COGs” (Children Of Gays) as they are sometimes referred to. Her article in has received national attention. Faust says, “I am one of many children of gay parents who believe we should protect marriage.”

In making the case that redefining marriage would actually strip these children of their most fundamental rights, Faust affirms her love for her mother and her partner, but she argues that the debate over same-sex marriage “at its core, is about one thing. It’s about children.”

She rightly states: “The definition of marriage should have nothing to do with lessening emotional suffering within the homosexual community…. The Supreme Court has no business involving itself in romance or interpersonal relationships.” In the end, Faust notes:

…[T]he government’s interest in marriage is about the children that only male-female relationships can produce. Redefining marriage redefines parenthood. It moves us well beyond our “live and let live” philosophy into the land where our society promotes a family structure where children will always suffer loss. It will be our policy, stamped and sealed by the most powerful of governmental institutions, that these children will have their right to be known and loved by their mother and/or father stripped from them in every instance. In same-sex-headed households, the desires of the adults trump the rights of the child.


Here is a link to a copy of the letter that Katy Faust sent to Justice Kennedy:

The Public Discourse: Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent.


Talk to any child with gay parents, especially those old enough to reflect on their experiences. If you ask a child raised by a lesbian couple if they love their two moms, you’ll probably get a resounding “yes!” Ask about their father, and you are in for either painful silence, a confession of gut-wrenching longing, or the recognition that they have a father that they wish they could see more often. The one thing that you will not hear is indifference.

fathers day poems from daughter

Mother's LoveMothers Poems, Mothers Heart, Mom Blog, Mothers Day, Quotes, Gift Ideas, Mothers Gardens, Schools Crafts, Beautiful Mothers

What is your experience with children who have divorced parents, or are the offspring of third-party reproduction, or the victims of abandonment? Do they not care about their missing parent? Do those children claim to have never had a sleepless night wondering why their parents left, what they look like, or if they love their child? Of course not. We are made to know, and be known by, both of our parents. When one is absent, that absence leaves a lifelong gaping wound.

The opposition will clamor on about studies where the researchers concluded that children in same-sex households allegedly fared “even better!” than those from intact biological homes. Leave aside the methodological problems with such studies and just think for a moment.

If it is undisputed social science that children suffer greatly when they are abandoned by their biological parents, when their parents divorce, when one parent dies, or when they are donor-conceived, then how can it be possible that they are miraculously turning out “even better!” when raised in same-sex-headed households? Every child raised by “two moms” or “two dads” came to that household via one of those four traumatic methods. Does being raised under the rainbow miraculously wipe away all the negative effects and pain surrounding the loss and daily deprivation of one or both parents?

The more likely explanation is that researchers are feeling the same pressure as the rest of us feel to prove that they love their gay friends.


Within the above letter to Justice Kennedy, Katy Faust asks a very important question:


Have we really arrived at a time when we are considering institutionalizing the stripping of a child’s natural right to a mother and a father in order to validate the emotions of adults?

Happy Mother's Day Best Quotes and Messages| Mothers day quotes| Mothers Day messages| Best Mother's Day wishes| Mothers day sms msgs for mom.

Hat tips:

Truth Impact

The Public Discourse.

When government and even society fails to extend tolerance to people of faith, we are headed down a perilous path.

May 16, 2015


A former congressman from Virginia is asking the question: Prison Next Step for American Christians?


Former Congressman Frank Wolf warned that Americans’ freedom of conscience is under attack and it’s mainly Christians with conservative values who are in the crosshairs of the new champions of political correctness.

Wolf, 76, said Christians may have to resort to civil disobedience because their views are increasingly considered “intolerant.”

“When tolerance is demanded, when orthodox Christianity is deemed intolerant and when government and even society fails to extend tolerance to people of faith, we are headed down a perilous path,” said the former 17-term congressman from Virginia.

Wolf was a champion for religious freedom throughout his time in Congress. Since his retirement in January, he has become a senior fellow at the 21st Century Wilberforce Initiative, which advocates for religious freedom worldwide.

Wolf delivered the May 7 speech at an event hosted by the Petrie-Flom Center and the Ambassador John L. Loeb Jr. Initiative on Religious Freedom and its Implications at Harvard’s Center for American Political Studies.

His address was titled “After Hobby Lobby: What is Caesar’s and What is God’s?” at the center’s 2015 Annual Conference, “Law, Religion, and Health in America.”

The Christian Post reported that Wolf’s main point was that freedom of conscience has long been understood as important for religious freedom, but recently there has been a trend of violating the conscience protections of conservative Christians, particularly over the issues of abortion and marriage.

“Our conscience is not ultimately allegiant to the state, but to something, and for many people, Someone, higher,” Wolf said, citing a resolution adopted by the Continental Congress to protect the conscience rights of pacifists. This is important “because if our conscience belongs to the state, the state can choose to violate it or compromise it at will.”

faith crimesFAITH CRIMES: Order the May issue of Whistleblower magazine, which takes an in-depth look at how courageous Christians practicing their religion are being persecuted in Obama’s America.

He referenced a “subtle but insidious trend” in which the government is expanding into areas more likely to infringe upon conscience rights.

This trend was “at the heart” of the recent Supreme Court case involving Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned craft supply chain, and the Obama administration’s birth control mandate, according to the Christian Post article. While the owners of Hobby Lobby, the Green family, are pro-life, the Obama administration sought to require them to pay for health insurance coverage for contraceptive pills that could cause an abortion.

“We are witnessing the imposition of a new state religion” called “progressive liberalism,” Wolf said.

Check out the BIG LIST of Christian coercion: A complete catalogue of same-sex marriage entrapments.

Wolf also cited the recent firestorm of opposition to Religious Freedom Restoration Acts in Indiana and other states as part of the trend.

Read it all HERE.

Over 300 comments at the link. Here’s a good one written by Rationalist:

Here’s what the gay agenda is really about and why we need a religious freedom bill-

Demanding tolerance gave way to demanding recognition which gave way to demanding equality which is now giving way to demanding superiority.

So much for the Stonewall excuse that all they wanted was to be “left alone”…

Christians are under attack by the homosexual community for speaking out on the
Biblical principle that homosexuality is sin.

Gay fascists won’t be satisfied until they’ve silenced every opposition – especially true born again Bible believing Christians…..

Examine evidence where Christianity is being intimidated through bullying, threats, intimidation, laws or lawsuits – Christian business owners who are approached by gay couples trying to force them into compromising their beliefs and then suing them when they won’t…gays picketing churches who’s ministers preach that homosexuality is a sin. How about the “tolerance” that was shown to Chi-fil-A or Duck Dynasty ? How about the Houston Mayor recently…?

It’s happening more and more so it’s not just about “equal rights” anymore.

it’s about eradicating any ideology that disagrees with homosexuality – especially Bible believing Christians standing on Biblical principles.

You want to talk about intolerance…? Look no further than the “tolerant” homosexual..

Homosexuality is a behavior,…not something that needs to be “protected” with special legal rights…

The ones who need “protection” are Christians under attack by the intolerant bigoted
homosexual community for speaking out on the Biblical principle that homosexuality is sin.

Hat Tip: WND

Concerns for Freedom of Religion and Conscience

April 2, 2015


Concerns for Freedom of Religion and Conscience


Dear Readers,

I am a member of one of the hated kinds of Christians. Specifically, I am a born-again, biblically based believer in Jesus Christ who supports the Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA].  If this causes me backlash and hatred, from any person, business or group, then so be it.  In all of the hub-bub of criticism and animus, there is one question that would never be asked by the media of mass deception (as well as the kinder, gentler stations like Fox News) because it would take a while to explain it.  I will attempt to do so here, however, it will not be a very detailed explanation.  You will need to see former writings of mine in order to get a clearer picture.

First, for those who haven’t been paying attention to the news, here is a link to the text of the bill. The following commentary, links, and arguments help to explain the controversy.

This first one will not be a direct link. You will need to type in “Huffington Post Gay Voices” into a search engine to find the article. It is entitled, “Barronelle Stutzman, Arlene’s Flower Shop Florist, Refuses Washington Gay Wedding Job Because Of Religion.” It was written on March 7, 2015.

Excerpt (without including hyperlinks):

A Richland, Wash. couple is still trying to make sense of what they say were the hurtful, discriminatory actions by their favorite florist.

For nearly a decade, Robert Ingersoll and his partner, Curt Freed, had bought bouquets from local business Arlene’s Flower Shop, owned by Barronelle Stutzman, reports the Tri-City Herald. So it was Stutzman the men sought out when they recently decided to get married. (Same-sex weddings became legal in Washington State in December 2012.)

But when Ingersoll asked Stutzman last Friday to arrange the flowers for his September nuptials, he got a shock.

He said he decided to get married, and before he got through I grabbed his hand and said, ‘I am sorry. I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ,’” Stutzman told KEPR. This is the only wedding Stutzman has turned down in 37 years.

“It really hurt because it was somebody I knew,” Ingersoll told the Herald. “We laid awake all night Saturday. It was eating at our souls. There was never a question she’d be the one to do our flowers. She does amazing work.”

The couple decided to take the issue to Facebook, where reactions were heated — but mixed, according to NBC affiliate KNDO 23. Some people countered that Stutzman doesn’t have the right to refuse a gay couple, others applauded her for sticking up for her values and a few threatened violence against her little shop.

KNDO 23 points out that the florist’s actions may indeed violate the state’s freedom from discrimination law. RCW 49.60.030 stipulates that Washington State citizens have the “right to engage in credit transactions without discrimination.”

The majority of states do not have similarly tough anti-discrimination statutes, according to the ACLU.

It is interesting to see the first comment there:


26 Fans

Christians believe that marriage between one man and one woman forever was designed by God from the beginning. See the book of Genesis, confirmed also by Jesus Christ: The two shall become one flesh and of that union there will be new life and the future is born – our children. Unless a gay couple can pull that one off without technological intervention, Christians cannot equate same-sex marriage to the sacramental marriage commanded by the Creator. For the florist to take the job would be to provide public support to an event she believes is unnatural, immoral and harmful both to the individuals involved and to the family unit in our society. She exercised freedom of conscience, and for that is being made a national example by her “tolerant” gay friends, complete with threats of violence. When the same-sex marriage law came up for a vote, Christians were promised they would not have to violate their consciences. As a matter of fact, the way the law was presented on the ballot was deceptive in that it sounded as if it was a law specifically to protect Christians. When the alarm was sounded by those with concerns for freedom of religion and conscience, we were accused of bigotry. But here goes… our freedom.

8 Mar 2013 9:49 AM

Another comment was meant to counter what Nancy Marie wrote:

22 Fans

“Treat everyone, without exception, the way you want anyone to treat you. That is the law of the prophets.”

Jesus of Nazareth, Matt. 7:12

Is it any wonder that so many people are rejecting Christianity, a religious cult that refuses to obey the words of it’s supposed founder?

7 Mar 2013 12:48 PM

Hmmm…interesting how Jeffrey Haywood got even less “fans” (22) than Nancy Marie (26).

Maybe readers were looking up that chapter and discovering all of the verses surrounding Matthew 7:12 for context.

Matthew 7 NKJV

Matthew 7:12 in the NKJV says:

Mat 7:12

“Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

Hmmm…that’s very different from the version shared by Jeffrey Haywood.

Before we examine the meaning of the “Law and the Prophets” in context with the homosexual marriage question, here are a few more links to read regarding this controversy:

1. LifeNews: Why Pro-Life Should Support Indiana’s New Religious Freedom Restoration Act


What’s the real truth, and why does Indiana Right to Life support RFRA?

The short answer is that Indiana’s RFRA provides much-needed protection to prevent pro-life persons, businesses or ministries from being forced by state or local laws to support abortion.

In a landmark 2014 ruling, the United States Supreme Court recognized that the federal Religious Freedom  Restoration Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, gave the Hobby Lobby corporation protection against being forced to provide abortion-inducing drugs under Obamacare in violation of the company’s faith-principles that oppose abortion.  Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014) The federal RFRA applicable to Hobby Lobby pertains strictly to federal law, not to state law.  The result is that prior to the enactment of Indiana’s state RFRA, pro-life persons, businesses and ministries in Indiana did not enjoy the same religious freedom protection against state or local laws that might force them into supporting abortion in violation of faith principles.

We see in the above instance, the RFRA has more to it than the homosexual marriage issue.

2. First Things: Stand with Barronelle Stutzman.

Excerpt from Barronelle Stutzman’s letter to a lawyer who wanted her to “settle” against her beliefs:

Since 2012, same-sex couples all over the state have been free to act on their beliefs about marriage, but because I follow the Bible’s teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, I am no longer free to act on my beliefs.

Your offer reveals that you don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important. Washington’s constitution guarantees us “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.” I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do.

Excerpt from the column author:

Ms. Stutzman isn’t complying. She’s refusing to settle. Not only is she not complying, she has responded in defiance, and rightfully so. She’s called their bluff. She’s said to the state: “Bring it on.” She has counted the cost and determined that the sacredness of her conscience cannot be exchanged for handouts from the state.

For her stand, she’s been vilified on social media and called a discriminatory bigot by institutions such as Think Progress, one of whose activists insisted that her failure to comply means she “didn’t learn her lesson.”

She is also threatened with the loss of her personal assets, not just her business. Here’s a seventy-year-old grandmother with less money, less cultural capital, than many who would be unwilling to take such a stand.

The gay rights lobby in America has had much success, but it is overreaching by insisting upon ideological conformity, by overturning the centrality of the natural family, by paving-over conscience, by instilling fear of reprisal, by elevating sexual orientation above competing considerations, by subjugating the Christian religion whose anthropology helped shape our constitutional order. They overreach by castigating fellow Americans whose belief—that marriage turns on the male–female difference—has been held since the beginning of recorded history.

Those who want to live in a free society—whether they oppose or support gay marriage—should condemn the push to turn innocent grandmothers like Barronelle Stutzman into lawbreakers. I stand with Barronelle Stutzman. Do you?

3. Alliance Defending Freedom: The Story of Barronelle Stutzman Owner of Arlene’s Flower Shop who was sued by the government for her belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

After viewing the video, you will notice the update:

BREAKING NEWS: A Washington court has ruled against Barronelle Stutzman, the lovable grandmother and long-time florist, for acting consistent with her Christian faith. Barronelle referred a longstanding customer to nearby florists because she could not in good conscience create custom arrangements and provide wedding support for his same-sex wedding. This ruling prevents Barronelle’s case from going to trial and makes her personally responsible for paying any damages and attorney’s fees incurred by the same-sex couple and the State of Washington. Everything she’s worked to build, including her home, her family business, and her life savings are now at risk. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys will appeal.

We now see why states are taking action to protect pro-life businesses like Hobby Lobby and individual business owners who believe in traditional marriage from lawsuits that are meant to take away their freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of commerce rights through targeted lawsuits meant to destroy them.

Let’s look at some other verses in Matthew 7. [Remember – this is Jesus speaking!]

Mat 7:6

“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

Here is a commentary by David Brown on this verse:

Prostitution of Holy Things ( Mat 7:6 ). The opposite extreme to that of censoriousness is here condemned–want of discrimination of character.

6. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs–savage or snarling haters of truth and righteousness.
neither cast ye your pearls before swine–the impure or coarse, who are incapable of appreciating the priceless jewels of Christianity. In the East, dogs are wilder and more gregarious, and, feeding on carrion and garbage, are coarser and fiercer than the same animals in the West. Dogs and swine, besides being ceremonially unclean, were peculiarly repulsive to the Jews, and indeed to the ancients generally.
lest they trample them under their feet–as swine do.
and turn again and rend you–as dogs do. Religion is brought into contempt, and its professors insulted, when it is forced upon those who cannot value it and will not have it. But while the indiscriminately zealous have need of this caution, let us be on our guard against too readily setting our neighbors down as dogs and swine, and excusing ourselves from endeavoring to do them good on this poor plea.

Florist Barronelle Stutzman served a same-sex couple for almost a decade. Then, she was sued by the government for not participating in their wedding. Her religious beliefs prohibited her from participating in a homosexual wedding because of her relationship with Jesus Christ and her desire to adhere to “The Law and the Prophets” of the Bible.

Yet, when you view the video (link above) we see that she has “endeavor[ed] to do them good on this poor plea.”

I could end this post right here. However, “the question” that people in the media won’t ask any Christian is the tenet that,  “Marriage represents the relationship of Christ and His church.”

Coercing someone to engage in something that is against their religious convictions is, unfortunately, the goal of homosexual activists. What’s more, they will go so far as to destroy the business of the individual(s) in order to get their way.

Matthew 7:12b….lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

Hat tips to all links.


More on what the Bible says about the homosexual agenda, standing firm on your faith, and the statement that “”Marriage represents the relationship of Christ and His church.”

The Ten Declarations for Protecting Biblical Marriage

Days of Noah [Seven blog posts]


Folger recounts how what we are seeing happen now before our very eyes is the beginning fulfillment of what Jesus said would happen before his return. Moreover, the people had sunken into such a perpetually degenerative moral condition these things were celebrated and viewed as normal.


As I wrote about in my book, “The Criminalization of Christianity,” Jeffrey Satinover, who holds an M.D. from Princeton and doctorates from Yale, MIT and Harvard, was on my radio program one day and I asked him about where we are in history. He explained that according to the “Babylonian Talmud” – the book of rabbis’ interpretation of the scriptures 1,000 years before Christ, there was only one time in history that reflects where we are right now. There was only one time in history, according to these writings, where men were given in marriage to men, and women given in marriage to women.

Want to venture a guess as to when? No, it wasn’t in Sodom and Gomorrah, although that was my guess. Homosexuality was rampant there, of course, but according to the Talmud, not homosexual “marriage.” What about ancient Greece? Rome? No. Babylon? No again. The one time in history when homosexual “marriage” was practiced was … during the days of Noah. And according to Satinover, that’s what the “Babylonian Talmud” attributes as the final straw that led to the Flood.

No Compromise: Standing Firm On Your Faith.


There are dozens of blogposts that I could cite from Talk Wisdom about this subject. However, if I had to pick just one, I would recommend viewing the video of Pastor Miles McPherson – Marriage, The Image of God.

That message was given in February, 2008. It was given approximately 90 days before the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22 which simply stated, “Marriage in California is recognized as the union of one man and one woman.”

In November of 2008, Proposition 8 passed by a majority of 52% of Californians (remember – most people in this state are very liberal) to place marriage as being recognized as the union of one man and one woman into the California Constitution.

Pastor Miles goes through the reasons why the passage of Proposition 8 is so very crucial for religious freedoms today.

Keys to Unlocking the Future.


Chapters 6 – 19 reveal a series of catastrophic judgments on the earth. However, these judgments result in the final triumph and return of Christ and the establishment of His kingdom on earth for one thousand years (see 19:11-20:6).

6. Marriage of Christ and the Church. The Church’s absence from chapter 4 through chapter 18 is best explained by the fact that she has already been raptured to heaven to participate in the marriage supper of the Lamb (19:7-9). Here she receives her rewards, crowns, and robes of righteousness prior to her procession back to earth with the Savior.



How To Know God Personally [Click on link to discover the principles!]

What does it take to begin a relationship with God? Devote yourself to unselfish religious deeds? Become a better person so that God will accept you?

You may be surprised that none of those things will work. But God has made it very clear in the Bible how we can know Him.

The following principles will explain how you can personally begin a relationship with God, right now, through Jesus Christ…

BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns and Guts Comrades!

God, Guns and Guts Comrades!

Cooking with Kathy Man

Celebrating delicious and healthy food

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3


A fine site

The Marshall Report

Exposing The Establishment Daily

Talk Wisdom

Talk Wisdom's goal is to defend the tenets and values of Biblical Christian faith. We defend our Constitutional Republic and Charters of Freedom, especially when speaking out against destructive social and political issues. As followers of our Savior and Lord, we should boldly stand up for Jesus Christ in our present circumstances. He is our Savior, Lord, and King, and His love needs to be shed abroad in our hearts and in our world - now.

Standing in Grace

...this grace in which we now stand. — Rom 5:2

Exalting the name of Jesus through Christian essays

Michelle Lesley

Discipleship for Christian Women

The Acceptable Digest

"Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it ..." Song of Solomon 8:7

On the Edge Again

Life happens. I hope to encourage everyone in bad times!


...integrating Christian faith and knowledge in the public square

Cry and Howl

He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. 2 Sam 23:3


Pastor Ward Clinton is a pastor in the Church of The Nazarene and author of a handful of books.

GraceLife Blog

Thoughts About God's Amazing Grace

True Discernment

2 Timothy 4:3-4

Freedom Is Just Another Word...

Random stuff, but mostly about Guns, Freedom and Crappy Government..


De Oppresso Liber

The Oil for Your Lamp

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." (Hosea 4:6)

Walter Bright

Refining theological understanding. Sharpening ethical rigor. Heightening devotional intensity.

Kingsjester's Blog

Opinions from a Christian American Conservative

As Seen Through the Eyes of Faith

“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Rom. 10:17) KJV

Daniel B. Wallace

Executive Director of CSNTM & Senior Research Professor of NT Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary

The Master's Table

God honoring, Christ Centered

Citizen WElls

Citizen News not Fake News


Thoughts on Our Constitutional Republic

We the People of the United States

Fighting the Culture War, One Skirmish at a Time



Be Sure You’re Right, Then Go Ahead

"Our threat is from the insidious forces working from within which have already so drastically altered the character of our free institutions — those institutions we proudly called the American way of life. " -- Gen. Douglas MacArthur is the best place for your personal blog or business site.