Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Cultural War Against Christians
Townhall.com ^ | 3-3-2014 | Star Parker

Posted on 03/03/2014 2:35:18 AM PST by servo1969

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer was right to veto SB1062, which would have amended the Arizona Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The bill, per most interpretations I’ve read, would have given broad discretion to business owners, because of their religious convictions, to refuse to do business with anyone associated with homosexual lifestyles.

Religious freedom is about protection of your right to practice your religion and not being forced to violate it.

However, the right to religious freedom does not mean the right to write-off and marginalize into non-existence a whole class of citizens whom you don’t like or agree with.

Under Jim Crow, the problem whites had with blacks was not what blacks thought or did, but that they existed. These laws were designed to relegate one class of citizens to separate and unequal status, simply because of who they were.

Such actions have nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with bigotry and racism.

But, unfortunately, the failure of this poorly conceived Arizona bill will be misinterpreted. Some will incorrectly claim that this means it is not a violation of religious freedom to force a business owner to provide a product or service for activity that is against his or her religious convictions. That is incorrect.

Would anyone question the refusal of a black vendor to sells sheets to the local Ku Klux Klan chapter? Or a Jewish merchant refusing to sell the poster board for a Neo-Nazi rally? Or refusal of a Christian video service to make a pornographic film?

So why is it not perfectly clear that the religious freedom of a Christian merchant is violated if that merchant is forced to bake a cake or prepare a flower arrangement for a same-sex marriage which is not only as personally repugnant to that vendor as any in the cases above, but is also a clear and literal violation of the scripture that defines the faith of these individuals?

And why is it that same-sex couples have such a hard time finding bakers and florists that are not offended by their wedding? Why do they wind up with such regularity trying to buy from Christian vendors?

The reality is that the “gay rights” crusade is not about a struggle for justice but rather it is a cultural war.

Homosexual activists understand the ongoing erosion of traditional values as a pillar of our society and use this opportunity to push Christian reality, once and for all, into the closet and to lock the door.

The cultural script has been re-written such that Christians have been put in a position of either rejecting the precepts and prohibitions of their religion, or being faithful to them and being branded as against “equality.”

The problem, of course, is not what people do in private. The issue is that it all has been dragged into the public square because, again, this is a cultural war.

The battlefront is the core contradiction of legitimization of homosexual behavior that scripture clearly prohibits and then moving on to redefine marriage

Christians have been put in the untenable position that being true to their faith means, by the new standards set in our society, being labeled a bigot and then being exposed to being put out of business.

Let’s keep in mind that the idea of religious freedom only means something as long as religion means something.

It is critical that Christians draw the line and continue the struggle and not allow religion or religious freedom to be compromised. Individuals or businesses forced to supply goods or services for activities against the precepts of their faith must refuse and call forth their protection under the first amendment of the US constitution.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Religion; Society
KEYWORDS: 666; antichristianbigotry; arizona; brewer; christian; culturewars; gay; homosexual; homosexualagenda; starparker; tyranny

1 posted on 03/03/2014 2:35:19 AM PST by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: servo1969

It appears as though Hollywood, the MSM, and the WH has gone full on Satanic. The Grammys just mirrored and solidified it. Homosexuality was flaunted so many times I couldn’t count it. Groups like The Three 6 Mafia and Katy Perry and her many Satanic / occult props and references to rituals were on full display. We know how this ends. It’s not going to be pretty.


2 posted on 03/03/2014 2:49:58 AM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's.

Considering how little is Caesar's compared to how much is God's, this is an extremely weak command in terms of following governmental commands and quite strong in terms of our duty to God. I will make patronizing Chik-fil-A and other decent businesses a priority, and patronizing worldly companies that embrace perversion a decision to be avoided. In addition to speaking out in favor of individual freedom, I will vote with my money when it comes to this culture war. I will also speak up in public in favor of the First Amendment and freedom.

3 posted on 03/03/2014 2:51:59 AM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
From the first amendment to the US Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Now Christians are not allowed the freedom of religion and cannot bake cakes only for Christian weddings. How about them apples?

4 posted on 03/03/2014 2:52:10 AM PST by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Granting homosexuality the same status as a race is the same as granting how one recreates the status of race.


5 posted on 03/03/2014 2:53:38 AM PST by NoLibZone (The bad news: Hillary Clinton will be the next President. The Good news: Our principles are intact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sr4402

We don’t have the right of choice to do with our bodies as we want.

We must bake the cake.


6 posted on 03/03/2014 2:54:33 AM PST by NoLibZone (The bad news: Hillary Clinton will be the next President. The Good news: Our principles are intact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
Christians have been put in the untenable position that being true to their faith means, by the new standards set in our society, being labeled a bigot and then being exposed to being put out of business.

Homosexuality is not "civil rights." It is gross, and despicable sin. God is clear. Evil has been successful to wrap this filthy act into something as noble.

These people are fools.

But God will not be mocked.

Galatians 6: 7-8

"Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life."

Your race and mine is sacred - God made us that way. Sexual deviancy and sin is filthy. God told us that. Those who do not care, and wish to sow the seeds of their own damnation will arrive at the gates of Hell very, very soon. So is the fate of all those who reject God.

Christ told us that the world hated Him first. True followers of Jesus Christ have been persecuted for generations, and the Glory of God has always shined even brighter.

7 posted on 03/03/2014 2:59:18 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone
It's like telling a Jewish butcher that he must sell pork.

The culture is getting more intolerant toward Christians by the day.

8 posted on 03/03/2014 2:59:38 AM PST by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

No pancakes on their heads?


9 posted on 03/03/2014 3:02:45 AM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
Pancakes on the head are limited to cute bunnies:


10 posted on 03/03/2014 3:28:01 AM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

The Coke advertisement was just that. Typical corporate division in the name of diversity. These slimeballs perfectly know they divide to conquer with multiculturality, singling out one religion or group after another, just like one gun cosmetic feature adter another and calling it extremist for not complying.

Government and big corps are big on compnformity and compliance. This COEXIST cult is a trojan horse that has nothing of the grass root.


11 posted on 03/03/2014 3:30:22 AM PST by lavaroise (A well regulated gun being necessary to the state, the rights of the militia shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

Homosexuality is steeped in sex and color of skin identification and a clear violation of the civil riights’ spirit. This whole thing has been spun on its head.


12 posted on 03/03/2014 3:33:54 AM PST by lavaroise (A well regulated gun being necessary to the state, the rights of the militia shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Pink fools and a$$ holes.


13 posted on 03/03/2014 3:40:11 AM PST by lavaroise (A well regulated gun being necessary to the state, the rights of the militia shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

95% of celebrities are the definition of rich a$$ hole, abusive Michael Jackson style. And their lofo fans are morons, idiots, celebtard libtard admiring jerks. No wonder they all vote for Obama.

Funny the GOPe is taking to the gang rap culture too lately. Disgusting.


14 posted on 03/03/2014 3:42:24 AM PST by lavaroise (A well regulated gun being necessary to the state, the rights of the militia shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
(All punctuation, caps, etc., as written)


REFERENCE TITLE: exercise of religion; state action.

State of Arizona
Senate
Fifty-first Legislature
Second Regular Session
2014

SB 1062
Introduced by
Senators Yarbrough: Barto, Worsley

AN ACT

AMENDING SECTIONS 41-1493 AND 41-1493.01, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; RELATING TO THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.

(TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE)

1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Section 41-1493, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to
3 read:
4 41-1493. Definitions
5 In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
6 1. "Demonstrates" means meets the burdens of going forward with the
7 evidence and of persuasion.
8 2. "Exercise of religion" means the PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF
9 RELIGION, INCLUDING THE ability to act or refusal to act in a manner
10 substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is
11 compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.
12 3. "Government" includes this state and any agency or political
13 subdivision of this state.
14 4. "Nonreligious assembly or institution" includes all membership
15 organizations, theaters, cultural centers, dance halls, fraternal orders,
16 amphitheaters and places of public assembly regardless of size that a
17 government or political subdivision allows to meet in a zoning district by
18 code or ordinance or by practice.
19 5. "Person" includes a religious assembly or institution ANY
20 INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY
21 OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY.
22 6. "Political subdivision" includes any county, city, including a
23 charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special
24 district, any board, commission or agency of a county, city, including a
25 charter city, town, school district, municipal corporation or special
26 district or any other local public agency.
27 7. "Religion-neutral zoning standards":
28 (a) Means numerically definable standards such as maximum occupancy
29 codes, height restrictions, setbacks, fire codes, parking space requirements,
30 sewer capacity limitations and traffic congestion limitations.
31 (b) Does not include:
32 (i) Synergy with uses that a government holds as more desirable.
33 (ii) The ability to raise tax revenues.
34 8. "Suitable alternate property" means a financially feasible property
35 considering the person's revenue sources and other financial obligations with
36 respect to the person's exercise of religion and with relation to spending
37 that is in the same zoning district or in a contiguous area that the person
38 finds acceptable for conducting the person's religious mission and that is
39 large enough to fully accommodate the current and projected seating capacity
40 requirements of the person in a manner that the person deems suitable for the
41 person's religious mission.
42 9. "Unreasonable burden" means that a person is prevented from using
43 the person's property in a manner that the person finds satisfactory to
44 fulfill the person's religious mission.

1 Sec. 2. Section 41-1493.01, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to

2 read:
3 41-1493.01. Free exercise of religion protected; definition
4 A. Free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that applies in
5 this state even if laws, rules or other government actions are facially
6 neutral.
7 B. Except as provided in subsection C, government OF THIS SECTION,
8 STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion
9 even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.
10 C. Government STATE ACTION may substantially burden a person's
11 exercise of religion only if it THE OPPOSING PARTY demonstrates that
12 application of the burden to the person PERSON'S EXERCISE OF RELIGION IN THIS
13 PARTICULAR INSTANCE is both:
14 1. In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
15 2. The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
16 governmental interest.
17 D. A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this
18 section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial
19 proceeding, and obtain appropriate relief against a government REGARDLESS OF
20 WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING. THE PERSON ASSERTING
21 SUCH A CLAIM OR DEFENSE MAY OBTAIN APPROPRIATE RELIEF. A party who prevails
22 in any action to enforce this article against a government shall recover
23 attorney fees and costs.
24 E. In FOR THE PURPOSES OF this section, the term substantially burden
25 is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial,
26 technical or de minimis infractions.
27 F. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "STATE ACTION" MEANS ANY ACTION
28 BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION OF ANY LAW, INCLUDING
29 STATE AND LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES, WHETHER
30 STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OR APPLICATION IS MADE
31 OR ATTEMPTED TO BE MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT OR NONGOVERNMENTAL PERSONS.

15 posted on 03/03/2014 4:01:31 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true .. I have no proof .. but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

The one thing the AZ fiasco proved was that Gov. Brewer can be blackmailed by Big Business and the NFL. Less than 2% of the population is homosexual, but the Left is using these deviants to push their anti-Christian agenda, perverting the constitutional right to freely exercise our religion.

When Muslims feel that someone has disrespected their religion, beheadings take place. Apparently, that is the way to deal with the ungodly Left.


16 posted on 03/03/2014 4:26:28 AM PST by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: knarf

No wonder the thing collapsed of its own weight.

Thx, knarf.


17 posted on 03/03/2014 4:26:41 AM PST by RitaOK ( VIVA CHRISTO REY / Public education is the farm team for more Marxists coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee

The NFL is a private club monopoly. There goes big government for the people fallacy. In other parts of the world they would have been excoriated and their banners burned to the ground. What is wrong with letting them hold footballl hostage? People have become greedy amd atupid.


18 posted on 03/03/2014 4:29:50 AM PST by lavaroise (A well regulated gun being necessary to the state, the rights of the militia shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RitaOK
I was intrigued by Star's comment ...
" ... per most interpretations I’ve read, ... "

You read an opinion an published a comment on a comment ?

So I went looking and found it.

You're welcome.

19 posted on 03/03/2014 4:33:50 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true .. I have no proof .. but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

Amen brother.


20 posted on 03/03/2014 4:38:35 AM PST by Paulie (Buy local, bank local, exert your influence locally; the left will fold like a cheap suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: servo1969
"However, the right to religious freedom does not mean the right to write-off and marginalize into non-existence a whole class of citizens whom you don’t like or agree with"

Sez who?

21 posted on 03/03/2014 4:41:47 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Cultural war yes, but also a war carried out by the IRS, the police, the media, the democrat party and the FCC.


22 posted on 03/03/2014 4:46:59 AM PST by I want the USA back (Media: completely irresponsible traitors. Complicit in the destruction of our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

As a way of getting around this problem, someone suggested the formation of providing products and services via “Christian clubs”, that only retail to given denominations.

But this idea has prospects far and away beyond just limited provision of products and services. For example, for some years now there have been “megachurch” communities, where everyone who lives there belongs, all retailers belong, all the schools are parochial, and the communities are gated, keeping out the outsiders and their problems.

But there is no reason in the world why such communities have to be contiguous. And as long as they do not provide products or services “to the general public”, they are legal.

Importantly, businesses could subdivide, offering *some* products and services to the general public, and *some* exclusively for club members, as long as those memberships were not offered to the public.

In many ways, like grocery store cards, who only offer discounts to store members.


23 posted on 03/03/2014 5:23:13 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (WoT News: Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

Star sometimes gets it well, but she seems to have muffed this one.

If she actually checks facts on the ground there’s virtually nobody who wants to deny something to a homosexual because he’s homosexual, but rather it is because he has made it clear that he wants it in order to further homosexual activities.

She’s running from a boogieman while ignoring a very real moral and spiritual menace.


24 posted on 03/03/2014 5:24:03 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

And that’s just what the devil wants to do. To shove the Light behind dark doors. A megachurch or whatever that is cloistered like this is contrary to God’s desires. It is human weakness, not the word of God, which puts Christians into hiding.


25 posted on 03/03/2014 5:26:38 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

And that’s a strawman argument anyhow.


26 posted on 03/03/2014 5:27:42 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

I’m surprised Star Parker took this line. In addition to being a false comparison I know it infuriates many blacks.


27 posted on 03/03/2014 5:33:15 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

28 posted on 03/03/2014 5:48:45 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

I will make patronizing Chik-fil-A and other decent businesses a priority, and patronizing worldly companies that embrace perversion a decision to be avoided.

Agreed. Let’s meet somewhere other than Disneyworld, with their many homosexual celebration days and new refusal to end funding for the Boy Scouts because of their stance against homosexual leaders.


29 posted on 03/03/2014 5:50:31 AM PST by gnickgnack2 (QUESTION obama's AUTHORITY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Disney Decides to Discriminate Against Boy Scouts

Posted 1 hour ago by Paul Breen Filed under 1st Amendment, Business

It seems that only some people can discriminate. The multi-billion-dollar “Walt Disney Company has notified the Boy Scouts of America that it will withdraw all funding from the organization beginning 2015 unless the BSA overturns its policy of not allowing openly gay members to be leaders.”

Some will say that this is different from not providing service to people or groups that promote behaviors and viewpoints that are offensive since Disney’s giving is voluntary. But isn’t purchasing photography, cakes, and printing also voluntary? No one is forcing people to choose one company over others.

If Disney is free to do what it wants with its money based on its beliefs, then why should other business owners be forced to support beliefs they disagree with?

Read: http://godfatherpolitics.com/14587/disney-decides-discriminate-boy-scouts/


30 posted on 03/03/2014 6:36:48 AM PST by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

She is wrong about the Arizona bill.


31 posted on 03/03/2014 6:43:39 AM PST by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

You realize I proposed the opposite? That Christians of the “moral” denominations, while geographically spread out, would produce products and services only for those they morally agree with. And if they still wish to sell to the broader market with the general public, for other products, they could still do so.

This solves the wedding cake quandary, since they would only sell wedding cakes to “moral Christian club” members. In fact, it would allow them to not sell wedding cakes the all the other deviationists, no matter if the government supported them or not.


32 posted on 03/03/2014 7:15:58 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (WoT News: Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

“write off and marginalize”? All these people would have had to do was walk down the street and give their business to a bakery that would make their cake as they wanted. There is no right to make merchants sell products they find offensive. They simply lose the sale.


33 posted on 03/03/2014 7:22:59 AM PST by Inwoodian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Well I guess that’s one way to deal with the issue of trade with the world. Don’t do it at all. Most Christians would want to take a middle ground. A normal heterosexual wedding is ok, may God bless it, but faux weddings are not and they would be impossible to bless.


34 posted on 03/03/2014 3:33:00 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

I didn’t say that. The vast majority of things could be sold to the public. The only ones kept in reserve for “moral Christian club” members would be things like wedding cakes, that they did not want to sell to homosexuals, as doing so would be objectionable to their faith.


35 posted on 03/03/2014 5:54:37 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (WoT News: Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee

The one thing the AZ fiasco proved was that Gov. Brewer can be blackmailed by Big Business and the NFL.

...actually, just the NFL...AZ and the Super Bowl are a match made in heaven, and if the NFL yanked it out over this, it would never come back again...to the great joy of Fla and Cali, no doubt...no entity on earth could survive the denial of the Super Bowl over a cultural issue it could very easily make go away,which, of course, the governor did...


36 posted on 03/04/2014 9:50:37 AM PST by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson