Social conservative leaders wonder: Can homosexual activism and religious liberty ‘coexist’?

LifeSiteNews ^ | 3/7/16 | Dustin Siggins

[wagglebee]

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland, March 7, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Minutes after addressing a packed room at the 2016 CPAC, two leading social conservatives told LifeSiteNews that sexual agendas are putting religious liberty at risk.

The Family Research Council's Travis Weber told LifeSiteNews that "for a lot of us, religious liberty's only been a hot-button issue recently, we're seeing in the news. Why is that? It's driven by agendas affecting matters of sexuality – marriage, abortion, contraception, and all sorts of other issues."

"So what do we do about this? Some of these claims are going to be dealt with in the courts. Others, though, we need to deal with [inaudible] protections. Where's the threat right now? It's on anyone doing business with the government, having indexes with the government, those getting tax-exempt status, contracting, getting grants, etc."

"And those folks need to be protected with a version of the federal First Amendment Defense Act, or state government non-discrimination act, not other areas, such as pastor protection act, or some focus that doesn't need protection right now."

Weber's co-presenter was Ashley McGuire of The Catholic Association. "We were discussing threats to religious liberty," she explained. "I focused on the threats facing health care workers and religious people who do not wanted to be conscripted into providing drugs and devices that violate their consciences."

McGuire cited the Little Sisters of the Poor case, slated to be heard by the Supreme Court later this month, and two other cases she said "really embody where things are going through the courts."

Asked about a prediction for the Supreme Court's decision on the Little Sisters' case, McGuire said, "It's impossible to predict. I think people are cautiously optimistic that this should be such a no-brainer – I think we're hoping for another Hosanna-Tabor."

Hosanna-Tabor is a 2012 Supreme Court ruling that concluded that religiously affiliated groups can hire and fire ministers and other certain employees without interference from the government.

"We're cautiously optimistic that even without Justice Scalia's vote, the Court will still uphold religious liberty, but it's going to be complicated if we end up with a 4-4 ruling because of the split Circuit Court decisions. So there's a lot at stake."

McGuire expressed confidence that, as expressed to LifeSiteNews by the Log Cabin Republicans at CPAC and former presidential candidate Carly Fiornia on the campaign trail, the redefinition of marriage and religious liberty can coexist.

"I think [The Heritage Foundation's] Ryan Anderson's made the case very well – we just had the decision by the Supreme Court, the Court has ruled that states don't have a right in defining marriage, but we should be able to coexist," she said. "That people who maintain their traditional view of marriage can coexist alongside those who don't, and we have a system of government that can continue to defend religious liberty."

Weber disagreed. "The answer is, they can – the question is, will people who believe in gay rights want them to? To give credit to some, they do. Some people have come out said, 'Look, we just want the government to recognize same-sex marriages. We don't to force everyone to believe our point of view.'"

"However, you have very powerful groups – Human Rights Campaign and others – pushing legislation who don't subscribe to that view and would make everyone agree with them if they could. So the real question is, what will happen in practice ... [regarding] the movement, speaking generally, of those pushing gay rights in various contexts. I'd love to partner with people who differ with me on this matter of sexuality but want to support religious liberty. This is important for pluralism, for the continued function of democracy, and people with different views living together."

Weber said laws like the First Amendment Defense Act that provide protections for religious groups and individuals don't just provide bastions for liberty – they enhance liberty for all.

"When we talk of bastions, what I'm interested in is protections for people to be free. Who needs them right now? The government is not cutting off people from grants and contracts because they're supporting same-sex marriages. We pass laws to protect people, not to just make a statement."

"The First Amendment Defense Act, the state versions, are necessary because the freedom of people who the traditional marriage view is threatened," he continued. "We're not interested in making the government enforce our view of morality in terms of cutting off the other side from making its own debate. So I think there's a lot to this question – we need to look at who's being threatened, protect them, and then when you look at religious freedom laws – which, FRC supports religious freedom for all in all contexts – RFRA doesn't discriminate, and protects everyone, no matter the context."

[wagglebee]

Weber said laws like the First Amendment Defense Act that provide protections for religious groups and individuals don't just provide bastions for liberty – they enhance liberty for all.

The Left DOES NOT WANT liberty, they want submission.

[wagglebee]

Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[ealgeone]

No. The two cannot co-exist.

[Westbrook]

> The Left DOES NOT WANT liberty, they want submission.

Exactly.

[Phlap]

No would be the answer to that question. Any others?

[Blood of Tyrants]

The answer is no. Homosexual activism is about crushing any public condemnation of homosexuality. And that includes religious freedom.

[detective]

The answer is no. Homosexual activists want to put an end to religious freedom.

[i_robot73]

Free speech, let alone religious liberty, CANNOT exist in the same sphere as thought ‘crimes’ or FEeelings.

Is there NOT enough examples currently in the world to show this to be untrue? Only to the Socialists

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

No. It never could. That’s why those who laid down their arms and surrendered because they didn’t want to get their hands dirty or be labeled as “haters” or harm the gospel (like that would...) were foolish. They own this current climate. The gospel will eventually be outlawed. Before that it will be heavily punished with taxation and bitter hyperbole from the left, using the social pressure, intolerance and shame they used to complain about. Read their early statements and goals. It was always aimed at revenge. The problem is, we had truth on our side and they have nothing but fiction and degrading immorality.

I’m not saying God will not prevail. I am saying our side shares the blame due to indifference and/or inaction. Many were and still are chicken.

[afsnco]

Of course not. That’s why every “cave” just postpones the inevitable clash. The bottom line is we don’t need some unelected justices to tell us what the First Amendment says, nor the Second Amendment, for that matter. ANY diminishing of our fundamental rights by the government makes that government a criminal government, unworthy of obedience.

The only way homosexuality can be ascendant is for religious liberty to be crushed. Period. The two are completely incompatible. We know they’re all going to hell, along with all who support them, and they hate us for believing what God said about them.

[AppyPappy]

“The Left DOES NOT WANT liberty, they want submission. “

And they want control

[PeterPrinciple]

The Left DOES NOT WANT liberty, they want submission.

---

Liberty, now there is a word not heard very often. Never hurts to review it’s meaning.

Say it LOUD and OFTEN..................

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty

Liberty, in philosophy, involves free will as contrasted with determinism.[1] In politics, liberty consists of the social and political freedoms enjoyed by all citizens.[2] In theology, liberty is freedom from the bondage of sin.[3] Generally, liberty seems to be distinct from freedom in that freedom concerns itself primarily, if not exclusively, with the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; whereas liberty also takes into account the rights of all involved. As such, liberty can be thought of as freedom limited by rights, and therefore cannot be abused.

[Harpotoo]

We need a law to protect the 1st amendment? Now you know we are EF’ed unless Trump or Cruz!!!

[SandRat]

The Left DOES NOT WANT liberty, they want submission.

Sounds like islam, submission.

[Jack Hammer]

They co-existed in Sodom and Gomorrha.

But that didn’t end too well.

[48th SPS Crusader]

No.
Nor can Islam and the American Constitution.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

As long as the courts are packed with liberals, a mere law will not protect the Constitution. They overturned the Defense of Marriage Act didn’t they? That was suppose to protect federalism on the marriage issue after the Lawrence vs Texas disaster. We need an Article V Convention of states to reign in the Courts and the federal government in general.

Crazy part is, the DOMA passed Congress nearly unanimously and was signed by Clinton in 1996. The left doesn’t care about being popular. They push and push and push and lie and lie and lie until they get their way. They alter their position with each new step until they get the authoritarian ruling they want. Then they regroup and push for more stupid stuff.

Meanwhile the right takes daily polls to see if the winds have changed so they can find new ways to sellout conservatives and the U.S. Constitution on a daily basis. They have no guts or principles at all. The left my stand for what is evil, but at least they stand for something.

[Servant of the Cross]

While I completely disagree with the inanity of the original cause and bumper sticker above, I do think that this is the best way to present religious freedom as an effective argument for why we need "a federal First Amendment Defense Act, or state government non-discrimination act ... pastor protection act ... etc."

There is no way that the liberal activists can claim they are peacefully co-existing ... just ask cake bakers, pizza shops, wedding photographers, pastors minding their own business in their own churches, quoting from the bible ......

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

The problem is that it downgrades the influence of religion on society as it was viewed by the Framers of the Constitution. The Framers viewed the influence of religion and morality as essentials to liberty. Where we are now is, we are fighting to keep the first amendment religious freedom as something merely tolerated at best, punished and even outlawed at worst. Our rights no longer come from God. They come for the SCOTUS.

[Pollster1]

Thugs who want to compel others to obey cannot coexist with any kind of freedom. When the thugs hate God and hate Christians so much, they cannot coexist with religious freedom in particular. If and when things get ugly for the bullies, I will have no sympathy.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned . . . for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”

There is no penalty so severe that it would be inappropriate for those who use the law as a club to compel obedience in violation of an individual’s religious values. Those predators disgust me, and they are fully deserving of life without parole, or whatever penalty a court of law orders, once the rule of law is restored. If the death penalty is eventually imposed on the predators who file lawsuits trying to compel bakers to bake the cake, and on the administrators who impose penalties for holding and following religious beliefs, I’m okay with that.