Posted on 07/06/2015 4:52:29 AM PDT by Kaslin
Kelly Shackelford’s debate with Evan Wolfson on Fox News Sunday highlights the battle lines for religious liberty in America now that the Supreme Court has grossly overstepped its authority by declaring same sex marriage a constitutional right. The issue is whether religious liberty extends to how you earn your living, get an education, and run a business.
For years to come, the fight for many Christians will be on whether their right to the free exercise of religion includes the right to earn a paycheck without violating their conscience. Televised debates need to focus on the fierce debate over whether your religious-belief rights carry over into your daily life. The Constitution does not force Christians to choose between being able to put food on the table versus being faithful to their cherished beliefs.
The day after the Supreme Court’s infamous 5-4 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, Shackelford and I published an op-ed in Investor’s Business Daily, showcasing the discussion on what that court decision will mean for tens of millions of observant Christians.
On July 5, Shackelford—president of the public-interest law firm Liberty Institute—squared off against Wolfson, who since 1983 has been a leader in the effort to make gay marriage a reality through legal action. Shackelford and Wolfson agreed that the Supreme Court’s justices ruled 9-0 that churches have free-speech rights to teach their religious beliefs on marriage being between a man and woman.
But what the rest of the interview showcased is that the courts—and the political right and left in this country—are fiercely divided on whether a person’s right to exercise their religion extends beyond the walls of their church or house. The Constitution’s First Amendment protects the right of free speech. But just before those words, a separate provision of the First Amendment promises the right to the “free exercise” of religion.
It’s separate from the right to free speech, and Justice Kenney’s majority opinion in Obergefell said nothing about this separate right. Instead, Chief Justice John Roberts said it was “ominous” that the Court majority did not discuss at all the right to freely exercise religion for those who object to redefining marriage. In fact, all four dissenting justices’ opinions—Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito—all noted with alarm the implications for what is properly called our nation’s First Freedom.
Shackelford explained several of the most egregious examples in the courts right now of Christians suffering for their church’s beliefs on marriage. Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein recently had a $135,000 fine levied against them, forcing them into bankruptcy. Washington florist Baronelle Stutzman—a grandmother—is being prosecuted by authorities who seek to take her home and life’s savings. Colorado baker Jack Phillips even faces jail time if he violates a court order to bake gay-wedding cakes.
Wolfson tried to muddy the issue by saying “everyone” agrees with religious-liberty rights here, but went on to show he clearly thinks that no one has the right to allow their faith to impact how they run their business. He referred to following your beliefs on marriage to claiming a license to discriminate. The truth is the opposite: Wolfson and his allies are demanding a license to discriminate against faithful Christians.
It would have been nice for the interview segment to have lasted another two minutes. I would have liked to see Wolfson’s response if Shackelford had asked if Stutzman deserves to lose her home, or if Phillips deserves to go to jail. From what he said on Fox, evidently Wolfson’s answer must be “Yes.”
Someone should push Wolfson to answer those questions so that we can all know for sure. Then someone should ask President Obama the same question. Then someone needs to ask Hillary Clinton; in fact, her Republican opponent should ask her on national television during the presidential debates, and not let the debate move forward until America has a definite answer.
This is Ground Zero for the war on religious liberty. The political left—including gay-marriage activists—are saying that your First Amendment rights over same sex marriage are limited to what you say in church or in your private home. You can’t live it out in your workplace. You can’t run a business with that biblical belief that the church has held for 2,000 years. You have a right to think something in your head, but not to act upon it in your daily life.
This struggle will define the political arena and the courts in 2016. If Christians don’t win this fight for First Amendment rights, then faithful Christians will be persecuted and driven from the business world, and America will become a country many people no longer recognize.
The foundation for a new era of “civil disobedience” is being set.
Every person who voted Democrat and/or for Obama is directly responsible for any job loss by a person standing up for righteousness. Each one must be held responsible.
The idea that the courts can punish me for my beliefs is against the right to practice my religion.
Through all this, I haven't heard the Separation of Church and State as part of this fight. I'm not sure why because the state is telling me I must believe in this perversion. That I have no choice.
That includes also those on our side who sat the general election out because they did not like the Republican nominee
The Constitutional guarantee in the First Amendment is the free EXERCISE of one’s religion. It does not protect mere thought or theory, but the living practice of one’s faith 24 hours a day in all places public and private.
This Court’s liberal minority has never had a problem with torturing words and logic, so it is dangerous to rely on something as clear as mere language. But if Honesty has a home in those hallowed chambers, not even Weak Bladder Ginsburg can construe the First Amendment otherwise.
it will boil down to non believer lives don’t matter
that will become the real issue
“The political left—including gay-marriage activists—are saying that your First Amendment rights over same sex marriage are limited to what you say in church or in your private home.”
They want to make freedom of religion, freedom of worship.
Homos & gay “marriage” - Christ’s “winnowing fork” to separate His true Church from the apostates.
All along the true goal has been the criminalization of Christianity.
This isn’t about “religious freedom”, and I wish people would be more pointed when they discuss this.
Muslims will be “anti-gay” throughout all of the foreseeable future, and the left, gov’t, and media will studiously ignore them.
This is simply about using the state to punish and ultimately exterminate Christians.
They didn’t get our guns first...
“Wolfson ... referred to following your beliefs on marriage to claiming a license to discriminate.”
License to discriminate? Can anyone point me to someone who does NOT? DD vs. Starbucks, Target vs. Walmart, etc. To prefer one over another = discriminate. And, as a biz owner (you know, the one whom signs the checks, pays the rent/mortgage/taxes/etc. - an entity that CONTRIBUTES, unless govt) one has the Right to refuse anyone, for any reason, they so choose.
Of course, that idea too died with the Civil Rights Act; another usurpation of Fedzilla over the States/9th/10th and the individual.
The more that effort is done, the more Christianity spreads. That is a historic fact.
Yes sir. I agree.
Get over it Kaslin! When the R party puts up someone that is squishy and compromised, for abortion, gay rights and a universal health care system, and God does not hear his prayers, I have a right, nay a duty to vote for someone else and let God sort it out.
I have a right, nay a duty to vote for someone else and let God sort it out.
and you have a corollary duty to not bitch about the performance of the individual that you helped put in place...
Typical of the “conservative movement” “leadership.”
Defensive. Reactionary. A sure losing strategy.
The army that gets and keeps the initiative wins the battle, every time.
The army that can only react to the enemy and nothing more is always on the way to defeat.
Nonsense ... Anybody who got off his duff and voted has earned the right and duty to comment on the outcome.
Those questions should be asked, but they won’t be. The mainstream media will never frame it like that of course. In their narrative, these small business owners will be the villains and the whining malcontents seeking to ruin them will be the oppressed heroes.
In the debates, such questions will never make the cut, and the liberal moderators certainly won’t go there. Most of the GOP candidates won’t bring it up either, because they don’t care or it doesn’t cross their mind. Someone like Bush or Kasich might make meaningless statements about defending churches, but they won’t defend these small businesses the left has targeted for destruction.
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.