The Cultural War Against Christians

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.

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.

(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.

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.