Examples Of Religious Freedom Being Trampled Or Threatened

[ttribe]

I would bake a cake.  Just a very bad cake. Might forget to put the eggs in.

 

So, you would intentionally provide a sub-par product based simply on the fact that you and the customer don't share the same belief system?  Pretty petulant, if you ask me.

[KevinG]

I'm going to withhold judgement on the gay marriage vs. LDS rights debate until I see an actual suit against a Bishop for refusing to marry a gay couple.

 

I don't think its out of the realm of possibilities for someone to try...  and I've seen other "slippery slope" arguments that went from fallacy to reality very fast.  (ex. Polygamists suing for marriage recognition).

 

However I have experienced real discrimination that stemmed from people demonizing Mormons.  

• A job offer rescinded - and verified by the recruiter - because the company (Kennecott in Wyoming) didn't want to deal with another Mormon in their management ranks.  
• A (Christian) man chasing me around a train and denouncing me because he saw me reading the Book of Mormon to myself.  
• A hiring manager telling me not to admit I was a Mormon (Northern Minnesota) because all the Mormons worked for another company (Polaris), not the family owned company I was interviewing with (Marvin).

Yet I never felt the need to sue any one of them for my "rights".  I moved on.  I "ate another cake".  I found places where I was welcomed and thrived there.

 

Don't get me wrong- I am in support of gays having equal protection under the law, and civil rights that traditionally married couples get.  But I do fear that some activists are itching to sue for personal gain, or to prove a point, or to gain revenge for past injustices by curtailing the 1st amendment rights of religious groups.  As someone who has advocated for the rights of those who believe differently than I, don't be surprised or offended if I start screaming loudly the moment someone thinks it is their right to dictate what my beliefs and practices should be.

[JAHS]

 

Gay marriage is a worse problem on the long term. You see those starving kids. It is a terrible thing but if they die they have a great chance of making the celestial kingdom. Those in gay marriage have zero chance. The only tragedy to God is not hunger or sickness, or death as all of those are temporary but sin. The consequence of sin can be eternal. So though we might be called to fight things like hunger, to focus on that and not the bigger issues like sin is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

A god who treats consensual sexual activity as sin is not a god that I would have any respect for. And since we're on the subject of religious freedom, how about those religions where all forms of consensual sexuality are celebrated rather than demonized? Are you going to trample on their religious freedom by trying to pass laws against their sacraments?

 

This of course depends on your own definition of who God is or what religion is.  If you believe in the God of the Bible and the religion he established on the earth then fornication is a sin (1 Cor 6: 18).  If you don't believe in the Bible but have made up your own religion based of some alternate set of morals then you might not call fornication a sin.  It is difficult if not impossible to legislate religious morality, and ultimately should not be done.  But I think each religion has a right to declare it's stand on what it believes God wants us to do and try to make the world an easier place to live such beliefs, even if they fail in the attempt. 

Edited July 10, 2015 by JAHS

[Zakuska]

This is a bit of a stupid question, but given that from an eternal perspective worldly marriage is not technically recognized, if a legally recognized SSM exists, is it recognized in some manner?

 

Not a stupid question at all.  No.

 

This is precisely why we as a church have no need to fear SSM being performed in our temples ever.  Because we don't get Married in the temple we get sealed which is strictly a religious/eternal/heavenly right in it self.

 

Now as far as Ward house cultural halls and Bishops are concerned. I can see a SSC getting the idea to sue for not being alowed to use it.  I can also see Bishops not performing civil marriages in the future as to protect against this.  The use of the cultural hall is another story all together.  

Edited July 10, 2015 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

 

I would bake a cake.  Just a very bad cake. Might forget to put the eggs in.

 

So, you would intentionally provide a sub-par product based simply on the fact that you and the customer don't share the same belief system?  Pretty petulant, if you ask me.

 

 

Akin to spitting in someones coffee when serving them.

[toon]

 

Because we're repeatedly getting challenges on this board now to show "specific, concrete examples" of how religious freedom is being threatened or trampled upon (I've answered such challenges on at least two occasions now), as though such examples did not exist, I have started this thread to provide such examples when I encounter them. This, of course, is meant to be an on-going and cumulative thread.

 

Here's one such example that I ran across today. It seems that Churches must take out insurance against ruinous lawsuits, and there is now evidence that insurance companies will refuse to cover churches if they get sued for refusal to perform same-sex "marriages."

 

Churches, like virtually every functioning corporation, protect against liability risks and the potentially ruinous costs of litigation through liability insurance. With same-sex marriage now recognized as a constitutional right — and with news of Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries awarding a lesbian couple $135,000 in damages for “emotional, mental and physical suffering” after a Christian bakery refused to bake their wedding cake — pastors are reaching out to insurance companies to make sure they’re covered. And at least one insurer has responded with a preemptory denial: no coverage if a church is sued for refusing to perform a same-sex wedding.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420928/churches-gay-marriage-insurance?tsrvqUZ2WLkiLuwx.01

 

 

 

 

 

From your link:

 

"The general liability form does not provide any coverage for this type of situation, since there is no bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, or advertising injury. If a church is concerned about the possibility of a suit, we do offer Miscellaneous Legal Defense Coverage. This is not liability coverage, but rather expense reimbursement for defense costs. There is no coverage for any judgments against an insured."

 

In other words, there is coverage. 

[Sleeper Cell]

 

 

Here's another specific instance of a threat, that religious schools such as BYU may be in danger of losing accreditation because they won't tow the line on political correctness.

By the way, contributions from others are welcome. I intend to crowd-source this compilation of threats to religious freedom.

Since when does religious freedom garuntee accredidation?

And why are you looking to Canada? The Supreme Court of the United States brought up the issue of tax exempt status during oral argument concerning same-sex marriage?

However, even more important, is that MUST BE esstablish that tax exempt status is a RIGHT for religious organizations. But the Supreme Court of the United States is unanimous that Congress has the power/authority to grant and deny tax exempt status.

So how does tax exempt status equate to threat to religious freedom? Bob Jones University (private religous school) tax exempt status was revoked due to policies agaisnt interracial marriage. Even after the revocation, Bob Jones Unversity was permitted to maintain the policies. So how was Bob Jones University "religious freedom" threatened?

And let's not forget that religious freedom does not entitle a church to operate however it wishes when it engages in secular activities. When a church performs civil marriages, operates an adoption agency, or runs an accredited college, that church is not exempted from laws that apply to everyone. Religious freedom does not mean religious privilege in secular society. That church can whine and claim they are being attacked, but the law is just being applied to them as it is to everyone else.

 

 

Do you think it was wrong for the government to exempt conscientious objectors from the draft?  

 

I agree with you that the government probably now has the legal right to require anyone who it authorizes to performs civil marriages -- including bishops and temple presidents -- to be willing to marry same gender couples or stop performing civil marriages, altogether.  After all, civil marriage has long been considered a government function.  Religious marriage ceremonies (including temple sealings) would still be permissible, of course.  

 

Church schools are a different matter.  Churches have long considered church schools to be part of their religious ministry.  Indeed, the entire point of having religious schools is to be different from secular schools.  Now religious schools are to be considered secular activities as if they were, say, a shopping mall?  Do you believe that religious freedom only applies to what you do in the privacy of your own home and inside the walls of your church?

[Gray]

 

 

Religion is a freedom, not a privilege.

dc

 

When you think you should be able to infringe other people's rights because of your religion, you've left questions of freedom and are now talking about privilege. 

 

So the constitutions says that you have to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage. Who knew?

 

 

See: 14th amendment

[Jacob]

 

This is a bit of a stupid question, but given that from an eternal perspective worldly marriage is not technically recognized, if a legally recognized SSM exists, is it recognized in some manner?

 

Not a stupid question at all.  No.

 

This is precisely why we as a church have no need to fear SSM being performed in our temples ever.  Because we don't get Married in the temple we get sealed which is strictly a religious/eternal/heavenly right in it self.

 

Now as far as Ward house cultural halls and Bishops are concerned. I can see a SSC getting the idea to sue for not being alowed to use it.  I can also see Bishops not performing civil marriages in the future as to protect against this.  The use of the cultural hall is another story all together.  

 

Thanks for the clarification. Now, is a traditional marriage truly recognized by the gospel? It seems that if it was there wouldn't be a need for the year wait if a civil marriage was performed, yet the couple is not considered to be committing the sin because they are "married". Does this fact impact the considerations for SSM? Is this the reason for the strong stance against it? Are there sexual acts that are considered outside the acceptable "between husband and wife" that would be considered sin? This is an area where I see conflict. Personally, given my understanding of the Church, I feel that civil marriage outside the temple shouldn't be recognized either as this promotes marriage without sealing.

[Zakuska]

Scott,

 

Google this: lgbt sues church

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=955&noj=1&q=lgbt+sues+church&oq=lGBT+sues+&gs_l=serp.3.0.0.1824758.1829388.0.1830606.11.10.0.1.1.0.105.789.9j1.10.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..1.10.726.0._KF5TGxoBQk

 

Millionaire gay couple is suing to force a church to hold their ...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthelibertarianrepublic.com%2Fmillionaire-gay-couple-suing-force-church-hold-wedding%2F&ei=QgSgVYubB4WoogTRk6SwBg&usg=AFQjCNH4RFZp-UsTtEsHPAZ5q-nN8vSt_w&sig2=39igoKiYKTvS0SYiopnUsA&bvm=bv.96952980,d.cGU

[SmileyMcGee]

Delete

Edited July 10, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[SmileyMcGee]

Here's another specific instance of a threat, that religious schools such as BYU may be in danger of losing accreditation because they won't tow the line on political correctness.

By the way, contributions from others are welcome. I intend to crowd-source this compilation of threats to religious freedom.

Since when does religious freedom garuntee accredidation?

And why are you looking to Canada? The Supreme Court of the United States brought up the issue of tax exempt status during oral argument concerning same-sex marriage?

However, even more important, is that MUST BE esstablish that tax exempt status is a RIGHT for religious organizations. But the Supreme Court of the United States is unanimous that Congress has the power/authority to grant and deny tax exempt status.

So how does tax exempt status equate to threat to religious freedom? Bob Jones University (private religous school) tax exempt status was revoked due to policies agaisnt interracial marriage. Even after the revocation, Bob Jones Unversity was permitted to maintain the policies. So how was Bob Jones University "religious freedom" threatened?

And let's not forget that religious freedom does not entitle a church to operate however it wishes when it engages in secular activities. When a church performs civil marriages, operates an adoption agency, or runs an accredited college, that church is not exempted from laws that apply to everyone. Religious freedom does not mean religious privilege in secular society. That church can whine and claim they are being attacked, but the law is just being applied to them as it is to everyone else.

Do you think it was wrong for the government to exempt conscientious objectors from the draft?

I agree with you that the government probably now has the legal right to require anyone who it authorizes to performs civil marriages -- including bishops and temple presidents -- to be willing to marry same gender couples or stop performing civil marriages, altogether. After all, civil marriage has long been considered a government function. Religious marriage ceremonies (including temple sealings) would still be permissible, of course.

Church schools are a different matter. Churches have long considered church schools to be part of their religious ministry. Indeed, the entire point of having religious schools is to be different from secular schools. Now religious schools are to be considered secular activities as if they were, say, a shopping mall? Do you believe that religious freedom only applies to what you do in the privacy of your own home and inside the walls of your church?

If you consider offering similar academic degrees as secular schools to be a religious matter then yes, i disagree with you. If you want to compare secular education in general to a shopping mall that's your problem. I don't believe that people should get special treatment because they are participating in secular activities for religious reasons. That would be privilege, not freedom.

[KevinG]

Religious freedom is not endangered, but unequal treatment (protection) under the law by refusing to accredit an institution over a moral stance would exist.

 

Ironically denying a religious educational institution accreditation (impacting equal access to funds and students) would be the same type of disparate impact that gays experienced by not having their marriages give equal access to financial and legal benefits.

 

Let the Baptists, Jews, Agnostics, Atheists, Mormons, Catholics, etc. teach and direct their institutions as they see fit, and give them equal access to academic credentials as long as their academics merit them.

[Zakuska]

 

 

This is a bit of a stupid question, but given that from an eternal perspective worldly marriage is not technically recognized, if a legally recognized SSM exists, is it recognized in some manner?

 

Not a stupid question at all.  No.

 

This is precisely why we as a church have no need to fear SSM being performed in our temples ever.  Because we don't get Married in the temple we get sealed which is strictly a religious/eternal/heavenly right in it self.

 

Now as far as Ward house cultural halls and Bishops are concerned. I can see a SSC getting the idea to sue for not being alowed to use it.  I can also see Bishops not performing civil marriages in the future as to protect against this.  The use of the cultural hall is another story all together.  

 

Thanks for the clarification. Now, is a traditional marriage truly recognized by the gospel? It seems that if it was there wouldn't be a need for the year wait if a civil marriage was performed, yet the couple is not considered to be committing the sin because they are "married". Does this fact impact the considerations for SSM? Is this the reason for the strong stance against it? Are there sexual acts that are considered outside the acceptable "between husband and wife" that would be considered sin? This is an area where I see conflict. Personally, given my understanding of the Church, I feel that civil marriage outside the temple shouldn't be recognized either as this promotes marriage without sealing.

 

 

When my wife and I where sealed in the temple, we both looked at having to go to the county clerk for a license as an unnecessary inconvenience beings how that type of marriage has a built in divorce decree. But we have to accommodate the laws of men sometimes in our sojourn here on earth.  Not sure about the policy of waiting a year before sealing etc.

[Sleeper Cell]

 

ETA:  I used to argue in favor of the slippery-slope theory relative to religious freedoms and gay marriage.  I now believe I was wrong to do so.  There will be extremists from either side who seek to "punish" one another; especially in the recent aftermath of the SCOTUS ruling.  However, I don't currently believe that will become the status quo, nor do I think it will result in significant erosion of the religious freedoms of churches.  Eventually, even the most outspoken gay activists will tire of trying to force the christian cake lady to bake them a cake for their wedding.  On the flip-side, I believe most of the die-hard gay marriage opponent county clerks will realize it's not a major moral sacrifice to sign the marriage license of a gay couple who just wish to gain legal status for their commitment to one another.

 

Sounds like the “slippery slope” argument in reverse.    

 

Had anyone living at the time the 14th  amendment was adopted made the “slippery slope” argument that it might someday force states to conduct legal gay marriages, he would probably have been laughed out of town.  And if he then argued that someday this would lead to a baker being forced by the government to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding or a photographer being forced to participate in a gay wedding ceremony, he probably would have been confined to the nearest mental asylum.

[carbon dioxide]

Zakuska: "When my wife and I where sealed in the temple, we both looked at having to go to the county clerk for a license as an unnecessary inconvenience beings how that type of marriage has a built in divorce decree. But we have to accommodate the laws of men sometimes in our sojourn here on earth.  Not sure about the policy of waiting a year before sealing etc."

 

Same with me.  I don't even know where my "license" is.  Somewhere in all the crap in my house.  I think one should even be sealed before they get the license.  We don't do any other priesthood ordinance in the Church that requires some government approval before we do it.   Why should we give the government undo praise or respect.  By having the civil one done first, we are saying that is more important than the temple part.  Not in my book.

Edited July 10, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[thesometimesaint]

Zakuska: "When my wife and I where sealed in the temple, we both looked at having to go to the county clerk for a license as an unnecessary inconvenience beings how that type of marriage has a built in divorce decree. But we have to accommodate the laws of men sometimes in our sojourn here on earth.  Not sure about the policy of waiting a year before sealing etc."

 

Same with me.  I don't even know where my "license" is.  Somewhere in all the crap in my house.  I think one should even be sealed before they get the license.  We don't do any other priesthood ordinance in the Church that requires some government approval before we do it.   Why should we give the government undo praise or respect.  By having the civil one done first, we are saying that is more important than the temple part.  Not in my book.

 

The government is not here to enforce your religious beliefs about marriage. It is here to make sure that your financial obligations to your family are met.

[Zakuska]

City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/20/city-threatens-to-arrest-ministers-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings.html

 

Gay couple files complaint for refusal of wedding

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.umc.org%2Fnews-and-media%2Fgay-couple-files-complaint-for-refusal-of-wedding&ei=ggqgVbWgJJS6ogS9v7yABw&usg=AFQjCNECJoucjrbR-mnoURR_Q03kOH2IoQ&sig2=svYPFCxqt3Tdck8oB2tAog&bvm=bv.96952980,d.cGU

 

Methodist Church Pastor Sued for Refusing to Conduct Gay Wedding

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFoQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thechristianmail.com%2F2014%2F11%2Fmethodist-church-pastor-sued-for-refusing-to-conduct-gay-marriage%2F&ei=ggqgVbWgJJS6ogS9v7yABw&usg=AFQjCNFzp7QIFJ_EGzPb4BqkRQ3V3tptbw&sig2=xXLYcSAaRl50Xq2cppiuPA&bvm=bv.96952980,d.cGU

 

'I am still not getting what I want': Gay couple suing church

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAAOAo&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lifesitenews.com%2Fnews%2Fi-am-still-not-getting-what-i-want-gay-couple-suing-church-for-refusing-wed&ei=SAugVZW6BdCqogTywYOoBg&usg=AFQjCNG1yyLPgBNZJlxBzRJt6NJovKAZcQ&sig2=-n-cm-LuA6dD5Z9Clm0G2w&bvm=bv.96952980,d.cGU

 

COUPLE SUING TO FORCE CHURCH TO PERFORM GAY MARRIAGE

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2013/08/gay-couple-to-sue-church-over-gay-marriage-opt-out.html

 

Gay Couple Sues Church That Won't Host Same-Sex Wedding

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=24&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDYQFjADOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.christianheadlines.com%2Fblog%2Fgay-couple-sues-church-that-won-t-host-same-sex-weddings.html&ei=ugygVZbbBpCCoQStvbyYBg&usg=AFQjCNFypB5Ng6K68qwQqJDy_h-Q1BCvNw&sig2=1hRSh9534d489r_EfjOgVA&bvm=bv.96952980,d.cGU

 

I thought the LGBT spokes people assured us this type of stuff would never happen... 

Edited July 10, 2015 by Zakuska

[Jacob]

 

Thanks for the clarification. Now, is a traditional marriage truly recognized by the gospel? It seems that if it was there wouldn't be a need for the year wait if a civil marriage was performed, yet the couple is not considered to be committing the sin because they are "married". Does this fact impact the considerations for SSM? Is this the reason for the strong stance against it? Are there sexual acts that are considered outside the acceptable "between husband and wife" that would be considered sin? This is an area where I see conflict. Personally, given my understanding of the Church, I feel that civil marriage outside the temple shouldn't be recognized either as this promotes marriage without sealing.

 

 

When my wife and I where sealed in the temple, we both looked at having to go to the county clerk for a license as an unnecessary inconvenience beings how that type of marriage has a built in divorce decree. But we have to accommodate the laws of men sometimes in our sojourn here on earth.  Not sure about the policy of waiting a year before sealing etc.

 

That is my feeling as well. It seems that a civil marriage results in children born without the benefit of the sealing. This seems counter to the teachings that I have read. Yet, the civil marriage is still viewed as valid, in a manner, by the Church. I have always felt that a member of the Church who opted for a civil marriage prior to a temple sealing was bypassing the proper path for an LDS marriage, usually as a means of either gaining the instant intimate gratification or as a means of avoiding the punishment of breaking the Law of Chastity.

 

By way of my background, I was LDS, but am inactive. I don't really consider myself LDS. I have a lot of background in the Church. Institute graduate and have a religious/theological library with an extensive LDS portion. One of my problems with the Church is the eternal state of couples that were not sealed, this due to my experience in trying to gain a clearance letter, something I do not wish to delve into and expound on. I am not "anti" however, some of my views, like this one, do not mesh with popular LDS belief.

 

 

Edit: I tried to alter my quote blocks and failed miserably ;-)

Edited July 10, 2015 by Jacob

[Jacob]

Zakuska: "When my wife and I where sealed in the temple, we both looked at having to go to the county clerk for a license as an unnecessary inconvenience beings how that type of marriage has a built in divorce decree. But we have to accommodate the laws of men sometimes in our sojourn here on earth.  Not sure about the policy of waiting a year before sealing etc."

 

Same with me.  I don't even know where my "license" is.  Somewhere in all the crap in my house.  I think one should even be sealed before they get the license.  We don't do any other priesthood ordinance in the Church that requires some government approval before we do it.   Why should we give the government undo praise or respect.  By having the civil one done first, we are saying that is more important than the temple part.  Not in my book.

I agree with your assessment. Give my perspective on the assessment here, I find a position against the legal position on SSM a bit superfluous.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Jacob

[Gray]

 

City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/20/city-threatens-to-arrest-ministers-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings.html

 

 

 

 

From your story:

 

 

 

But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship – and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance.

 

 

No surprise there. 

[Sleeper Cell]

Smiley McGee:

 

In response to your post # 62:

 

If you consider offering similar academic degrees as secular schools to be a religious matter then yes, i disagree with you. If you want to compare secular education in general to a shopping mall that's your problem. I don't believe that people should get special treatment because they are participating in secular activities for religious reasons. That would be privilege, not freedom.  

 

Out of curiosity, do you consider church sponsored hospitals to be secular activities?  What about disaster relief?  What about a church run food bank?  What about raising money to help starving children?  What about helping the homeless?  Outside of what occurs in the privacy of one’s own home or within the walls of a church, is there anything a church might do without being considered to be engaging in a secular activity?

[Jacob]

 

 

City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/20/city-threatens-to-arrest-ministers-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings.html

 

 

 

 

From your story:

 

 

 

But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship – and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance.

 

 

No surprise there. 

 

So, would a Mega-Church with food vendor kiosks be required by law to comply due to the presence of the business within the building? It seems that such a facility would have to fall under the same requirement.

[Zakuska]

 

 

City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/20/city-threatens-to-arrest-ministers-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings.html

 

 

 

 

From your story:

 

 

 

But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship – and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance.

 

 

No surprise there. 

 

 

This was a surprise...

 

 

"The lawsuit came the same week that the city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding that five Christian pastors turn over sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity."

 

The city wanting to dictate what can be preached about on Sunday.

 

Continuing...

 

"The lawsuit came the same week that the city of Houston issued subpoenas demanding that five Christian pastors turn over sermons dealing with homosexuality and gender identity.

What in heaven’s name is happening to our country, folks? I was under the assumption that churches and pastors would not be impacted by same-sex marriage.

“The other side insisted this would never happen – that pastors would not have to perform same-sex marriages,” Tedesco told me. “The reality is – it’s already happening.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told me it’s “open season on Americans who refuse to bow to the government’s redefinition of marriage.”

“Americans are witnesses to the reality that redefining marriage is less about the marriage altar and more about fundamentally altering the freedoms of the other 98 percent of Americans,” Perkins said.

Why should evangelical Christian ministers be forced to perform and celebrate any marriage that conflicts with their beliefs?

“This is the brave new world of government-sanctioned same-sex unions – where Americans are forced to celebrate these unions regardless of their religious beliefs,” Perkins told me.

As I write in my new book, “God Less America,” we are living in a day when those who support traditional marriage are coming under fierce attack. 

The incidents in Houston and now in Coeur d’Alene are the just the latest examples of a disturbing trend in the culture war – direct attacks on clergy.

“Government officials are making clear they will use their government power to punish those who oppose the advances of homosexual activists,” Perkins said.

I’m afraid Mr. Perkins is absolutely right.

No one should be discriminated against but have you noticed that any time a city passes a “nondiscrimination” ordinance, it’s the Christians who wind up being discriminated against?"

Edited July 10, 2015 by Zakuska

[CV75]

Because we're repeatedly getting challenges on this board now to show "specific, concrete examples" of how religious freedom is being threatened or trampled upon (I've answered such challenges on at least two occasions now), as though such examples did not exist, I have started this thread to provide such examples when I encounter them. This, of course, is meant to be an on-going and cumulative thread.

I think peer and political / economic pressure alone are active forms of constraint that many are already subject to. We are warned of this in the Book of Mormon, particularly in Ether 8 where it teaches that the bigger national scene evolves out of the hearts of men, which in the cased of threatening or trampling religious freedom, are subject to “the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men…”