Caffeinated Thoughts contributor Emmett McGroarty & Jane Robbins both of whom work for American Principles Project remind readers in a recent op/ed for The Public Discourse how the religious freedom of individuals have been violated in order to defer to the homosexual agenda:

The denigration of religious freedom extends to areas of purely private, commercial conduct. Governments increasingly apply nondiscrimination statutes to force private individuals and businesses to participate in conduct that violates their religious beliefs. So far, defenses based on the First Amendment have been unavailing. Some examples:

  • The New Mexico Human Rights Commission found that a small photography business unlawfully discriminated against a same-sex couple by declining, because of the owners’ religious beliefs, to photograph the couple’s commitment ceremony (Willock v. Elane Photography).
  • The California Supreme Court ruled that doctors violated the state nondiscrimination statute by refusing, on religious grounds, to artificially inseminate a woman who was in a lesbian relationship (North Coast Women’s Care Medical Group v. San Diego County Superior Court).
  • A federal court in California found that administrators of an Arizona adoption-facilitation website were subject to California’s statute banning discrimination in public accommodations because they refused to post profiles of same-sex couples as potential parents (Butler v. Adoption Media).
  • A New Jersey agency found probable cause to believe that a church violated a public-accommodations statute by declining to rent its pavilion for a same-sex wedding (a different agency, enforcing nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, revoked the tax exemption the church had enjoyed under a statute promoting the use of private property as green space) (Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Ass’n of United Methodist Church v. Vespa-Papaleo).
  • A federal appeals court found that an employer’s denial of insurance coverage to an employee’s same-sex partner constituted illegal sex discrimination (In Re Levenson).

In none of these cases did the religious defendants discriminate against homosexuals just because of their orientation—i.e., they did not refuse to serve them in a restaurant or work on their cars or give them standard medical care. Rather, they declined to participate in an endeavor, such as same-sex marriage or adoption, which was inconsistent with their religious beliefs. But the courts and agencies found that nondiscrimination trumps religious values. The courts will not protect a for-profit business that wants to operate according to biblical principles.

This further demonstrates why we must have a Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Iowa (among other states).

Originally posted at American Principles in Action

You May Also Like

Parler and MeWe Surge As Conservatives Look for Facebook, Twitter Alternatives

Parler is in the top spot on the free app chart for iPhone and Android phone users, MeWe lands in the 3rd spot for iPhone users and 4th for Android users.

Supreme Court Asked to Stop Government Discrimination Against Church Signs

The U.S. Supreme Court was asked to reverse a split 9th Circuit Court decision that allows local governments to impose stricter regulations on temporary church signs.

Zimmerman Verdict Is Just

The Florida jury’s verdict is just finding George Zimmerman not-guilty of 2nd-degree murder and manslaughter after shooting Trayvon Martin in self-defense.

President Trump Declares January 22 National Sanctity of Human Life Day

Since January 22 marks the 45th year since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, along with its companion case Doe v. Bolton, that purported to legalize killing a pre-born baby’s life for any reason and at any stage of development, President Donald Trump proclaims today as National Sanctity of Human Life Day.