Submitted by: Ron Branson
Court Rules Christians Must
Compromise
on Their Christian Beliefs
on Their Christian Beliefs
* * *
The
Wake-up Herald
And that, knowing the time,
that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now
is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night
is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast
off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour
of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in
rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and
wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the
Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh,
to fulfill the lusts thereof. Romans 13:11-14
_____________________________________________________________
Robert McCurry,
Editor & Publisher
August
22, 2013
____________________________________________________________
Judges order Christians to work for 'gays'
Bob
Unruh | Thursday, August 22, 2013
WND
Justices on the New Mexico Supreme Court
have ruled that the First Amendment does not protect
the beliefs of Christians, and owners of a photography
company in that state must violate their faith in
order to continue to do business.
“The Huguenins today can no more turn
away customers on the basis of sexual orientation –
photographing a same-sex marriage ceremony – than they
could refuse to photograph African-Americans or
Muslims,” the opinion from the court said.
“All of
which, I assume, is little comfort to the Huguenins, who
now are compelled by law to compromise the very
religious beliefs that inspire their lives. Though the
rule of law requires it, the result is sobering. It will
no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and
others of similar views.”
The
stunning verdict came in a case brought by lesbians
against Elane Photography. The lesbians wanted the
photographer to document their “wedding,” and the
photography company declined, citing the fact that to do
so would violate the Christian faith of the owners.
Tough
luck, said judges Edward Chavez,
Petra Jimenez Maes, Charles Daniels, Barbara Vigil and
Richard Bosson.
New
Mexico’s anti-discrimination law, which provides special
protections for homosexuals, “does not even require
Elane Photography to take photographs. The NMHRA only
mandates that if Elane Photography operates a business
as a public accommodation, it cannot discriminate
against potential clients based on their sexual
orientation.”
“Government-coerced
expression is a feature of dictatorships that has no
place in a free country. This decision is a blow to our
client and every American’s right to live free,” said
Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jordan
Lorance, whose organization worked on the case.
“Decisions
like this undermine the constitutionally protected
freedoms of expression and conscience that we have all
taken for granted. America was founded on the
fundamental freedom of every citizen to live and work
according to their beliefs and not to be compelled by
the government to express ideas and messages they
decline to support.
“We are
considering our next steps, including asking the U.S.
Supreme Court to right this wrong.”
Threatened the judges,
“At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in
our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little,
to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A
multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our
nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins are
free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they
may pray to the God of their choice and follow those
commandments in their personal lives wherever they
lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that
respect and much more. But there is a price, one that
we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.”
They added, “In the
smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of
commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have
to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to
leave space for other Americans who believe something
different. That compromise is part of the glue that
holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that
lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people.
That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we
believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting
it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the
rest of the world. In short, I would say to the
Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of
citizenship.”
As WND reported earlier, Judge Tim L. Garcia in the New Mexico Court of Appeals earlier
said that states can demand Christians violate their
faith when they choose to do so.
The
focus point of the case was the demand from Vanessa
Willock and her then-partner that Elane Photography,
owned and operated by Christians, provide their artistic
talents for a same-sex commitment ceremony, even though
the state does not recognize either civil unions or
“marriage” between parties of the same sex.
The
photographer company declined, based on its owners’
Christian beliefs, and Willock brought a discrimination
complaint, which was upheld at lower levels in the court
system.
A state
agency had found the company was guilty of “sexual
orientation” discrimination under state
anti-discrimination laws.
The
case erupted in 2006 after Vanessa Willock asked Elaine
Huguenin – co-owner with her husband, Jon Huguenin, of
Elane Photography in Albuquerque – to photograph a
“commitment ceremony” that Willock and another woman
wanted to hold in Taos.
Elaine
Huguenin declined, and the woman found someone else. The
decision by the photographer came because the ceremony
would have been in violation of her religious faith.
Willock
then took the complaint to the Human Rights Commission,
which held a one-day trial and ordered in 2008 that the
photographer pay more than $6,600 in attorneys’ fees to
Willock.
The
lower court explained in a 45-page opinion that a
photographer is a “public accommodation” and must comply
with “sexual orientation” nondiscrimination laws.
“The
owners of Elane Photography must accept the reasonable
regulations and restrictions imposed upon the conduct of
their commercial enterprise despite their personal
religious beliefs that may conflict with these
governmental interests,” the lower court wrote.
The
district court decision had come from Alan M. Malott.
Malott’s
ruling said the Christian owners were compelled to
photograph the ceremony for Willock and Misty Pascottini
because of the state’s interest in preventing
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
He
pointed out that the photographers could not decline to
photograph lesbians, but could decline to photograph
other subjects, because of the state’s rules.
“Once
one offers a service publicly, they must do so without
impermissible exception,” the judge originally on the
case wrote. “Therefore, plaintiff could refuse to
photograph animals or even small children, just as an
architect could design only commercial buildings and not
private residences. Neither animals, nor small children,
nor private residences are protected classes,” he wrote.
When
the district judge’s decision arrived, it seemed to
substantiate the concerns of opponents of a federal
“hate crimes” bill signed into law by President Obama
during his first year in office that gives homosexuals
special rights. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted in
a congressional hearing that under the measure an attack
on a homosexual would be dealt with differently than one
on another citizen.
Benjamin
Bull, chief counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, noted at that time, “Homosexuals got exactly
what they wanted. In the marketplace of ideas, one side
has now been censored. This [situation] is exactly what
homosexual activists have in mind.”
Interestingly,
a subsequent poll revealed that almost half of Americans
believe that Christians in the United States are being
persecuted by homosexual “marriage” advocates who take
legal action against them over their religious beliefs,
and almost one in three Democrats believes such
persecution is “necessary,” according to the alarming
results of a poll.
The
results are from a WND/WENZEL Poll conducted for WND by
the public-opinion research and media consulting company
Wenzel Strategies.
It
found that 49.2 percent of all respondents consider the
legal activism against Christians and their beliefs
regarding homosexuality to be “persecution.”
The
question was, “There is a trend developing in which gay
activists are filing lawsuits against people who refuse
to do business with them on moral/religious grounds –
such as when a New Mexico photographer was sued by a lesbian couple for refusing to
photograph their wedding. Knowing this, which of the
following statements most closely represents what you
think about this?”
More
than two of three Republicans called it “persecution of
Christians,” along with 45 percent of independents. Even
33.1 percent of Democrats had the same answer.
But 31 percent of Democrats, as well as 12
percent of Republicans and 24 percent of independents,
said, “Such tactics are necessary.”
Wake-up, Pastors!
Wake-up, Christians!
No comments:
Post a Comment