The Government’s Reaction to Religion versus Sexuality
“Evidently religious freedom does not exist within the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act or the Illinois Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act.
“In our opinion, neither the State of Illinois nor the U. S. Supreme Court has the authority to tamper with the definition of marriage. God alone created marriage and declared thousands of years ago that it was to be between a man and a woman. Not two men. Not two women. We may be out of step with an increasingly anti-Christian culture, but we are in compliance with God’s design and that is what ultimately matters.
“To be absolutely clear, we cannot host a same-sex wedding even though fines and penalties have been imposed by the IL Human Rights Commission. Our policy will not be changing. We are not looking for a fight, but when immoral laws are purposely passed (or deemed constitutional) that blatantly conflict with God’s Word and when the heavy hand of government tries to force us as Christians to embrace sinful behavior, we have a moral obligation to resist and stand for Biblical truth. “It is better to obey God than men”. Acts 5:29.”
— Jim Walder, owner of TimberCreek Bed-and-Breakfast
The state of Illinois is attempting to fine and punish TimberCreek Bed-and-Breakfast for declining to host a same-sex ceremony.
When the government enforces an ordinance “protecting” sexuality, it requires action on the part of businesses and individuals — actions those persons consider contrary to their constitutionally-protected religious liberty.
That is, the government is infringing upon religious liberty to support erotic liberty.
When the government enforces an ordinance “protecting” religious liberty, it requires no action on any person’s part — it only prevents businesses and individuals from being penalized for their current conduct consistent with their faith, and it prevents one private citizen from forcing another to act a certain way.
That is, the government demands no special treatment, and prevents others from suing to obtain it.
If you don’t like a business establishment or its ideology, don’t patronize them. It’s that simple.
The greatest irony may be that those promoting erotic liberty are using the government to impose their views on others — the very thing most liberal groups claim conservatives try to do to them.
Via the Religion Clause.
ADVERTISEMENT
Dear Author,
Stop saying “religious liberty.” Start saying what is true: “Christian liberty.” You and I both know that “religious liberty” is a façade; all religions in this country are not under attack, only Christianity. Christianity (Evangelical Christianity, in particular) is the only religion in America that is being collectively punished for existing. This bed-and-breakfast lawsuit would never occur if the BnB was owned by Sunni Muslims from Pakistan; this lawsuit would never occur if the defendants were Orthodox Jews from Austria, either.
Quit saying, “religious liberty” as if all mainstream religions are treated equally in this country, because they are not; Christianity is the only religion with which the Political/Social powers-that-be are at War. Start calling it for what it truly is: Christian liberty is under attack within and without the U.S. Military.
@Anonymous Patriot,
The phrase “religious liberty” used above had a specific reference: Legislation passed in multiple states called for the protection of religious freedom by preventing religious adherents of any faith from being required by the government to act against their religious beliefs (ie, celebrate the “wedding” of homosexuals). (In fact, Illinois has such a statute, as cited above.) In a few states that legislation was defeated or vetoed in favor of the “protection” of sexual “freedom,” and in Illinois the law protects sexuality but apparently not religion.
Ultimately, the principle for which we should advocate, and the constitutional principle members of the military arguably defend, is religious liberty. When the government (in this case, a state) acts as it did, it demonstrably proves it is not protecting religious liberty, which the Constitution requires. Thus, it is easy to articulate that the government is not adhering to its constitutional duties. To use the phrase “Christian liberty,” while arguably correct, would muddy the water and open the door to accusations of advocacy only for Christians, which of course isn’t true.
It might also serve as a reminder to others. If the government can require Christians to act against their religious beliefs today, what will it do to Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, or Hindus tomorrow?