{"id":34816,"date":"2016-04-12T00:15:23","date_gmt":"2016-04-12T03:15:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/?p=34816"},"modified":"2016-11-24T21:45:34","modified_gmt":"2016-11-25T00:45:34","slug":"the-governments-reaction-to-religion-versus-sexuality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christianfighterpilot.com\/blog\/2016\/04\/12\/the-governments-reaction-to-religion-versus-sexuality\/","title":{"rendered":"The Government’s Reaction to Religion versus Sexuality"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cEvidently religious freedom does not exist within the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act or the Illinois Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn our opinion, neither the State of Illinois nor the U. S. Supreme Court has the authority to tamper with the definition of marriage.\u00a0 God alone created marriage and declared thousands of years ago that it was to be between a man and a woman.\u00a0 Not two men.\u00a0 Not two women.\u00a0 We may be out of step with an increasingly anti-Christian culture, but we are in compliance with God\u2019s design and that is what ultimately matters.<\/p>\n

\u201cTo be absolutely clear, we cannot host a same-sex wedding even though fines and penalties have been imposed by the IL Human Rights Commission.\u00a0 Our policy will not be changing.\u00a0 We are not looking for a fight, but when immoral laws are purposely passed (or deemed constitutional) that blatantly conflict with God\u2019s 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<\/strong>.\u00a0 \u201cIt is better to obey God than men\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0 Acts 5:29.\u201d
\n— Jim Walder<\/a>, owner of TimberCreek Bed-and-Breakfast<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The state of Illinois is attempting to fine and punish TimberCreek Bed-and-Breakfast for declining to host a same-sex ceremony.<\/p>\n

When the government enforces an ordinance “protecting” sexuality, it requires action<\/strong> on the part of businesses and individuals — actions those persons consider contrary to their constitutionally-protected religious liberty<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

That is, the government is infringing<\/em> upon religious<\/strong> liberty to support<\/em> erotic<\/strong> liberty.<\/p>\n

When the government enforces an ordinance “protecting” religious liberty, it requires no action<\/strong> on any<\/em> person’s part — it only prevents businesses and individuals from being penalized for their current\u00a0conduct consistent with their faith, and it prevents one private citizen from forcing another to act a certain way.<\/p>\n

That is, the government demands no<\/em> special treatment, and prevents others from suing to obtain it.<\/p>\n

If you don’t like a business establishment or its ideology, don’t patronize them. It’s that simple.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Via the Religion Clause<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\n