Religious Freedom

Christians Discriminated Against By Gay Coffee Shop Owner

Published by Papa Giorgio

<< LANGUAGE WARNING >>

  • That’s what happens when you order a tall drip instead of a whipped, half-caf, blended, soy, mocha frappicino, blended chocolate burst!!! they brought this on themselves – Facebook Friend

Joking aside, one should know at the outset, that I agree with the coffee shop owner. He should be able to serve whom he wants and whom he does not. I posted elsewhere that if he puts up a sign saying,

  • “No One Allowed But Gay Middle-Aged Men In Borat Bathing Suits.”

He has that right – dammit! JUST LIKE a Christian business owner can deny service celebrating same-sex marriages. This should only be used as an example of Leftist hypocrisy, but people should be ready to provide FREEDOM to counter this. I will expand on this more with media and examples… this post may be long.

RED STATE notes the following about this incident:

…I don’t think I need to point out the hypocrisy here. When Indiana Pizza shop Memories Pizza merely said they couldn’t cater a gay wedding to the wrong journalist looking for a head to hunt, they were threatened, vandalized, and harassed to no end. When Colorado baker Jack Phillips refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding ceremony, politicians tried to force him into reeducation programs, and called him a Nazi. 

However, this is hardly getting a blip. It’s certainly not getting the same media attention Phillips or Memories Pizza did. This coffee shop owner will never be forced into reeducation programs, or have to go to battle within the Supreme Court to preserve his right to refuse service to people.

Apparently, if you fall into a protected group, you can be as bigoted and intolerant as you please, while demanding everyone else straight up applaud you for so much as breathing out of your right nostril.

GAY PATRIOT wryly notes this about Red States post:

Apparently, only Christians give up their Constitutional Rights when they open a business. Gays (and Mohammedans) can discriminate against anybody they want.

[….]

My favorite part is when he threatens to sodomize his boyfriend in front of them. The LGBT activists used to claim it wasn’t about buttsex, but this guy seems pretty sure… it’s about buttsex

BTW, no one would sit and watch a straight couple do the same.

In a past post of mine — “Gary Johnson Is a Cake Fascist” — an example used to compare equal application of the law (a Constitutional ideal) of Bruce Springsteen cancelling his tour in North Carolina :

Springsteen explained his decision in a lengthy statement to fans.

“As you, my fans, know I’m scheduled to play in Greensboro, North Carolina this Sunday. As we also know, North Carolina has just passed HB2, which the media are referring to as the ‘bathroom’ law. HB2 – known officially as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act – dictates which bathrooms transgender people are permitted to use. Just as important, the law also attacks the rights of LGBT citizens to sue when their human rights are violated in the workplace. No other group of North Carolinians faces such a burden. To my mind, it’s an attempt by people who cannot stand the progress our country has made in recognizing the human rights of all of our citizens to overturn that progress. Right now, there are many groups, businesses, and individuals in North Carolina working to oppose and overcome these negative developments.”

The rocker added he felt it was not the right time for him and the E Street Band to perform in North Carolina.

(Fox News)

GAY PATRIOT noted years back that Springsteen should be forced to perform in that state, using the understanding of Leftists, Christian apologist FRANK TUREK agrees:

…When Bruce Springsteen refuses to do a concert in North Carolina for moral reasons he’s a hero to the liberals and the media, which are the same thing.

Imagine what would have happened if Bruce had a wedding band that refused to perform at a gay wedding? He’d go from hero to zero!

Yet, when a conservative band, florist, or photographer refuses to work at a gay wedding for moral or religious reasons, the left and the media bully those folks mercilessly as intolerant bigots. And they do so while claiming to be against bullying and for “tolerance”! (As Ryan Anderson pointed out, if it wasn’t for double standards, liberals would have no standards.)

In America, a gay T-shirt maker should not be forced to print up anti-gay marriage T-shirts. And a Christian or Muslim photographer should not be forced to photograph a gay wedding.

If Bruce has the right to deny service, so does everyone.

One person i know succinctly posted this:

  • The free market is the great equalizer of inequities while protecting freedom at the same time.

This idea is what Barry Goldwater was running on. Freedom. Here Dennis Prager comes to the realization that his position on Goldwaters “anti-Civil Rights Act” platform was wrong all these years:

The thinking that special rights apply to different groups of people are what totalitarian regimes proffer. Here is an example of freedom being diminished, really a backfiring of Leftist ideals on the Gay Left.

Gay Patriot writes about a recent logical conclusion of the Gay Left and their wanting to force private businesses to participate in gay wedding celebrations. With all the BIG government laws their is surely an aspect of backfire involved… I mean, the BIGGER government gets, the smaller the individual is:

…But, you know, once you let that sort of idea… that the Government can force a business to labor for others against their will… you never know where that sort of thing is going to end up.

A Denver bar has been cited by the state’s Division of Civil Rights for discrimination because it refused to let a gay man dressed in drag enter. The bar is the Denver Wrangler, and despite what its name might suggest, it is not some Country Western joint. It is, in fact, a gay bar. So the state has determined that a gay bar has discriminated against a gay person

Wha-a-a-a-a-a….?

Gay Patriot proceeds to explain the bars target audience, what in the gay lifestyle apparently are called “bears”?

… [the bar] caters to a gay subculture known as “Bears,” which are bisexual or gay males which tend to place importance on presenting a hypermasculine image and often shun interaction with men who exhibit effeminacy. This is evident from the pictures and statements made by employees regarding the “Bear” culture of the club and several links on the Respondent’s webpage referencing “Bear” clubs … .”

That’s right… a taxpayer-paid Government employee investigated and found out about the Bear subculture and interviewed bar patrons to find out what that was.

So, Gay Fascist Left, you wanted the Government in the business of policing businesses and their clientele, and now a bear bar is being cited for twink-discrimination.

Well done.

Indeed, if wanting to strip one’s self of individual rights and freedoms… well done. But some gays “GET IT” and fight for freedom!

Even the “supposed” Libertarian candidate wants the state large enough to force, fine, and run out of business citizens acting according to their conscience. Here is the debate portion that showed Gary Johnson was a Leftist and not a Libertarian:

I even called into the Michael Medved Show to challenge Gary Johnson on this debate:

The REAL march toward freedom was realized in this GREAT EXAMPLE of these two freedom loving lesbians fighting against the LEFT in oprotecting the freedoms of a Christian T-Shirt company owner:

Gay Patriot shot me over to The Blaze’s article on this… good stuff, and I LOVE these two ladies.

Glenn Beck interviews from lesbians who disagree with the gay fascist left. [Edited for brevity and emphasis added to the really important bit that only a complete smeghead would disagree with.]

[Kathy Trautvetter and Diane DiGeloromo, a lesbian couple who own and operate BMP T-shirts, a New Jersey-based printing company, sat down with Glenn Beck Thursday night to explain why they are standing up for an embattled Christian printer who refused to make shirts for a gay pride festival.]

[….]

The lesbian couple are standing up for Christian t-shirt maker Blaine Adamson, who refused to print shirts for a gay pride festival because it compromised his values. Adamson has come under attack for his stance, but this couple supports him. The story is a microcosm for what should be happening in America as we navigate the way the world is changing.

“As a business owner, it struck a chord with me when I read the story, because I know how hard it is to build a business. You put your blood and your sweat and your tears into every bit of it. When I put myself in his place, I immediately felt like if that were to happen to us, I couldn’t create or print anti-gay T-shirts, you know, for a group. I couldn’t do it,” Kathy explained.

Diane added, “We feel this really isn’t a gay or straight issue. This is a human issue. No one really should be forced to do something against what they believe in. It’s as simple as that, and we feel likewise. If we were approached by an organization such as the Westboro Baptist Church, I highly doubt we would be doing business with them.”“Everybody votes with their dollars, you know?” Kathy said. “And why you would want to go with somebody who doesn’t agree with you, [when] there’s others who do agree with you, that’s who I want to do business with.”

Nice. If only all gay people were so tolerant and open-minded.

So ~ to be clear ~ we use this as an example of the Left being hypocrites, but offer a way that increases people’s freedom.

  • “The larger the government gets, the smaller the person gets. The smaller the government gets, the larger the individual gets.”

Leftist Ideals Exemplified ~ Cuba vs. North Carolina

Published by Papa Giorgio

Listen to “Ep. 96 – Worst. President. Ever.” on Spreaker.

Description of the above audio: Worst President Ever

Andrew dissects Obama’s insane interaction with Raoul Castro;

and discusses how a culture of narcissism weakens capitalism…

  • New York’s Democratic governor banned state travel to North Carolina this week, citing its residents’ supposed lack of equal protection under the law, weeks after he announced efforts to facilitate travel from New York to Cuba, which is ruled by a repressive communist dictatorship that routinely imprisons political dissenters. (Washington Free Beacon)

GAY PATRIOT opines well:

The left-wing Governor of New York is banning state employees from traveling to North Carolina, on the basis that barring biological males from using the women’s bathroom is the worst violation of Human Rights in the History of Everything.

On the other hand, traveling to the Communist Island Gulag of Cuba is something he supports and encourages.

[….]

I guess the difference is that northeastern leftists prefer Communists to Southern Christians; [you see,] they understand Communists.

ALLEN WEST links to this article at MENTAL RECESSION:

…Symbolism aside, this is the same Democrat Governor who recently traveled to Cuba to establish trade relations with a country notorious for their poor civil and human rights record.

Cuba has no anti-discrimination laws currently regarding the provisions of goods and services. None. They have no anti-discrimination laws regarding hate speech against particular groups. But they do have a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage.

Yet Cuomo seems perfectly fine with that.

North Carolina’s alleged intolerance – Bad. Cuba’s proven intolerance – *shrug*…

The Piecemeal Dismemberment On Religious Liberties Continues

Published by Papa Giorgio

Legal Insurrection notes the following melee churches find themselves in since the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling:

Less than 48 hours after the decision was handed down, New York Times columnist Mark Oppenheimer called for the end of tax exemptions for religious institutions.

And the piecemeal dismemberment on religious liberties continues.

Now infamous for their intolerance of Christianity, Oregon continues to be ground zero for theBiblical Principles vs. Ideological Fascism showdown.

National Review’s David French explains an emerging problem for Oregonian pastors seeking liability insurance.

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.

While denying insurance coverage is not itself an encroachment of religious liberty, lack of protection is as much a problem; one that could easily sink any independent church that winds up the defendant of a complaint….

Here is more from the National Review article (h/t to Jim G.), For Churches That Won’t Perform Same-Sex Weddings, Insurance Begins to Look Iffy

In the aftermath of Obergefell v. Hodges, pastors and church members are experiencing a wave of anxiety over what many of them deem the “nightmare scenario”: lawsuits or government action designed to force them to perform or recognize same-sex marriages. While there are — so far — no meaningful judicial precedents that would permit such dramatic interference with churches’ core First Amendment rights, lawsuits challenging church liberties are inevitable.

Indeed, the Iowa Civil Rights Commission has declared that prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity “sometimes” apply to churches and has stated that a “church service open to the public” is not a “bona fide religious purpose” that would limit application of the law. In 2012 a New Jersey administrative-law judge ruled that a religious organization “closely associated with the United Methodist Church” wrongly denied access to its facilities for a same-sex wedding.

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.

On July 1, David Karns, vice president of underwriting at Southern Mutual Church Insurance Company (which “serve[s] more than 8,400 churches”), wrote an “all states” agents’ bulletin addressing same-sex marriage. It begins: “We have received numerous calls and emails regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriages. The main concern is whether or not liability coverage applies in the event a church gets sued for declining to perform a same-sex marriage.” Karns continues:

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: Churches, you’re on your own. (National Review has tried to reach Mr. Karns and Southern Mutual’s corporate office, and they have not yet returned our calls.)

[…..]

Yet, as of July 1, it appears that thousands of American churches are more exposed than they imagined….

Tony Perkins comments on the Democrat Party, in a similar (although not in the same context and depth) fashion to Democrat Candidate Jim Webb when he said: “The party has moved way far to the left, and that’s not my Democratic Party.”

…On one hand, the Left is trying to cripple churches’ ability to fight back, and on the other, they’re trying to strip away protections for the everyday believer. Like most liberals, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz isn’t hiding the fact that religious liberty is next on her kill list, especially for individual Americans. “I think [our country] made the distinction between protecting the First Amendment rights for religious organizations or religiously-affiliated organizations and being able to discriminate, broadly, simply because of one individual who owns a business and their own values and their being able to impose those values on either their employers or their customers,” she told CBN’s David Brody.

Once again, liberals are setting up the faulty argument that religious exercise must be confined to institutions — not individuals. As any constitutional scholar would tell you, that’s a deliberate distortion of the First Amendment! It’s like saying the Second Amendment only applies in gun clubs. The reality is, and the Founders understood, religious liberty is a fundamental human freedom. In fact, it was Eleanor Roosevelt — from Wasserman-Schultz’s own party — who chaired the drafting committee of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. And it could not be more clear: “[E]veryone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

What’s happened to the Democratic Party? After 70 years, there’s nothing “democratic” about it!

New Ruling Doesn’t Leave Room For People With Religious Objections

Published by Papa Giorgio

…If you look at the way the court ruled, then you see that it opens the door to broader discrimination against churches… I predict there are going to be staged same-sex weddings just to challenge churches to marry same-sex couples, to draw attention to themselves, to get something through the courts, eventually to erode tax exempt statuses…

~ Alexander Marlow, Breitbart’s Editor in Chief

  • [As you guys/gals may know… I am a fan of getting rid of LBJ’s strings attached tax-exempt status. Once a church goes LLC, the pulpit can be truly unleashed.]

Above video:

Gay marriage advocate and author of “Speak Now: Marriage Equality on Trial” said on MSNBC’s “Melissa Harris-Perry” on Saturday that religious people will not have much freedom to discriminate gay marriage due to religious purposes, which is an “important protection for gay rights.”

“With regard to the religious liberties defenses, Chief Justice Robertson pointed out that Justice Kennedy didn’t leave much running room for people of religious objections to same-sex marriages. That’s an important protection for gay rights, that there’s no religious right to discriminate.”

Again, Gay Patriot:

…Does anyone expect the activist left to be satisfied with their political victory?  If you’ve studied the history of the Civil Rights movement, you know they didn’t stop after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. There are plenty of new frontiers for the Lesbian Gay Bullying Totalitarians to pursue and keep the donations to the Sharptons and Jacksons of the HRC and other professional activist organizations rolling in:

  • Banning disagreement or criticisms of gay behavior through “anti-bullying” and “hate speech” legislation
  • Mandating school curricula to include “gay history” as well as museums and monuments to be demanded to gay heroes like Harry Hay, Larry Bruckner, and Harvey Milk
  • Forcing religious institutions to recognize gay marriages
  • Churches must be forced to perform gay marriages or lose tax exempt status. (Mosques, probably not)

No, this is not the end. This is nowhere near the end. This is just another milestone on the road to our social Pyongyang. The Supreme Court has rejected the rule of law twice in two days in favor of the whims of a Judiciary Politburo….

Cathy Ruse likewise has a short list:

  • If your sincere beliefs prevent you from bending the knee, what recourse will you have to publicly speak out in defense of yourself, your family, your beliefs? Will your public protests come to be viewed as hate speech?
  • If you are a Christian baker, florist, banquet hall owner, printer – can you decline to participate in a same-sex wedding? If you are a Christian psychologist, is your license yanked if you help a client suffering because of unwanted same-sex attraction?
  • If you are a religious school, may you decline to house same-sex couples in your married student housing and keep your tax exempt status?
  • If you are a church which declines to perform same-sex marriages, will your property taxes remain exempt? Will the contributions on which you depend diminish because they are no longer deemed charitable contributions?
  • If the power to tax is the power to destroy, the Supreme Court has just given President Obama the power to destroy churches and institutions that do not support his “evolved” position on marriage.

The American Experiment Wanes ~ Indiana and Religious Discrimination

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is the discussion between Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University Fowler School of Law, John Eastman, and Dennis Prager about the law in Indiana and the failing American experiment:

In the second hour Dennis ruminates on the first hour and the discussion he had with Professor Eastman:

And as a bonus, I isolated Prager admitting that he was wrong and Barry Goldwater was right:

The Government Continues It’s Case Against Religious Freedom

Published by Papa Giorgio

Three main points from the brief, via Westword:

  1. The brief lays out three main complaints about the procedure. The first? Since the form “designates, authorizes, incentivizes, and obligates third parties to provide or arrange contraceptive coverage in connection with the plan,” the brief contends that “once the Little Sisters execute and deliver the Form, the Mandate purports to make it irrevocably part of the plan by forbidding the Little Sisters to even talk to the outside companies that administer their health plan, ‘directly or indirectly,’ to ask them not to provide the coverage.”
  2. In addition, the brief allows that “regardless of whether the government sincerely believes EBSA Form 700 is morally meaningful, the relevant legal question is whether the Little Sisters do. And on that point, there is no dispute: the Little Sisters cannot execute and deliver the contraceptive coverage form without violating their religious conscience. The government may think the Little Sisters should reason differently about law and morality, but their actual religious beliefs — the beliefs that matter in this case — have led them to conclude that they cannot sign or send the government’s Form.”
  3. Finally, the government’s so-called “scheme” is said to violate the First Amendment, because it has “exempted a large class of religious organizations based on unfounded guesswork about the likely religious characteristics of different religious organizations. The government has no power to discriminate in this fashion, allowing some religious organizations to survive while crushing others with fines for the identical religious exercise. This violation of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses is compounded by a clear violation of the Free Speech Clause: the Mandate both compels the Little Sisters to engage in government-required speech against their will, and prohibits them from engaging in speech they wish to make.”

Another short commentary on what took place just a couple days ago via The Daily Signal:

Some organizations are fighting back against the accommodation because it simply shifts responsibility for purchasing coverage away from the employers, and it is still the employer’s action that triggers the objectionable coverage. This bureaucratic tweak to the accommodation, issued this past August, still does not adequately protect the religious freedom of many charities, schools and other religious organizations.

Writing for the court, Judge Cornelia Pillard found that CUA and Priests for Life failed to show that the accommodation substantially burdens their religious exercise. Instead, Pillard concluded that the only harm was Priests for Life’s feelings of being genuinely “aggrieved by their inability to prevent what other people would do….” Pillard recognized that though the accommodation may violate the challengers’ conscience, it allows the challengers to “wash their hands of any involvement in providing insurance coverage for contraceptive services.”

Essentially the court determined that the accommodation is fine because it doesn’t directly force the groups to violate their conscience.

Yet a regulation can still be a substantial religious burden even if the effect is only indirect.

The U.S. Supreme Court said as much in Thomas v. Review Board over 30 years ago. In this case, a Jehovah’s Witness steelworker was denied unemployment benefits after quitting his job because he was transferred to a part of his company that made weapons. Because of his belief in non-violence, Thomas could not participate in the manufacture of weapons. In siding with Thomas, the Supreme Court noted that “[I]t is not within the judicial function and judicial competence to inquire whether [Thomas] correctly perceived the commands of [his] faith. Courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation.” Instead, the Court would defer to a religious believer’s interpretation unless the claim was so bizarre or had a non-religious motivation, elements even the government concedes do not apply to Priests for Life or the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Thus, what Judge Pillard calls “a bit of paperwork” is exactly what Priests for Life find morally wrong.

What may seem trivial to one person may give rise to a serious religious dilemma for another. For example, Orthodox Jews may not flip light switches or press buttons on the Sabbath.

In short, courts should not be in the business of line-drawing when it comes to theological questions. Though the Obama administration won the round in the battle over the abortion-inducing drug mandate before the D.C. Circuit, the fight continues with the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Canada On Verge of Banning Christians from Professional Life

Published by Papa Giorgio

Watchmen News has a great article in regards to this important case that will be heard by the Supreme Court in Canada:

An intense struggle is happening in the realm of professional licensing in Canada. The religious freedom of Christians and others is colliding on a grand scale with the “equality rights” of the LGBTQ identity group, and as the tide turns in favor of equality rights, we are starting to witness socially accepted ostracism of Christians by professional bodies.

On April 24th, the law society of Canada’s largest province voted against admitting among their ranks graduates of Trinity Western University, for the sole reason that the school’s community covenant, which students (and teachers) voluntarily sign upon admission or hiring, reserves sexual intimacy for heterosexual marriage. Nova Scotia followed suit, wording their rejection as approval on the condition that TWU change its community covenant or allow students to opt out. In British Columbia, where the school is located, the law society voted on April 11th to admit TWU graduates to the bar, but momentum is building for the law society to reverse that decision in a special meeting on June 10th.

[….]

Christians Are the New Racists

Just a few years ago, it would have sounded absurd to say that Christians who believe in traditional heterosexual marriage are akin to racists. Today this opinion is quite seriously held by an increasing number of our most prominent lawyers. B.C. Bencher Cameron Ward put it this way: “I remember that in the 1960s some people in the deep south of the United States were made to feel unwelcome at lunch counters, at the fronts of buses and, indeed, in some universities…TWU’s community covenant is an anachronism, a throwback that wouldn’t be out of place in the 1960s.” Other Benchers asked “whether we would have the same debate over discrimination against other equity-seeking groups, like women, people with disabilities or racial minorities.”

What is perhaps most concerning about these comparisons of Christianity to racism and other heinous intolerance is that they lead directly to the belief that Christians are simply not capable of practicing their professions without imperilling the rights of minority groups. Just as they would feel justified in excluding those who hold racist or misogynistic beliefs from positions of influence, so many Benchers also found it right and good to exclude Christians from the legal profession. For such lawyers, Christians have become synonymous with bigots who represent a public threat.

[….]

The current developments in Canada bring to mind a quote from Princeton Professor Robert George, who recently warned Catholics in Washington, D.C. of a nascent persecution of Christians in our society:

To be a witness to the Gospel today is to make oneself a marked man or woman. It is to expose oneself to scorn and reproach. To unashamedly proclaim the Gospel in its fullness is to place in jeopardy one’s security, one’s personal aspirations and ambitions, the peace and tranquility one enjoys, one’s standing in polite society. One may in consequence of one’s public witness be discriminated against and denied educational opportunities and the prestigious credentials they may offer; one may lose valuable opportunities for employment and professional advancement; one may be excluded from worldly recognition and honors of various sorts; one’s witness may even cost one treasured friendships. It may produce familial discord and even alienation from family members. Yes, there are costs of discipleship—heavy costs…(more)

…read it all…

With the above context in mind, Moonbat asks a series of questions: “Why are the liberals who command the government–media establishment constantly ramming homosexuality and even transsexuality down our throats lately?” Here is an answer he gives that makes sense, and why Liberals [proper] are using gay-leftists like the Palestinians are using “refugees”… for political purposes/gains.

Moonbattery continues:

Answer the second question and you have answered the first. Sexual perversion has been fundamentally transformed into a “civil rights” issue not merely to advance the cultural Marxist divide-and-conquer strategy, but to attack the Christian religion.

The campaign against Canada’s Trinity Western University is illustrative:

On April 24th, the law society of Canada’s largest province voted against admitting among their ranks graduates of Trinity Western University, for the sole reason that the school’s community covenant, which students (and teachers) voluntarily sign upon admission or hiring, reserves sexual intimacy for heterosexual marriage. Nova Scotia followed suit, wording their rejection as approval on the condition that TWU change its community covenant or allow students to opt out. In British Columbia, where the school is located, the law society voted on April 11th to admit TWU graduates to the bar, but momentum is building for the law society to reverse that decision in a special meeting on June 10th.

For TWU to renounce this covenant under pressure would be for it to renounce the faith upon which the school is based. It would be moral suicide. That’s why liberals are trying to force this to happen.

Very likely, TWU will be destroyed, either as a Christian institution, or as a university:

With same-sex marriage legalized, the public debate is now strongly weighed against Christians who believe in traditional marriage [i.e., literally all Christians, by definition], and they face rapidly mounting charges of unreasonable intolerance. During the April 11th debate by the B.C. law society (read the transcript online), some Benchers considered TWU’s covenant discriminatory because it requires gay students to abstain from intimacy “even within a legal marriage,” and because it prevents gay students “from being married by the State, a right that was hard fought and hard won.”

Nothing could be more quintessentially liberal than sanctimoniously screeching the words “discriminatory” and “intolerance” to justify intolerant discrimination against Christians.

As equality rights [i.e., homosexual privileges] have been gaining ground, religious freedom has been on the retreat. Many lawyers now argue that even a private religious school like TWU must not be allowed to “discriminate” in its hiring practices by choosing teachers who abide by its moral tenets or by expecting students to conform their behavior to the beliefs that the school espouses.

Ominously, the case is heading toward Canada’s Supreme Court, where leftists hope to achieve a major victory over Christianity.

…read more…

Much like the polygamy case in Canada, so too will we be watching what the outcome is in Canada. I wonder how long it would take for unrest once Christianity is outlawed, i-f it is outlawed.