Click on the arrow below to listen to this story |
After many years of state governments aggressively pursuing Christian business owners who take their faith seriously, some courts are starting to stand up to prevent the bullying.
There is no question that the alphabet soup of organizations promoting sexual confusion work to target Christian business owners simply to make a point.
Then, they use anti-discrimination laws to force Christians to abandon their faith and force them to use their creative ability to support messages that are clearly contrary to their beliefs.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a ruling that said the anti-discrimination laws must yield to the Constitution, which protects free speech.
“Indeed, if Minnesota were correct, there is no reason it would have to stop with the Larsens. In theory, it could use the MHRA to require a Muslim tattoo artist to inscribe ‘My religion is the only true religion’ on the body of a Christian if he or she would do the same for a fellow Muslim, or it could demand that an atheist musician perform at an evangelical church service,” wrote Judge David Stras.
The issue is far from over. The United States Supreme Court needs to step up and recognize that faith doesn’t stop simply because a business owner turns on the open sign.
From the Christian Post:
An appeals court has ruled in favor of a Christian couple who oversee a film company that were told by Minnesota officials that they must film same-sex weddings despite religious objections.
“The district court also ruled that the Larsens could not seek relief on various other constitutional theories. We largely agree that these claims fail. But one—the free-exercise claim—can proceed because it is intertwined with their free-speech claim.”
The full story can be found at www.christianpost.com.
In a related story, the Kentucky Supreme Court will take up a case in which a Christian T-shirt maker was ordered to create shirts for the Lexington Pride Festival.
“The evidence is clear that Hands On Originals serves everyone—and just doesn’t print certain messages,” ADF counsel Joe Campbell told the justices on Friday. “The First Amendment in this case cuts in Hands On Originals’ favor—[it] ensures that the government can’t use a law to force someone to print or convey a message that they find objectionable.”
That story can be found at www.newsweek.com.
