John R. Houk
© June 23, 2017
I received an update yesterday from the American
Family Association (AFA) celebrating the 5th Circuit
Appellate Court spanking an earlier Federal Court decision to strike down a Mississippi State law protecting the Rights
and Liberties of Christians against the ungodly LGBTQ militants who enjoy forcing their homosexual beliefs down
the throats of Christians.
I avoid reading the Leftist-oriented Mainstream Media (MSM)
reports because of their hatred of Conservative America values. Actually, when
I Googled confirmation of the AFA alert, I was not at all surprised at
the majority of MSM links deriding the 5th Circuit Appellate Court
for damning the poor ungodly homosexuals of the militant LGBTQ.
This is what I am going to do. I am going to cross post the
brief AFA email alert followed by a Daily Signal article on the 5th
Circuit Appellate Court decision. In my humble opinion, The Daily Signal
had the best report. Many other Conservative-oriented news sites even
referenced The Daily Signal analysis. Nonetheless, here are a few titles
from Conservative media also reporting on the victory for Christian religious
Freedom in Mississippi:
o
5th Circuit Removes Injunction; Allows
Protections Against Religious Discrimination; By Kaylee
McGhee; Liberty
Headlines; 6/23/17
o
COURT PROTECTS CHRISTIAN BAKERS FROM
DEMANDS THEY PROMOTE HOMOSEXUALITY: Appeals judges rule 'gays' don’t have
standing to challenge Mississippi law; By BOB UNRUH; WND;
6/22/17
Let us pray the many more
States follow suit and declare Religious Freedom outweighs homosexuals forcing
their ungodly beliefs on Bible observing Christians. Perhaps the U.S. Congress
passing a Bill protecting the Freedom and Liberty of ALL Christian American
citizens.
JRH 6/23/17
******************
Sent by Tim Wildmon,
President
Sent 6/22/2017 3:21 PM
Sent 6/22/2017 3:21 PM
Sent from American
Family Association
Great news! This afternoon, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
(federal court in New Orleans) upheld the Mississippi "Protecting Freedom
of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act" or HB 1523. This law protects
people of faith – including Christians – from being forced to participate in a
wedding ceremony between two homosexuals, along with other protections. I
interviewed Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant a little while ago. You can hear that short conversation here.
Religious freedom has been
under assault in our country, especially against Christians. This decision is
another reason to give thanks to the Lord today! AFA thanks our friends at the Alliance Defending
Freedom for taking this case up on behalf of the people of Mississippi.
If our mission resonates with
you, please consider supporting our work financially with a tax-deductible donation.
The easiest way to do that is through online giving. It is easy to use, and
most of all, it is secure.
Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association
American Family Association
+++
Circuit Court Win for
Religious Freedom on Gay Marriage
June 22, 2017
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled unanimously on
Thursday that a Mississippi law that
protects religious liberty and the rights of conscience in light of the
redefinition of marriage may go into effect.
In the decision, the circuit
court overruled a previous judgment from a district court judge who had
declared the Mississippi law unconstitutional for violating the Establishment
Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.
But as the circuit court
pointed out, the challengers to Mississippi’s law lack standing because they
“have not clearly shown injury-in-fact.” In other words, they did not show how
the Mississippi law protecting liberty for people who hold to the
pre-Obergefell v. Hodges definition of marriage harmed them.
The court explained that the
“failure” of the “plaintiffs to assert anything more than a general stigmatic
injury dooms their claim.”
While the ruling focused on
the lack of standing of the plaintiffs, there are plenty of reasons to rule in
favor of the constitutionality of laws like Mississippi’s on the merits.
As Sherif Girgis and I
explain in our new book, “Debating Religious Liberty and
Discrimination,” there is nothing scandalous about protections for
particular views that are at odds with those on which the government acts.
When the government takes
Americans to war, exceptions cover pacifists. When the government guarantees
abortion, exceptions cover pro-lifers. These exemptions don’t amount to
establishments of any religion, and neither do laws protecting dissenters after
Obergefell.
Indeed, as law professor Richard Epstein explains,
the Establishment Clause—meant to “knock down state coercion for
religion”—can’t be used to invalidate “a statute whose whole purpose was to
insulate private parties from any form of coercion.”
So, what does the Mississippi
law do? As previously explained at The Daily Signal:
§
Religious organizations,
like churches, cannot be forced to use their facilities to celebrate or solemnize
weddings that violate their beliefs.
§
Religious convents, universities, and social
service organizations can continue to maintain personnel and housing policies
that reflect their beliefs.
§
Religious adoption agencies can
continue to operate by their conviction that every child they serve deserves to
be placed with a married mom and dad.
§
Bakers, photographers, florists, and similar
wedding-specific vendors cannot be forced to use their talents to celebrate
same-sex weddings if they cannot do so in good conscience.
§
State employees cannot
be fired for expressing their beliefs about
marriage outside the office, and individual state clerks can opt out of issuing marriage
licenses so long as no valid marriage license is delayed or
impeded.
§
Counselors and surgeons
cannot be required to participate in gender identity transitioning or sex-reassignment surgeries against their
faith and convictions, while guaranteeing that no one is
denied emergency care or visitation rights.
§
Private businesses and
schools, not bureaucrats, get to set their own bathroom, shower, and locker room
policies.
This is a reasonable bill. It protects the consciences of
people who hold to the historic definition of marriage in the aftermath of the
Supreme Court redefining marriage, and it does so while avoiding the awful
outcomes that critics fear. The bill provides that the government cannot
punish, fine, or coerce specific people and organizations, in specific
contexts. It doesn’t harm anyone.
Other states should follow Mississippi’s lead in protecting
religious liberty and the rights of conscience after the redefinition of
marriage. So, too, should Congress pass protections at the federal level.
Longstanding Precedent on Abortion
There is great precedent for such protections on the
abortion issue, as Girgis and I explain in “Debating
Religious Liberty and Discrimination.”
In 1973, just months after Roe v. Wade was handed down,
Congress passed the Church Amendment, named for Sen. Frank Church, a Democrat
from Idaho.
While Roe shielded the choice to have an abortion, the
Church Amendment protected doctors’ and nurses’ choices not to perform one. It
provided that health care organizations receiving federal funds could not force
their doctors or nurses to perform or assist abortions.
Some 20 years later, Congress passed and President Bill
Clinton signed the Coats–Snowe Amendment. It prohibits the government from
discriminating against medical students who refuse to perform abortions and
medical residency programs that leave out abortion training.
And in 2004, Congress passed the Hyde-Weldon Amendment,
which keeps the government from discriminating against health care institutions
that don’t offer abortions.
Since 1973, then, U.S. policy has protected a right to
choose an abortion right alongside an individual and institutional right to
choose against facilitating one.
Our law should now do the same on marriage. It needn’t and
shouldn’t penalize private associations for their beliefs on this issue. Doing
so would make no appreciable difference to the ability of same-sex couples to
receive the goods and services they seek, but it would undermine conscience
rights for some.
So lawmakers can and should grant a categorical
accommodation.
Current Legislation
A proposed federal law would do that. Much like the Church,
Coats-Snowe, and Hyde-Weldon amendments, the First Amendment Defense Act would
protect the freedoms of citizens and organizations who hold a belief at odds
with one enshrined by courts.
Protecting pro-life consciences did not violate the
Constitution—by establishing a religion or engaging in viewpoint discrimination
or otherwise. Nor do laws protecting pacifists. Their only aim is peaceful
coexistence in the face of disagreement.
The same goes for the First Amendment Defense Act. It would
enact a bright-line rule to keep government from penalizing someone just for
acting on her belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife. It would
protect people who hold that belief for religious or secular reasons, and it
would shield organizations from losing nonprofit tax status, licensing, or
accreditation for operating by these beliefs.
But even the First Amendment Defense Act’s categorical
protections reflect a careful balance. They protect individuals, nonprofit
charities, and privately held businesses, but not publicly traded corporations,
or federal employees or contractors in the course of their work.
The First Amendment Defense Act makes clear that it does not
relieve the federal government of its duty to provide services, medical care,
or benefits to all who qualify. It must simply respect conscience in the course
of doing so.
Mississippi has shown the way forward on this issue at the
state level. And on Thursday, the 5th Circuit allowed that law to go into
effect.
Other states should offer similar protections at the state
level, and Congress should do the same at the federal level.
Protecting a New Minority
America is in a time of transition. The Supreme Court has
redefined marriage, and beliefs about human sexuality are changing.
During this time, it is critical to protect the right to
dissent and the civil liberties of those who speak and act in accord with what
Americans had always previously believed about marriage—that it is the union of
husband and wife.
Good public policy is needed at the local, state, and
federal levels to protect cherished American values. Good policy would help
achieve civil peace amid disagreement and protect pluralism and the rights of
all Americans, regardless of what faith they may practice.
________________
Christian Rights Protected
from LGBTQ Impositions
John R. Houk
© June 23, 2017
________________
Mississippi Religious
Freedom bill upheld by court!
American Family Association
P O Drawer 2440 | Tupelo, MS 38803 | 1-662-844-5036
Copyright ©2017 American Family Association. All Rights Reserved
P O Drawer 2440 | Tupelo, MS 38803 | 1-662-844-5036
Copyright ©2017 American Family Association. All Rights Reserved
_____________
Circuit Court Win for
Religious Freedom on Gay Marriage
No comments:
Post a Comment