Monday, April 3, 2017

Legal Protection is Needed for Christians Facing Discrimination


In a recent incident, Wyoming Judge Ruth Neely told a reporter she wouldn’t conduct unnatural marriage ceremonies, even though she is not required by law to perform such rites.  However, just telling a reporter got her in trouble, and she was censured by state legal authorities.

Barbara Weller, an attorney with the National Center for Life and Liberty, tells OneNewsNow there’s a strong need for accommodation of people with religious beliefs.  “For instance,” Weller says, “if a Muslim entertainer didn’t want to sing at an Easter sunrise service, [she] should be accommodated for that.  If a bakery was asked to bake a cake for the Ku Klux Klan, [it] ought to be able to not do that.”

But, as Weller points out, it seems that only Christians who have religious beliefs against same-sex ‘marriage’ are experiencing discrimination, which she says is unconstitutional.  The remedy could take one of two forms according to Weller:
First, President Trump could issue an executive order protecting religious freedom.
A second option, she says, would be “a federal religious liberties bill that would actually allow for Christians or other religious people who have an objection to same-sex marriage to be able to become, in a sense, conscientious objectors.

“That’s really what they are,” she continues.  “They’re just like pacifists who don’t want to go to war, and the country’s always recognized conscientious objectors.”

Weller stresses that such executive or legislative action is needed to protect people from having their religious freedom subverted by activists with social agendas.

Fact is: There are plenty of judges, bakers, photographers, clergy, entertainers more than willing to provide their services to same-sex ‘marriages’ … but the gay activist attacks (agenda) is clearly on Christians of conviction.

Rev. Dr. Kenneth L. Beale, Jr.
Chaplain (Colonel-Ret), U.S. Army
Pastor, Ft. Snelling Memorial Chapel

1 comment:

  1. Maybe another option would be to abide by the 1st amendment as the founders meant it to be. Maybe congress could ask judges how they come up with such strange interpretations of the Constitution. I think religious freedom was meant for all. I don't always like it but if freedom is to mean anything it must be for all.

    ReplyDelete