Today's Paper Latest stories Obits Rex Nelson Wally Hall Traffic Newsletters Weather Puzzles
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

There are two important cases in the U.S. Supreme Court with major implications for our First Amendment rights of free speech and the free exercise of religion.

One involves a Christian florist in the state of Washington who would not design a floral arrangement to celebrate the wedding of a homosexual couple. On Tuesday the Supreme Court began hearing a case involving a Christian baker from Colorado asked to design a specialty cake celebrating the wedding of a gay couple with messages he said violated his religious beliefs.

In both cases the shop owner did not refuse to serve these couples in other situations and offered to sell them wedding products without anything endorsing same-sex marriage. This did not stop local state courts from levying heavy fines against the shop owners for sexual discrimination.


During his campaign for president in 2008, in an interview at Saddleback Church in California, Barack Obama stated, "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix."

Since then, he has stated his beliefs have evolved. His aide, David Axelrod, said he lied.

In either case, these two shop owners, as well as many Christians, still believe, as President Obama stated, "that marriage is the union between a man and a woman ... as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix." This belief guides their actions and their decisions.

As Americans, we have a long history of accommodating religious beliefs even when they are out of step with the beliefs of the majority. After much persecution, the courts finally ruled that because of their religious beliefs Jehovah's Witnesses did not have to pledge allegiance to the flag even when required to do so in schools and in public places.

We have permitted conscientious objectors who, for religious reasons, refuse service in the armed forces, even when others are called on to serve our country in time of war. There are many other cases where the religious rights of the minority were protected even when it violated laws intended for the majority.

The LBGT movement rivals the NRA in its zeal to enforce its agenda on others. These business owners are being persecuted not because of discrimination but because their beliefs are the same as President Obama's 2008 statement that "marriage is the union between a man and a woman."

Even the ACLU, which has previously supported the free-speech rights of groups such as the American Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan, is supporting the government in denying these Christians their civil liberties of free speech and the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In the Old Testament book of Exodus, while Moses was on Mount Sinai receiving the Ten Commandments, the people pressured his brother Aaron to use his ability as a goldsmith to make an idol for them to worship. Aaron gave in to the pressure to go along with the crowd. Because of his actions, Aaron and those who worshiped this idol were not allowed to enter the promised land.

Because of their religious convictions, these two Christian business owners are being forced into a situation similar to Aaron's. Unlike Aaron, they have said they must obey God rather than men.

Whether you support same-sex marriage or oppose it, you should be alarmed by the way this case has been prosecuted. If the courts can persecute and bankrupt these people because of their beliefs, they can do it to anyone.

In our nation, if one person does not enjoy freedom of speech and religion, no one does.

------------v------------

Ron West, Ph.D., of Little Rock is a retired math professor and missionary who lived in Asia for 30 years.

Editorial on 12/08/2017

Print Headline: Rights at stake

Sponsor Content

Comments

You must be signed in to post comments
  • 23cal
    December 8, 2017 at 7:26 a.m.

    " a Christian baker from Colorado asked to design a specialty cake celebrating the wedding of a gay couple with messages he said violated his religious beliefs." This claim, the foundation of the article, is a falsehood.
    He wasn't asked to bake a specialty cake, it didn't get that far. As soon as the baker found out it was to be a wedding cake for two gay men, he refused to serve them. There were no messages that violated his religious beliefs, it didn't get that far. There was absolutely no discussion about messages, even were it to be something as simple as "Love" or "Congratulations" or "Bill and Jerry". Also, cakes don't "celebrate" anything. Cakes are inanimate objects which may be used in a celebration, but cakes don't celebrate. One would think the folks who always say guns don't kill people would grasp this.
    *
    "The LBGT movement rivals the NRA in its zeal to enforce its agenda on others." What "agenda" would that be, exactly? Here is the "gay agenda" as I see it:
    It includes the right to serve, fight and even die on behalf of our country in the military; the right to earn a living by working hard and being judged wholly on the quality of their work; the right for teenagers to attend high school without being shoved, punched or otherwise attacked; and yes, the right to express not only love for another person, but a willingness to be legally as well as morally responsible for his or her well-being. In short, same legal rights as everyone else. Gee.....what zealots.
    *
    " These business owners are being persecuted not because of discrimination but because their beliefs....." Horse pucky. They are being PROSECUTED (not persecuted) because of their actions, not because of their beliefs. Their actions were to break the law and to discriminate against a traditionally persecuted minority. The chutzpah to claim they are the persecuted because they weren't allowed to illegally persecute others is mind-boggling.
    *
    "Even the ACLU..... is supporting the government in denying these Christians their civil liberties of free speech and the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment. The pretense that a baked product is "speech" is silly. Free exercise of religion doesn't give people the right to break generally applicable laws which are religiously neutral. This is like claiming stopping people from murdering is denying their free exercise of religion if their religious belief includes human sacrifice, or stopping pedophiles if their religious belief---like FLDS---includes marrying off underage girls to middle-aged men. Simply, "free exercise" doesn't absolve people from religiously neutral generally applicable laws.
    *
    "...these two Christian business owners are being forced into a situation similar to Aaron's." If they don't want to follow the laws applicable to their business, they should get into a different line of work. They aren't being "forced" to do anything.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT