Several years ago, when the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case brought by Elane Photography, I was concerned.  This was a New Mexico business run by a husband-and-wife team who argued that their First Amendment rights allowed them to refuse service to a woman who sought to hire the company to photograph her commitment ceremony with her partner.  The couple argued that to do so would violate their ‘religious convictions.’   It was a First Amendment Case! 

In 2008, New Mexico declared that the company was ‘guilty of discrimination’ and had to pay the claimant’s attorney fees.  We had already seen the Colorado case, where a cake maker refused a gay couple’s business. I was concerned that the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.  There are many possible reasons, but in my view, it was clearly a constitutional case.  I believe they should have heard it! 

Why am I rehashing old stuff?  Because the case focused exclusively on the company’s ‘freedom of speech.’   The lawyers for the Alliance Defending Freedom said that this case would force the photographer to ‘create expression’ in violation of her beliefs and thus would be ‘compelled speech,’ not ‘free speech.’   In writing the decision, the New Mexico Court, the judge stated that the photographer could not refuse service and that it was okay to violate her 1^st Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech because it was “The Price of Citizenship.”

That statement disturbs me to my core!  I have talked to a number of people who have chosen the lifestyle of the couple wanting their ceremony photographed.  All but one of them said exactly the same thing, “If a business doesn’t want my business, I don’t want to do business with them.”  One argued that it was incumbent upon all homosexuals to be vocal, file lawsuits, and demand their rights.  My question is, “When does one person’s rights trump another?  Where is the line of separation protecting the rights of both parties?” 

That is the Point of Discussion – “Did our Founding Fathers truly envision a country where the ‘Price of Citizenship ’ included the violation of one’s conscience and trumped over ‘freedom of speech’?”  Under the freedom of speech clause, the courts have ruled that someone can ‘burn the flag.’  Yet, somehow, they cannot refuse service based on religious convictions.  What constitutional basis allows the courts to decide that a person’s religious convictions are unimportant and not covered by the Bill of Rights and Constitution of these United States? 

In today’s America, we have morphed into a place where we are being forced to accept every culture with no expectation of assimilation into our society.  Schools, communities, and courts have decided that the flag of another nation can be flown on particular holidays but not the American flag because it might be offensive and be considered ‘hate speech.’ 

My questions are, “Are we still The United States of America?  Do we not still have a Constitution?  Is there no longer a Bill of Rights defining our liberties?”  How is it that it is okay to demand that we be tolerant of all religions other than Christianity?  At the same time, our government takes actions that force people to violate their religious convictions.  Is that what the Founders envisioned?  I think not!

The Price of Citizenship seems to mean that if you are a Christian and have religious convictions, you must abandon them.  If you are like Daniel, who refused to compromise your convictions, you are labeled a hater!  You become one whom the government has decided must be put in your place and taught a lesson.    

Some argue ‘Separation of Church and State’ while ignoring that this is the other side of that coin.  Here, the State dictated what the church could and could not believe. The Constitution and Bill of Rights sought to prevent a National Church, not keep any religion out of government or the influence of the Bible out of political decisions. This war extends to those who hold any view other than the accepted liberal ideology of the Statist! 

The Price of Citizenship seems to be rapidly expanding to mean that we must comply with the ideology of the various vocal activist groups. Under this premise, we seem to have no rights if our rights conflict with theirs. The Rights of those on the Left seem to trump the rights of conservatives, constitutionalists, and those holding to traditional moral and religious values. 

The idea of the Price of Citizenship has become a weapon of the Left.  Those on the Left have no such price, only those holding traditional Christian Religious views or Conservative Constitutional Values.  The values and beliefs of those following Islam, in the eyes of the courts, trump the rights of Christians and Conservatives.  Therefore, the Price of Citizenship seems to mean that if one is a Christian holding deep religious convictions, those convictions are not allowed.  The Constitution in its original form affords us Freedom of Speech and Religion, but not the Leftist government or courts.

I am concerned about the phrasing – ‘The Price of Citizenship.’  I am deeply concerned about where it will lead and what it will encompass in the coming days.  America, if we love the Constitution and value our freedom, we must insist that our constitutional liberties are preserved.  Whether this was a good or bad business decision is irrelevant. It was a stance based on ‘faith,’ ‘religious convictions, and ‘constitutional liberties.’

May God be with you as you go through your day!