
In America, for the most part, the followers of Christ are not severely persecuted, at least not physically. That is not to say there is no persecution and that there is no bias or prejudice against Christians, at least those who ascribe to a more fundamental brand.
In 1993, President William Jefferson Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law. The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993, and a companion bill was introduced by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) on the same day. The House voted unanimously, while the Senate was three votes short of unanimity. The Law reinstated the Sherbert Test to ensure compliance with the Constitution in guaranteeing religious freedom.
The law stated that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” An exception was provided if two conditions were met. They argued that the burden was necessary to “further a compelling government interest” and that “the rule must be the least restrictive way to further the government’s interest.”
The Law was enacted as a direct result of Native Americans using peyote in their religious ceremonies and has been used to protect the religious freedom of Muslims, Jews, and any number of other religious groups or faiths, and was designed to reinforce the constitutional guarantees that we have Freedom of Religion.
That law was praised and championed by the left at the time, and their support continued until a few years ago. That was when the Left decided that the rights or desires of homosexuals trumped the religious liberties of those of biblical faith who believe that homosexuality violates the commandments of God.
In numerous cases, one in particular comes to mind. The law I am referring to was enacted in the state of Indiana. This revealed that the left, the media, and other entities desired to reverse course regarding religious liberties in some instances. They declared that in the case of a homosexual, the person holding a conviction based on their interpretation or understanding of the Bible has no religious liberty.
This is not about the individual florist, baker, or other business owner being homophobic or hating the individuals who opted for that particular lifestyle. It is about Religious Liberty and the Freedom of Religion. I was and continue to be amazed at how many on the Republican side have trended toward appeasement of the gay community and are willing to allow Religious Liberty to take a direct hit.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights articulate and mandate that we have the Freedom of Religion. Would the left, the media, and others be willing to mandate that a Muslim business be forced to bake a cake with the image of their prophet Muhammad on it? That would be an absolute violation of their religion.
Yet, when it comes to Christians holding a biblical conviction that homosexuality is in direct violation of God’s Word, they are to be forced to meet the demands made upon them regardless of their religious convictions. How is that Religious Liberty? If a business, based on its religious convictions, chooses not to violate them, it should have that right. If the public wants to withdraw patronage from that business, that is their right.
The Constitution of the United States of America should protect Religious Freedom. This issue is manufactured with the ultimate objective and, if allowed to take the planned course, will result in Selective Religious Freedom, at best, in America.
If we continue in the direction the Left desires, we will see a time when churches and ministers will be mandated, by law, to perform ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs. The penalty for noncompliance will be incarceration or heavy fines. How is that constitutional?
I do not believe that any rights we have as individuals should be violated. Our personal convictions, religious affiliation, or sexual preference are personal matters. However, forcing someone to violate their religious convictions to accommodate the demands of any group is dangerous and wrong.
For me personally, if a business did not want to provide a service for me based on the fact that I am a Southern White Christian Male, my attitude would be, “Oh well!” If you do not want my business, you will not get it. I might try to get others to avoid them, but I would not feel that they should be forced to accommodate me.
The left, media, and other activist groups are less interested in Religious Freedom than in mandating acceptance of their particular issue. I may disagree with a person’s lifestyle, and unless doing business with them violates my religious convictions, I take no issue with them.
If anyone demands that I violate my faith to accommodate someone’s preference, I take issue with that. I feel like the apostles, when commanded to preach no more in the name of Jesus, “Who should we obey, God or man?”
You can agree or disagree, and that is your right. You can disassociate with me based on my argument, which is your right. You can agree with me wholeheartedly, and that is your right. A person might say it is their religious conviction to kill infidels and, therefore, should have the right to do so with impunity; there, I draw the line. That is not a refusal of service based on religious convictions; it is a violation of our ultimate right to life.
May God bless you, and may God bless America!








