Thursday, August 22, 2013

Government: Christians Can Be "Rehabilitated," Homosexuals Cannot

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Recent actions are making it clear that there are those in government who believe that Christians can be "rehabilitated," but homosexuals cannot.

New Jersey Governor, Republican Chris Christie signed a bill Monday banning "reparative therapy" for people with same sex attractions.

He said he believes people are born that way and that homosexual sin is not sin.

He also noted that he was relying on "the advice of experts."

However, the "experts" he is referring to are not saying what he says they are saying.

Another government official is saying Christians who oppose homosexual behavior on the grounds of their Christian and biblical faith should be "rehabilitated."

Christie's bill is almost identical to a couple of bills in California.

The Christie matter is of particular importance in that he will likely run for president in the next election and the Republican Party, should he be nominated, will tell Christians that although we do not agree with him on everything, he is "better than the alternative," whomever that may be---probably Hillary Clinton.

That's what they said about Dole, McCain and Romney. They'll say it again. Christie is also pro-abortion.

But these actions touch on an even more important issue. Religious freedom. These actions hit at the very heart of Christianity itself, which is a message of redemption.

The American Psychological Association Task Force report, to which Christie refers, actually says, "There is no evidence of benefit of change therapy and there's no research at all with regards to minors."

Pacific Justice Institute has filed suit against similar laws in California.

Brad Dacus, with PJI, says this is both a religious issue and a free speech issue.

I agree.

He says, "The question here isn't if sexuality comes from birth or not; the question is 'Should we allow the government to restrict religious and constitutional freedoms because a forceful LGBT lobby says we should?' The answer is a resounding 'No'."

There is another part of this action taken by Christie and others.

Pastor Robert Jefferess, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, TX., raised earlier this week.

In regards to Chris Christie signing this bill into law, Pastor Jefferess said, "Think about the hypocrisy of this. Chris Christie signs a bill banning gay-conversion therapy. So he is saying it is illegal and wrong to try to change the orientation of a person from gay to straight---But [in Oregon] you have people who are trying to change and convert people from heterosexual to the homosexual agenda. Apparently that kind of 'rehabilitation' is okay."

The "people" in Oregon whom he mentions is the state government.

Remember "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" in Gresham Oregon? A lesbian couple wanted them to cater their "wedding". The owners, Aaron and Melissa Klein, are biblical Christians. They declined the lesbian business on the grounds of their biblical belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. A deeply held religious belief---a matter of conscience.

The lesbians filed a formal complaint against the Kleins.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor is investigating the issue.

The Oregonian quotes the Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian as saying, "The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate."

He hopes he doesn't have to shut down their business because they acted on their religious beliefs. He would rather "rehabilitate" them.

Rehabilitate biblical Christians.

Abvakian said, "We want them to learn from that experience."

One of the attacks we consistently hear toward biblical Christians is that we are "intolerant" because we believe in absolute biblical Truth. We believe in unchanging Truth and principles as taught in the Bible, as opposed to "evolving progressive truths."

We are becoming accustomed to being labeled as "extreme" and "bigoted" for these beliefs.

This, however, takes these attacks to the next level.

The word "rehabilitation" suggests a sickness or ailment. "Rehabilitation" is what the government programs attempt for drug addicts and hardened criminals.

What will happen to Aaron and Melissa if they refuse "rehab" or are not successfully "rehabilitated" and fail to change their beliefs?

The idea of "rehabilitating" Christians because they accept biblical teaching on homosexual behavior strikes at the very heart of the Christian message---the gospel.

The message of Christianity is redemption and Amazing Grace---"I once was lost, but now I'm found; was blind, but now I see."

This is not the America Noah Webster and the other Founders knew and envisioned.

Noah Webster said, "No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."

Secular progressives are brick by brick, stone by stone, dismantling the greatest nation in the history of the world.

They are incrementally undermining the foundations of our liberty as they continue to erode our religious freedom.

People of faith must awaken.

This is why I write this column every day. It is why I am on the radio every day.

Thank you for standing with me.

Be Vigilant. Be Informed. Be Active. Be Bold. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.


  1. Get off your emotional high horse and pay attention to reality. Avakian was talking about rehabilitating the BUSINESS to follow Oregon law, not the individuals.

    It doesn't matter what the owner's personal beliefs are, a business in Oregon must follow Oregon law. Plain and simple. And rather than shut it down, he's giving the business another chance to follow the law. Otherwise known as rehabilitation.

    We're not dismantling this country. Expanding civil rights historically has always resulted in a stronger and better America. I challenge you to name one time in history that it hasn't.

    1. When was Civil Rights ever expanded by taking the Civil rights of others ?

    2. Discrimination against protected classes was never a civil right to take away.

  2. It does matter what the person's beliefs are. The business reflects owner's beliefs. If Oregon law is interpreted to mean that business owner's have no right of conscience in regard to sincerely held religious beliefs, it is immoral and should be changed. Everyone deserves a right of conscience. Even you.

    And civil rights have always been defined on the basis of physical and indisputable attributes. Sexual orientation does not satisfy this definition. This is not a civil rights issue. It is an issue of having a right to conscience.

    1. "The business reflects owner's beliefs"

      So, if the owner truly believes that blacks have the mark of the demon, it's ok to refuse service to them? Or make them use different drinking fountains than the non-marked people?

      While business owners have the right to be prejudiced, any licensed businesses themselves can't be operated in a discriminatory manner - it's the law and it's a good one. Avakian was very generous with the catering business.

    2. Interesting that you pick an example that truly fits the definition of civil rights: a physical and indisputable characteristic. We are in agreement on that one. Sexual orientation is not a civil rights issue.

    3. Thank you, you've just validated my point. The example was to illustrate the problem with letting businesses discriminate based on the owner's 'deeply held religious beliefs'.

      Until recently, the Mormon church taught that the Mark of Cain was black skin. I promise you that many, many Mormons still believe that as a 'deeply held religious belief'. What if they didn't want to do business such people?

      So are you now saying that some deeply held religious beliefs should allow you to violate the law, but not all?

    4. 1001 if your point was validated it was only from your own perception and bias .

      First your comparing someone going to a wedding to serve a homosexual wedding to Mormons discriminating against blacks .Are you comparing this to Mormons not catering a black wedding ?

      Would it be Ok for homosexual owners to refuse to cater a religious ceremony by the Phelps group ?

      I could see your point if they came to your business and you refused service , but actually participating in the wedding , that is not close to discrimination against blacks , whites or homosexuals . The wedding was the problem . If blacks were catering a polygamous wedding it would be the same thing . The point was the wedding , not the homosexuality . If the homosexuals were having a party for their child and the folks refused to cater it because they were homosexuals I would side on the homosexual .

      Marriage is basic Christianity , the Bible is full of comparisons to marriage , between Christ and his church , and with individuals in the Marriage Covenant .

      In either case I feel bad for both parties , for the homosexual who felt insulted and the business who dragged thought the slime and mud .

      What is validating the point is your comments that show an obvious vindictiveness for a basic common Christian belief that has been accepted for thousands of years , Plus your hatred of Christians shown on these blogs . Christian and Jewish Bibical beliefs Has kept a standard for families to be intact for the betterment of families , communities and children . .Where the natural mother and father were the standard for the child . Religious marriage supports this , state marriage does not , however the conscience of the believer may see the covenant beyond legal definitions . Have a little tolerance . Comparing it to racism is pathetic.


  3. Who ever just wrote the comment comparing homosexuality to the black community is "reaching" and creating an unreal situation! It doesn't make sense to use an example that is unreal just to make your point! My advice is to take a couple college level debating classes and then come back and make an argument!

    Comparing someone with a "sexual preference" to someone who is ethnic is extremely insulting to those who have had to face generations of discrimination. You obviously are not from an ethnic family, as I am, so please stop comparing! African Americans were forced in to slavery, Native Americans were viewed with out a soul, and you want to say they are persecuted for having to buy a wedding cake somewhere else?? Wake up and show some compassion toward those who are trying to live by a different standard than you! What is next? Should we make the Jewish community sell Christmas cookies or the Muslims eat pork because someone "wants" them to?

    1. It would have been a good point if this debate was about who qualifies for civil protections, but it's not.

      Rather, this discussion is about the problems with letting businesses discriminate based on the owner's 'deeply held religious beliefs'.

      As I responded to 8:58, the point is that most of us would agree that allowing a business owner to discriminate based on race would be wrong even if it was based on their 'deeply held religious beliefs' (Mormon). The law is the law and must be followed or changed.

      Plus, the law doesn't determine WHAT you have to sell, just that you can't discriminate on who you sell TO. It doesn't say that a Jewish community has to sell Christmas cookies, rather it says that whatever they sell, they have to sell to everyone, not just to Jewish people. Maybe you should have taken college courses in logic, rather than debate.

  4. Color of skin and sexual behavior are not equivelant. Sexual behavior is not a civil right. You are in denial.

    1. Please re-read the post, it is not about who qualifies for civil protections. It is about the problems of letting businesses opt out of the law anytime it's contrary to their deeply held religious beliefs.

    2. 11:02

      If I understand you right, you brought up the comparison between sexuality and race.

      Remember the sign "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone", it applies here.

      Craig in Lacey

    3. 10:56

      No, there was no comparison from the basis of who should or shouldn't be protected.

      There was simply a statement that if it's ok for businesses to violate the law based on 'deeply held religious beliefs', that sometimes those personal religious beliefs might be against people YOU think should be protected - ie: blacks. There are people who would prefer not to serve blacks because of their own 'deeply held religious beliefs'. Your support for religious exemptions would also support discrimination against blacks if it was based on religion. You can't have it both ways.

      If you want the right to refuse service to anyone at all, change the law, but until you do, the law is the law if you want a business license in Oregon.

    4. Regarding public accommodation Oregon requires that 3 classes that are totally choice not be used to preferentially accept or deny service - religion, pregnancy status, and marital status.

      As to those thinking this is somehow wrong or illegal, a public accommodation by definition is marketing to the public, and the public - by legal political mechanisms - have passed these laws that say these qualities and more can not be used as 'litmus tests' on the acceptability of a customer. The business markets to the public, it has to follow the laws the public has passed to regulate these transactions.

      Further the federal Supreme Court has ruled already that public businesses can not use a religious litmus test to decide if they will do business with a customer or not in a 9-0 ruling.

      That is the double edged sword of religious freedom - you have it but so does everyone else. The law from the federal government on down has said a business can't refuse to do business with a customer because they don't approve of their beliefs or the legal acts that naturally flow from those beliefs and that is exactly what this business is trying to do.

      So no religious litmus tests for customers and do business in compliance with the laws the public have passed to regulate such business.

      Of course I have a problem wrapping my mind around why anyone calling themselves Christian would be refusing the work anyway but that is neither here nor there.

    5. We refuse the work because homosexual "marriage" is an abomination. Why people don't understand that when God's laws and man's laws contradict, Christians are commanded to follow God. Those calling themselves Christians who seek to be "of the world" will compromise, those only "in the world" will not.

      It matters not what the Supreme Court says, it matters what the Supreme Being says.....

      If the gov. commands something God forbids, we can't obey....if the gov. forbids something God commands, then we can't comply.

      End of story.

      Craig in Lacey

    6. And if people were being compelled to have same sex marriages themselves you might have a point, but they aren't. Just all exercising their own God given right to choose for themselves and the Amercian right to do commerce regardless of belief.

      In a WWJS? response about the recent New Mexico Supreme Court decision that said a wedding photographer couldn't discriminate against a same sex couple, Christian Don Smith speculated this point of view:

      What would Jesus say to a wedding photographer who was forced by the law to take pictures at a same-sex commitment ceremony?

      "Did somebody appoint you judge when I wasn't looking? Pull up your big girl pants and get to work! They're paying you - not compelling you to serve them for free. Go make some money...and be sure to give them more than they expect. Love your good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you. You prayed for me to prosper your business - don't turn up your nose at my answer. You want to complain about it? Where were you when I made the world?"

  5. Jesus would say "Do not do as the pagans do". He said be 'in the world', not 'of the world'. Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality in God's eyes, He is very clear about this as you know. Jesus said 'don't be unequallly yoked to unbelievers'.

    It was Caesar's right under Roman law to execute anyone who refused to worship him. What would Jesus say about a believer who refused to take a pinch of incense to throw in the fire while saying Caesar is Lord?

    "Well done my good and faithful servant"

    I am prepared to go to prison, be tortured, killed, whatever before I will deny my Lord.

    Compromise for expediency? Go along to get along? Don Smith can compromise, that's his right. I and many others will not, which is ours. They'll be selling ice cubes in ---- before I toe the secular progressive atheist line.

    Again, it matters not ONE IOTA what the Gov., the courts, the U.N., or anybody else says. God"s word is preemminent.

    As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

    Craig in Lacey


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.