Thursday, October 09, 2014

The New Freedom: "Leave Your Religion At Home"

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

A state Human Rights Commission examiner has sent a chilling message to all Christians, particularly those who own businesses.

"Leave your religion at home"....."Or else."

The HRC Executive Director, Raymond Sexton, charged with carrying out the punishment says he himself is a Christian.


He says "it would be safe to say" that you should leave your religion at home "Or in this case, you can find yourself two years down the road and you're still involved in a legal battle because you did not do so."

And under the force of the law, you will among other punishments, as in this and other cases, be forced to undergo "diversity training" designed to "reorient" your beliefs.

Can Christians "leave their religion at home" and live biblically?

In 2012, WTVQ TV reported that a "hearing officer ruled in favor of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission in its complaint against Hands On Originals," a Christian owned business.

The complaint was filed after the business owner declined to print t-shirts for the 2012 Lexington Pride Festival.

The ruling was reported to the public yesterday.

Sexton told Todd Starnes that this was a "landmark decision"---"It is a very important ruling for us."

A celebration of forcing people to leave their religion at home, or else, is important to them.

It's interesting that owner Blaine Adamson has done business with homosexuals in the past when he did not feel the message contradicted his religious biblical beliefs and his conscience.

That's not enough in this hyper-ventilated, so-called "equality" movement. The call is not for equality of freedom, but for the freedom to silence those who disagree on religious grounds. And to do so with the full force of the law.

A similar case is in process in here in Washington State.

Arlene's Flowers and Gifts in Richland is in court with similar charges filed against the owner Barronell Stutzman.

Barronell, a great grandmother and small business owner, has been charged with declining to provide flowers for a homosexual couple's "wedding." She, as with Adamson, has done business with homosexuals in the past, including the pair that filed charges against her. She simply cannot participate in a homosexual "marriage" because of her biblical beliefs.

Neither she nor Adamson harbor hate for the people, it's a matter of deeply held biblical beliefs and their right to live by their beliefs.

I spoke with Barronell yesterday. She asked me to tell my readers and radio listeners "thank you" for your prayers, and the extra business. People have been phoning in orders from outside the Tri-Cities in support of her.

She has been told the legal ruling against her, because of her religious beliefs, will take about "5 years and $500,000."

The Stormans family in Olympia have been in court for years, at great expense, because of their religious belief in the sanctity of life and their refusal to carry certain abortion pills in their pharmacy.

These actions are motivated by faith, not hate.

Adamson says he "declined to print the shirts not because of any characteristic of the people, but because of the message that the shirts carried."

Last year a similar case was filed against a baker in Oregon. He too was required to undergo "diversity training" and never decline to bake a "wedding" cake for a homosexual again.

The Oregon official enforcing this new "freedom" told the press this is "an excellent teaching moment" and "an opportunity to re-educate."

Let this sink in:

A human Rights Commission examiner is ordering a Christian business owner to attend diversity training---because of his religious beliefs and convictions.

The Executive Director who is enforcing the punishments says he is a Christian, and "it would be better to leave one's religion at home."

The One after whom Christianity is actually named disagrees. So does his half-brother.

Jesus says, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation" (Mark 16:15).  And records the same commandment in more detail..."make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19).

We're not only called to "proselytize," but to baptize as well.

He also said His followers will be "salt and light" (Matt. 5:13-16) in their culture, and the salt and light will be administered by actions of preaching, teaching and humanitarian expression---living out our faith.

Can this be a silent activity conducted only in the privacy of a building and still be faithful to the commission of Jesus himself?

His half-brother James also says no.

He says if you truly have faith, it will manifest itself in works and actions---saying (2:26), "For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."

While there may be doctrinal differences within the Christian community, several things are crystal clear.

Christianity is not something someone can live out in silence and obscurity because there are some who disagree with the teaching of the Bible.

As salt and light, biblical Christianity preserves and illuminates. To do so it must show up in our culture.

And finally, Jesus was not offering an eclectic philosophy with His final words being something to the affect that He was hopeful you would incorporate some of His thoughts into your life.

He spoke of Christianity as a well defined narrow gate open to all who would believe. It is a path defined by the clear teaching of God's Word, including a very clear plan for human sexual behavior. And marriage. And family.

He also spoke of the wide inclusive gate, which is often the path most traveled.

On that, Jesus gave us all a heads up. That gate does not lead to a good destination (Matt. 7:13-14).

Christianity is thriving around the world, both in countries where there is religious freedom and those where there is not.

However, religious freedom in America---not so much.

This country was founded and thrived on the very biblical principles and values that some are now trying to push into the closet.

A message to all who travel the path of the narrow gate: "You make known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand" (Ps. 16:11).

Stand firm. Keep walking.

Be Strong. Be Courageous. Be Confident. Be Blessed.


  1. That judge is not a real Christian, and is in violation of the constitution. I pray for restitution for the victims of this crime.

  2. The judge is paid a lot of money for an honest day's work, and I'm not seeing it here. How do we put a price on real liberty?

  3. The judge's decision is far more inappropriate than a refusal to print those T shirts. He should learn to tolerate Christianity.

  4. A business can't advertise to the general public and then apply a religious litmus test on the customers that take them up on the offer. Supreme Court already ruled on this with a 9-0 ruling involving trying to not sell goats for sacrifice. Either the business sells goats for slaughter or they don't, they can't refuse to sell because they don't like the religious purpose the customer is going to used the advertised product for.

    Same applies to wedding cakes, supplies, flowers whatever. Offer something for sale to the general public their right to religious freedom shields them from religious discrimination by anyone at the business, including their beliefs about race, sexual orientation, or other completely legal things.

    1. You are utterly wrong. Until the cake is paid for, it belongs to the owner of the bakery. Until the goat is paid for, it belongs to the farmer who raised it. If we lose the right to control our own property, we lose all of our freedoms. If you can take from me what I own....and throw tender at me whether I want your tender or not.....we are not free people. We are living under the dictatorship of the day....the biggest tooth and claw wins....he can use government to make you give him what he wants, produce what he wants, and he can take what he wants when he says he wants it for whatever price he says is fair? Hello Adolf Hitler, and Josef Stalin!!

    2. Oshtur,

      Should you have to sell someone a ball bat if they tell you they plan on beating you on the head with it?

    3. Sorry until the first amendment is repealed religious discrimination against imitations to do business to the general public are unconstitutional and illegal. Each citizen's right to religious freedom shields them from such religious discrimination.

      As to your idea that this akin to selling a weapon to an attacker - that's silly. You don't get to define someone else's religious practice as a crime. Call the police if they don't arrest them then complete the business transaction as you offered, they have an absolute right to NOT share your religious beliefs as far as the American law allows.

    4. I don't care whether they share my religious beliefs. What I do care about is promoting sin, being an enabler. Don't like the way I do business........let your fingers do the the yellow pages.

      Craig in Lacey

    5. But of course they aren't sinning according to their beliefs and that is the paradigm you as a business voluntarily invited them to do business under. But don't respect the constitution and the law then don't whine when you lose your business license.

    6. The First Amendment was written to protect religious beliefs , not for the state to dictate which they tolerate and which they will not. A church is a building . The court limited the First Amendment to protect all religious beliefs by forcing a private citizen to violate their conscience and religious faith to attend a secularist understanding of diversity based on one secular view point . It is an oxymoron considering the reasoning behind the First Amendment was fear that the government would place one belief over another . The court may have legally applied the law in the violation of equal access, way out of line with his secularized understanding of secularized diversity based on liberal understanding of diversity .

  5. Yes, this judge left his religion at home. What he says is how he lives, but that doesn't make him right.

  6. If we are Christians, our religion should go with us.

  7. So what can we learn from this?

    I suppose, that when a judge goes the wrong way, he might impose his error upon others.

    But what about people who go the right way?
    If they go the right way, won't they know better than to impose personal opinions upon others?

    I suppose that's one difference between light and darkness.

  8. And what about the man who sells magazines, but refuses to sell porn?

    1. No problem, no business has to sell porn. But there would be a problem if it offered porn for sale to the general public of legal age but then refused a given customer because of religious belief.

    2. 1:55

      That's ridiculous! The person refusing to sell porn is clearly being discriminitory, probably because of their 'closely held religious beliefs'. If a Christian must leave his/her religion at home, then it won't be long before they're gonna be required to sell porn.

      So your assertion is false because a Christian bookseller isn't gonna be selling porn anyway.

      I think that's what 5:00 was getting at .

      Craig in Lacey

    3. Red herring, all of these violations are about the business religiously discriminating in something they do sell, not making them sell something they don't already.

    4. At one time we would all appreciate a business owner to conduct his business using his sense of moral beliefs, especially those reflecting the Judeo Christian ethic . For example refusing to sell a gun at a gun show to man the business man believed to be mentally ill . Or the Tavern Owner refusing to sell a drink to someone he believed be intoxicated and the possible future harm it could cause . .

      But obviously the moral dilemma here is the marriage of the person to a same sex gender and the person's religious and moral beliefs that believes it is hurting the community and also the homosexual themselves .Today that view is not believed by some , so the right to that belief is limited . Just like the right to refuse selling a drink can be limited based on some ones belief it causes no harm .

      Even a simple understanding of Christianity, the Marriage Covenant between a man and women , the Covenant it represents is a God given system to protect families , communities , and especially children providing a safer environment to children because of the natural common bond that enhanced with a Biological connection . The printer not willing to sell his services to he KKK or the sign maker not wanting to selling his services to the hate group depicting homosexuals as perverted . Does the Judge think diversity training would be needed then ? This is a clear violation of the First Amendment .

      Amazing the people who gave us the First Amendment would now be considered wrong in how they looked at it .

      Its unfortunate that it appears there is a targeted attempt to bring these issues to court . Have begun to see the back lash however , the same mind set that believes live and let live that allowed gay marriage is seeing the gay community not promoting the same .


  9. Another example is a printing company refusing to print God hates Fags on signs for the West Boro Baptists . Would the state require diversity training for that store owner . Clearly this is a violation of our rights as Americans .


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