Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Seattle Mayor Boycotts Religious Freedom

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Openly homosexual Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, who led Washington State down the path of so-called "tolerance" to redefine marriage in the state, is now displaying anything but "tolerance."

He's angry because Indiana has chosen a different path than Washington did. They chose to honor religious freedom.

Indiana's Governor signed a law last week that reflects the federal Religious Freedom and Restoration Act signed into law by then President Bill Clinton.

Mayor Murray says, "The law doesn't reflect the values of our city."

Apparently Murray's view of his city includes no provision for religious freedom, because the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act absolutely does not discriminate against homosexuals, but rather protects the religious freedom of all people---unlike the newly minted laws in Washington State.

Angry Ed is now organizing a national boycott of Indiana.

Indiana Governor Mike Pence, who signed the law Friday, says there has been an "avalanche of intolerance" poured out on our state. Reports says the "liberals anger is off the chart."

"Its outrageous," Pence says.

Also, on Friday, Barronell Stutzman, the owner of Arlene's Flowers in Richland. WA. was officially fined $1,001 because she declined to compromise her biblical values on marriage.

There is also an "And" in the ruling.

The $1,001 fine is a token offer to coax her to compromise her faith.

The "and" if not complied with, will destroy her financially. She says she will not "compromise her faith in Jesus regardless the cost."

Mayor Murray's spokesman told the Seattle Times, "Murray will begin working with other mayors to see if there's a way to re-evaluate having the US Conference of Mayors in Indiana" where it is scheduled for next year.

Interestingly, 7 of the top 10 convention cities in America already have that law in their state and it hasn't had any negative affect on their convention business.

In addition to Murray's immediate ban on city sponsored business travel to Indiana for any reason, he will "additionally direct all city departments to conduct a review of current contracts to identify any the city may have with businesses in Indiana."

Indiana Governor Pence points out that the federal Act was signed into law by Bill Clinton 23 years ago and that 20 states have laws to reflect the federal law. He says, "It lays out a framework for ensuring that a very high level of scrutiny is given any time government action impinges on the religious liberty of any American."

Murray wants none of that. No room for scrutiny in this brave new world.

Pence says this isn't even about "disputes between individuals, it's about government overreach..."

Homosexual activists, speaking through an accommodating press, are telling the nation "this is a license to discriminate."

Note just how "accommodating" to the homosexual agenda ABC's George Stephanopoulos was on the "This Week" show last Sunday.

Gov. Pence was easily justified in telling George, "We've been doing our level best George to correct the gross mischaracterization of this law that has been spread all over the country by many in the media. And frankly some of the media coverage of this has been shameless and reckless...I'm not going to stand for it."

Note how Q13 TV opened their story on this: "Mayor Ed Murray has forbidden the use of city funds for travel to Indiana in response to a controversial new law that could discriminate against specific groups."

Unfortunately, current leadership in Washington, a state that has been home to 6 generations of my family, has along with a complicit press, created a new norm: Government Overreach.

And it may be reaching a boiling point.

Barronell Stutzman is experiencing the full weight of government---and the full wrath of the homosexual agenda.

The agenda has never been about "tolerance" or "equality, "it's about "special rights" for a "special class" who have chosen to participate in a specific sexual behavior, which they claim is an "identity."

The State is leading her to the gallows of financial ruin---because of her religious convictions and beliefs.

Kristen Waggoner, Stutzman's lawyer, told the Christian Post:

"Today's judgement affirms the court's earlier decision that Barronelle must pay a penalty for her faith and surrender her freedom and conscience," Waggoner said in a statement. "The penalty and fees imposed today are only the first punch. The ACLU, on behalf of the same-sex couple also suing Barronelle, has asked the court to award them penalties, fees, and costs, which will financially devastate this 70-year-old grandmother's retirement and personal savings. The message sent by the attorney general and the ACLU to the people of Washington is quite clear: surrender your religious liberty and free speech rights, or face personal and professional ruin."
Even though Stutzman faces the possibility of personal and professional ruin, she had the "option" to escape from her legal crisis if she had agreed to accept Ferguson's settlement offer, the day after she was found guilty in court, which was to pay a fine of $2,001 and agree to provide her services for gay weddings. Stutzman, however, felt she could not turn her back on Jesus in order to save herself or her business.
"Washington's constitution guarantees us 'freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.' I cannot sell that precious freedom," Stutzman wrote in a recent letter to the attorney general's settlement offer. "You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do."

The Bible is very clear on the issues of human sexuality and marriage. To embrace and enforce laws that stand in absolute contradiction to the biblical model is indeed the path of a well known betrayer who sold out Jesus for 30 pieces of silver.

And to attack freedom of religious expression and conscience in this way is an affront to those who founded this great nation, to those who fought to preserve our freedom, and to the next generation.

May we all find the courage to stand in our own circumstances with conviction equal to that of a 70 year old grandmother in Richland who promises, "I will not betray Jesus. I will not betray my faith."

Be Courageous. Be Informed. Be Prayerful.


  1. I would like to recommend that every one read the article by Dr. D James Kennedy called "The New Tolerance". Biblical tolerance means willingness to bear with those whose views are different without agreeing with them. The New Tolerance means not only do we bear and put up with those whose views are different but we must now agree that their views are equally as valid and true as ours. This all begins with the idea that there are no absolute truths. Dr. Kennedy said " I have repeatedly said that tolerance is the last virtue of a depraved society. When you have an immoral society that has blatantly, proudly violated all the commandments of God, there is one last virtue they insist upon... tolerance for their immorality. They are no longer the evil person you are." G.K. Chesterton wrote " Tolerance is the virtue of man without convictions." Spokane

  2. 'Mayor Murray says, "The law doesn't reflect the values of our city."

    Mayor Murray: The (Indiana) law doesn't reflect the lack of values in "your" city,
    county and state.

  3. The Indiana law is a business license to discriminate with immunity from civil or in many cases criminal prosecution. (they already had an individual RFRA.) It's a very different critter than Washington State's or the US's version of RFRA. Remember, RFRA's across the nation were championed by liberals, moderates AND conservatives without controversy. Indiana's law goes too far. Pence & his ilk deserve all the ink they are getting thrown at them. What they are achieving is to re-segregate & re-polarize America. I want my civil society back!
    Phil, Puyallup

  4. It's interesting to watch this process. It wasn't that many years ago that republicans used gay marriage as a wedge issue that helped them. Wow has that turned around! It's fun the watch Pence squirm and try to hide their true intentions. I don't think I've ever heard so many weasle words in such a short time. Even Gary says the law "absolutely does not discriminate against homosexuals". True enough, the law itself doesn't discriminate, it just makes discrimination legal and the rest of America isn't standing for it.

  5. I heard a good question asked on another blog today which brings up some matters that Indiana's bill is about.

    Suppose there was a caterer who was Jewish or Muslim, (I've heard that neither of these are allowed to eat or even handle pork) and a man demands that he be served by this caterer, and the man is _______fill in the blank, (short, tall, fat, thin, old, young, black, white, male ,female, etc.) and on the list, on the menu are things containing pork.

    When some decide to come out, must they demand everyone go into a closet?

    1. Seriously? You really don't get the difference?

      If a caterer doesn't offer pork on their menu, they don't have to serve it to anyone since it's not something they offer to anyone at all - they don't sell pork, period. But if they do offer a particular meat to some people, they have to offer it to everyone equally. If they don't offer a product to anyone at all, then then no one can walk in and demand it.

      So, if a photographer doesn't do weddings for anyone at all, then they don't have to do weddings for gays because they don't do weddings. But, if they actually do do weddings for some people, then they have to offer wedding photography to everyone equally.

    2. Ah, no they don't. There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution that says a person must violate their religious beliefs to conduct commerce, period!

      Craig in Lacey

    3. Ah, no they don't. There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution that says a person must violate their religious beliefs to conduct commerce, period!

      Craig in Lacey

    4. We can argue whether or not civil protections for gays violate your religious freedom. What is not debatable is the silly idea that these civil protections could force a merchant to sell something to a protected class that they don't normally offer to anyone else at all.

    5. Some people just don't get it. One may serve for weddings but not homosexual weddings if they choose, because we have constitutionally protected religious liberties. One may not force compliance to another's morals or interfere with their religious conscience. Some judges and politicians don't seem to get that, yet it's so simple.

      If homosexuals want service for homosexual events, they may go to whomever is willing to do so, without forcing some who are not willing to do so.

      If a homosexual believes for religious reasons that one man / one woman marriages are morally wrong, and for conscience sake, refuses to serve at their wedding. They should be free to refuse because we have constitutional rights. I may think they are crazy, but what I think about that doesn't matter. Their constitutional rights matter, just as much as anyone else's, no more, and no less.

  6. Yes, the foundation of the gay agenda is a lie, and the agenda produces lies.

  7. Like Indiana Jones coming to rescue Washington state. We need rescuing.
    I think it has something to do with Jesus.

  8. Matthew 7:12
    Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

    And the next few verses are also good reading for today.

  9. May God establish the Christian businesses that are weathering the storm.
    I see the promise to those who built upon the Rock.

  10. If our enemy is hungry we may feed him, but I don't think we ought to be required by law to go to his party or celebration if we don't want to, even if he cries "Discrimination!".

  11. What the Mayor is doing is obviously contrary to the constitution.

    1. Really? Can you specifically state how?

    2. If a mayor uses his position of authority to discriminate against travel to a certain state, for his own unconstitutional agenda, how is that constitutional? Where's the foundation for that action?

  12. The way some people act, it's as if they don't know there are still some Christians and churches that still believe homosexuality is wrong.

  13. I can't help but think..."First we have the economic terrorism of the state A/G (see Faith and Freedom Blog of Feb 23rd) and now the Seattle Mayor wants to start his own kind of Jihad or whatever against the Christians....Where's our Federal Homeland Security!?"

  14. All of the mayor's actions against Indiana for his intent that this religious liberty spread no further, I assume.

  15. If this mayor really was about equality rather than what we might call special rights or priorities for only certain people, wouldn't he be going about, talking about the need for protection under the law for Christians who identify with Jesus, who wish to learn from him and follow his teachings, such that an employee of a bakery for example, wouldn't be required to decorate a cake for a homosexual "wedding", as long as the bakery employee identified with Jesus, who taught that in the very beginning, God ordained the union of one man and one woman and this became known as marriage?

    And I think this sort of protection under the law would go for a lot of other situations also, florists and such.

    But I think we can see that this man is really only about "special rights" and priorities of one group of people over so many others, imposing their personal wishes unjustifiable upon others, which is always what happens whenever anyone throws themselves in with the gay agenda, something that is used to destroy our constitution and pervert every good and just way, if it were possible.


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