Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Modern Day "Kristallnacht"

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

"The Nazis targeted the Jews ... modern-day Brownshirts target Christians. The only difference now is that the weapon of choice for homosexual activists is a gavel rather than a lead pipe. For those activists, it's not about equality – it's about supremacy." Bryan Fischer.


My friend, Byran Fischer, with American Family Radio, has written a very informative column, which clarifies the battle of our times as more than mere preference or politics. It is a spiritual battle being played out in our contemporary culture. It is a battle without compromise. Abraham Lincoln defined the battle over slavery as one that divided the country---he quoted Jesus in calling it a "House Divided"---and one in which one side would ultimately prevail over the other.

Yesterday on our live radio program, I mentioned that President Trump and staff have a draft executive order that will defend religious liberty, and must act now.

The following article is a call to the president for action:


Grandmother a victim of modern-day Kristallnacht

Bryan Fischer


The Nazis targeted the Jews ... modern-day Brownshirts target Christians. The only difference now is that the weapon of choice for homosexual activists is a gavel rather than a lead pipe. For those activists, it's not about equality – it's about supremacy.


The homosexual fascists of the LGBT movement have claimed another scalp in their relentless quest to purge Christians from what the Washington State Supreme Court called "the commercial marketplace." While the target of the Nazis was the Jews, Christians are the target of the modern day Brownshirts. The only difference is that the weapon of choice for homosexual activists is a gavel rather than a lead pipe.

Baronelle Stutzman is a grandmother with a sweet demeanor who has never been accused by anyone of unkindness or incivility. Yet yesterday the Washington State Supreme Court unanimously labeled her a hate-filled homophobic bigot.

Her crime? Politely declining to use her artistic talent to promote same-sex marriage. The two homosexual men who approached her to do a floral arrangement for their "wedding" were valued customers of Ms. Stutzman, even friends, proof that she did not discriminate against them or anyone else. She even recommended nearby florists who would be happy to help them.

But her own conscience, animated by foundational Christian and biblical principle, would not permit her to promote same-sex marriage. As a consequence, the Snidely Whiplash of the Evergreen State, attorney general Bob Ferguson, literally sued her for everything she owns. Although he had to grit his teeth and settle for a fine, Ferguson wanted not just to take the assets of her business but her personal assets as well. It was his goal to strip her – a 70-year-old grandmother – of her business, her possessions, her bank accounts, and her house and leave her homeless and naked on the curb.

Ferguson at one point said Ms. Stutzman's First Amendment rights have not been violated because she can still believe whatever she wants about homosexual marriage. But Ferguson is wrong. The First Amendment does not just protect the freedom to believe Christian principle – it protects the freedom to act on it.

The specific guarantee is for the "free exercise" of religion, a constitutional right American Christians possess 24 hours a day, seven days a week, including the time they spend running a business. It is an inalienable right they have received from the Creator – which means no earthly authority, including the Washington State Supreme Court, has the constitutional or moral authority to take it away from anyone.

I have been using the term "Gay Gestapo" for years, but lesbian columnist Tammy Bruce recently popularized the term, when talking about the Christian bakers in Oregon who got fined $135,000 and put out of business for making a decision similar to the one Ms. Stutzman made. Ms. Bruce is scandalized by the mean-spiritedness and raw hatred that animates the homosexual movement. There certainly is hate in the debate over homosexual rights, but it is not coming from conservatives. It is coming from the homosexual left.

Ms. Bruce pointed out that the Gay Gestapo is bringing both tyranny and slavery back to America. When you compel someone to violate his conscience, what else is that but tyranny? And when you compel someone to labor against his will, what else is that but slavery? The only one being discriminated against here is Baronelle Stutzman.

Ferguson said the verdict "sends a clear message around the country as well." It surely does. It sends the message that the LGBT crowd is not about marriage equality but homosexual supremacy. For gay activists, it is homosexuality Ď‹ber alles ("above all else").

We as a culture must understand that, to put it colloquially, this is a duel to the death. The conflict between religious liberty and homosexuality is a zero-sum game. In every clash, somebody wins and somebody loses. Every advance of the homosexual agenda comes at the expense of religious liberty. We cannot have both special rights based on homosexual behavior and religious liberty at the same time. One will be forced to give way to the other.

One of the plaintiffs claimed he was happy to be on the "right side of history." Well, the issue is not being on the right side of history; it's being on the right side of right. It's being on the right side of the Constitution, and it's being on the right side of God's moral law. The Washington Supreme Court isn't.

Ms. Stutzman has appealed her case to the Supreme Court. Even if the Court takes the case, the same five unelected lawyers who imposed same-sex marriage on the country are still there, and certainly will be sharpening their gavels to stick it to this grandmother as soon as they get the chance.

President Trump, in the run-up to the election you pledged that you would protect religious liberty, that you would be a champion for Christians whose rights to the free exercise of religion are being trampled on a daily basis in this country. Here is your chance to prove that wasn't just an empty campaign promise. Direct your attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to draft the mother of all amicus briefs to support Ms. Stutzman in her appearance before the Supreme Court.

And issue your executive order on religious liberty. NOW. Don't wait another day. It's masterfully crafted, and will make you and your administration the friend of religious liberty instead of its enemy. If you sign it and issue it, it will instantly become the Magna Carta of religious liberty for this generation.

There is no time to waste. How many more grandmothers will have to face the loss of everything they own before their president comes to their side?

Bryan Fischer hosts "Focal Point with Bryan Fischer" every weekday on AFR Talk (American Family Radio) from 1:00 - 3:00 p.m. (Central).

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Bold. Be Blessed.

19 comments:

  1. Yes, it's time to stop Ferguson. Let him believe whatever he wants to, but do not let him act on it, whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  2. How do we get the prez to read this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Put it in a single page briefing with just a very few bullet points with large pictures and no big words.

      Delete
    2. Its all about "sexual orientation" being "special"....so what about sex with dogs? What about sex with children? Who is to say that its wrong? Not Mr. Ferguson that's for sure. Hold on to your Bibles....he will not stop here advocating for his friends.

      Delete
  3. Ha! There is no right to religious discrimination. Both sides of this issue have the exact same constitutional right to religious freedom and the business invited the public to their door. From that moment on it was too late to require customers to belief a certain way or to only have weddings the business owner likes. Why? Because everyone has a right to not share Southern Baptist beliefs about marriage.

    There was no secret agenda here, Stutzman knew her business couldn't refuse customers because of having different creeds than hers before she offered them and, like it or not, many creeds let people marry regardless of tgeir sexes.

    The real irony is Stutzman has been operating legally and according to her conscience since March 2013, she could have just told the Attorney General that then and not been fined at all.

    This is an exercise in pride and hubris by Stutzman and for those principalities whispering in her ear a chance to spread discord and acrimony.

    Does she believe in religious freedom for all or not? If so why did she offer something to the public that people of all creeds cant buy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First and for most you dim witted individual, she did not force any of her ideas on anyone. She politely decline a job because of conscience. Then the almighty state with its religion came and punished her. If we follow your idiotic ideas and say I owned a gun shop and man threatened to kill me then wanted to buy a gun I would have to sell it to him. When will we learn that we either are governed by God and the bible, or we submit ourselves to statism and its religion whos author is satan? She has had her rights revoked because she is a Christian and has been stolen from by our government. Wake up America and see that we are now slaves to a demonic religion that wants to kill(abortion) steal (through fines), and destroy (regulations and law).

      Delete
    2. Oshtur, All may buy a floral design for a one man and one woman wedding, don't you think? Even homosexuals may buy one. So in answer to your last questions, it's obvious that she does. Oshtur, as usual, you make no sense.

      Delete
    3. And any customer could buy those 'one man and one woman wedding' flowers for their 'man and man wedding' because everything the business sells is available to a customer without civil rights discrimination.

      It doesn't matter what the product being sold is called the customer can still buy it.

      Delete
    4. Reserve the Right to Refuse Service
      Not obligated to work for you or me. Or Anyone.

      Delete
  4. When it was just benefits for "partners" they said that was all they wanted. Two years later they pushed for marriage and the legislature passed it. My husband and I worked for weeks to gather enough signatures to put the marriage issue on the ballot (they said it couldn't be done, in just a short time allowed us, but God saw to it that it was). I remember mature people declining to sign, telling us they believed in "live and let live." Well, the homosexual agenda folks don't believe in that--they won't "let us live" true to our convictions. Then, the VOTERS allowed gay marriage and I knew we would be fighting all of these battles. Prejudice against blacks was not an amendment right. It does not compare.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I believe the lesson of Gen 19 is, one can not appease the homosexual agenda. They know no end and it has to end in destruction. Let's keep it out of our city.

      Delete
    2. We've read this before still isn't true, equal access to the 100% secular civil contract of marriage was always the stated goal.

      And it has nothing really to do with the case, the customer could have wanted the advertised flowers for a commitment ceremony and the results would be the same.

      Delete
  5. Shame on the Christian citizens of this state and here is Spokane. Not one pastor...not one attorney....not one well funded businessperson and serious contender had the guts to run against Ferguson last year for his second tyrannical term in office as Attorney General. Courageous Everett attorney Steve Pidgeon took a shot in 2012 and got cut to ribbons with little evangelical Christian support. Politically powerful Seattle attorney Slade Gorton and his cartel, and State GOP leadership sat back then and in 2016 and let Ferguson win. What's with that??

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oshtur, It is legal for me to Concealed Carry a firearm (with a permit) or Open Carry (without a permit) here in Oregon, but because the leadership of Starbucks seems to have a fear of guns, they won't do business with me and will ask me to leave if they notice I have my gun on me when I walk in the store. Why does their belief against me doing something that's perfectly legal not count as discrimination? Are they not a public business? Should they not be required to serve me too, even if they don't agree with me? What if I walked in a Starbucks with a Coffee People hat or a Dutch Brothers shirt? How about if I just finished a softball game and had my Long Bottom's sponsored baseball bat with me? Could they decide to not sell me coffee for those items too? They're all perfectly legal, but what if they didn't like them, like they don't like guns? Why are they allowed to discriminate against law-abiding gun owners for their own beliefs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ‘Armed Status’ isn’t an acknowledged civil right. Talk to your legislators, or start an initiative petition and if the majority of voters agree with you that it should be then it will be recognized as such.

      Delete
    2. "... to keep and _bear_ arms" is NOT an acknowledged right? What constitution are you looking at?

      Delete
    3. It is a constitutionsl right, but not an acknowledged civil right. In contrast religious freedom is a constitutional right and religion is also a civil right (creed in Washington's civil rights law)

      Delete
    4. So... Constitutional rights are one which can be violated, while civil rights cannot?

      Delete
  7. You actually can refuse service to anyone, just not for any reason and the business owner made it clear they were doing it illegally. The owner can't refuse a customer 'full enjoyment of all' they offer because of civil rights discrimination.

    ReplyDelete

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