Tag: convictions
UPDATE: Idaho City Reverses Decision to Force Pastor to Perform Gay Wedding Ceremonies
Posted on October 31, 2014 in Marriage, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
The city of Coeur d’ Alene in Idaho became the center of a major religious freedom battle after the city said it would force the pastor of a small wedding chapel to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.
The Hitching Post is a for-profit wedding chapel that is owned and operated by devout Christians, the Knapps. After a non-discrimination ordinance was passed in the city the local city council told the Knapps they would have to perform same-sex ceremonies in order to comply with the ordinance.
The Knapps, in adhering to their religious convictions, said they would refuse to perform such ceremonies as they would violate their religious convictions. The city told them they could face massive fines and jail time for refusal. The Knapps didn’t back down.
After igniting national outrage the city has reversed their decision and said the Knapps will NOT have to perform same-sex ceremonies. A recent article at Christian Today says:
Idaho Roundup: City in Idaho Demands Pastor Perform Same-Sex Weddings or Face Fines and Jail
Posted on October 30, 2014 in Marriage by Nathan Cherry
This story has been all over the news and for good reason. The warnings against marriage redefinition have been numerous and strong and yet no one ever thought we would get to this point. Here we are. A pastor has been told that he must perform same-sex weddings at his chapel of face hefty fines and even prison for violating the city’s non-discrimination ordinance. Below is a roundup of notable voices regarding this story. Two videos are posted at the end of this post.
Fox News: City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings
“Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Donald and Evelyn Knapp, ordained ministers who own the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur d’Alene…According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a ‘religious corporation’ limited to performing ‘one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.’ But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business – not as a church or place of worship – and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance.”
Idaho: City Demands Pastor Perform Same-Sex Ceremony or Go to Jail!
Posted on October 21, 2014 in Marriage, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
The most recent example of course is the subpoena of pastor’s sermons in the city of Houston. Now called “The Houston 5,” a group of pastors that openly opposed the city’s transgender bathroom bill have been asked by the city to turn over all sermons, speeches, and communications relating to the bill and Mayor Annise Parker.
That statement should be terrifying to anyone that believes in the First Amendment and both free speech and religious freedom. To think that any government agency would consider – let alone follow through – asking pastors to turn over sermons is egregious at best. Sen. Ted Cruz reminded the city of Houston that “Caesar has no jurisdiction over the pulpit” in his comments at a press conference with pastors and religious freedom advocates:
“Caesar has no jurisdiction over the pulpit. And when you subpoena one pastor, you subpoena every pastor.”
Apparently a city in Idaho is taking this sentiment literally by demanding that a pastor perform same-sex weddings or face fines and jail time. An article at The Daily Caller explains:
The Only Thing Christians Can Do Is Disobey
Posted on September 19, 2014 in Public Policy, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
Christians have a responsibility to be obedient to civil government. Verses such as Mark 12:17 and Romans chapter 13 make it clear that Christians have a duty to be obedient to civil government because God has ordained government “for your good.”
Knowing that Christians have a responsibility to civil government makes it hard for some to understand why we resist and fight some laws. If, they suppose, Christians are to obey government, why fight the HHS mandate or the redefinition of marriage?
For those leading the charge in these particular areas of culture change it makes no sense for Christians to expend all their energy fighting the government when they should, as the Bible teaches, submit to and obey the government. Rather than risk the loss of livelihood or be fined for resisting and opposing laws mandated by the government, Christians ought to submit and obey.
While that is, technically true, it is not entirely true and stands outside the context of Christian responsibility.
Pastor Tells Christians to Avoid Lawsuits by Compromising Religious Convictions
Posted on September 17, 2014 in Religious Freedom, Theology by Nathan Cherry
This idea came to Peterson in response to the couple in New York that was sued for not allowing a same-sex wedding at their bed and breakfast farm in order to be true to their religious convictions. Rather than compromise the couple opted to stop allowing weddings altogether and, as a result, lose part of their income.
Peterson says that instead of closing their farm for weddings altogether and losing money, what if the couple allowed the wedding to take place, but with one notable caveat; “told the lesbian couple upfront that they would take their money and donate it to a conservative Christian law firm to fight against same-sex marriage? In other words, what if they took the sinners’ money and used it for good?”
Uh…no.
Thankfully I’m not the only Christian with deeply held convictions that finds the suggestion of compromise to be untenable and offensive. Peterson shared the response from his radio audience:
Will Legalizing Gay “Marriage” End the Culture Wars? Don’t Be Silly
Posted on September 4, 2014 in Marriage, Public Policy by Nathan Cherry
No, no, no, no, no. Hoping the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex “marriage” in all fifty states is not a good idea. Yes, the issue is undoubtedly headed back to the high court and, yes, the court will be forced to rule whether or not individual states have the right to define marriage for themselves. But, to want the Supreme Court to decide for us all what the definition of marriage should be is an absurd proposition.
I get it, the writer of this article saying that such a decision by the high court would be a great thing for the Republican Party is thinking along secular political lines. His end game is a strengthened GOP that doesn’t have to deal with an unpopular cultural issue. Nonetheless, not only do I think it is a political strategy nightmare, I think it’s a moral disaster of epic proportions.
The writer starts off his support for a Supreme Court decision by saying: “Like it or not, opponents of gay marriage are losing the battle…A substantial majority of voters now support it, 59 percent in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll.”
Government Mandates Re-Education for Christians Adhering to Biblical Convictions
Posted on August 25, 2014 in Marriage, Religious Freedom by Nathan Cherry
By now any aware individual that pays the least bit of attention to the news knows about the cases of the photographer in New Mexico, florist in Washington, and baker in Colorado.
If you’ve not heard of these ground-breaking cases it’s time to get your head out from under the rock and start paying attention.
Why are these cases so important? Simply put, they are testing the waters for the trampling of religious freedom in a way not before experienced in the United States. In each of these cases the religious freedom and free speech rights of private business owners were discarded in favor of homosexual rights. Courts in each of these cases told business owners that they can and will be prosecuted if they did not violate their religious convictions.
But if you think these are isolated cases or that they are exceptional you couldn’t be more wrong.
A recent article highlights the case of Liberty Ridge Farms where, Christian owners were not only fined for refusing to host a same-sex ceremony but were ordered to retrain their staff. The article states:
More Christians Being Told to Violate Their Religious Convictions
Posted on July 21, 2014 in Religious Freedom, Sexuality by Nathan Cherry
So the Brendan Eich’s, Phil Robertsons, Chick-Fil-A’s and bakers of the world are targets. For that matter all who hold to any view of sexuality that does not affirm any kind of sexuali activity will be a target. So maybe you are okay with homosexuality but you “draw the line” at polygamy, polyamory, or pedophilia; you will soon be just as much a target as those who currently oppose homosexuality.
This is the game, a game of degrees. The way it’s played is to slowly but surely take steps toward the ultimate goal. Those seeking to redefine marriage know full well that to come out and say “we don’t want marriage to exist” or “we support polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality” would result in nothing less than an overwhelming defeat for their movement. So they move slowly, with what they believe is most palatable to society, two consenting adults that just want to love each other. And, like a great fisherman, society has taken the bait and the hook is sunk.
Did The Hobby Lobby Decision Violate Religious Freedom?
Posted on July 17, 2014 in Life, Religious Freedom by Derick Dickens
I love reading articles like this from the left. This article not only misrepresents the facts by linking religious rights to taking four pills in question in the Hobby Lobby case, it disproves what it is trying to prove.
Here are some issues that should be apparent in the article by a little thought behind the words of the article.
1. They misrepresent teachings of Jewish history. It is clear that an agenda is in the works when this author says it is a religious requirement to support contraceptives. What the article cites is a disagreement among two ancient Jewish Scholars on the role of a form of birth control as it relates to two Jewish Principles. They discussed whether a sponge like material for the prevention of pregnancy is allowed and even use the phrase, “may use” to distinguish it from being a religious obligation, as this article seems to try to advance.
For instance, in my religious tradition I “may use beer.” This does not mean beer is required or part of my religion. Rather, it is something I am allowed to use.