Thursday, April 2, 2015
March 27, 2015|3:54 pm| The Christian Post|
A religious freedom bill signed into law by Indiana Republican Gov. Mike Pence Thursday is being characterized by major media outlets as a codification of anti-gay discrimination. They are wrong. Here is why.
Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a state-level version of the federal RFRA. To understand what RFRA does, it helps to first understand how the law came about.
History of RFRA
In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling, Employment Division v. Smith, that was a radical departure from previous interpretations of the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment. A member of the Native American Church was fired and denied unemployment benefits after he failed a drug test because he had consumed peyote, a hallucinogenic drug, as part of a religious ritual. The Court, in an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, decided that the state did not infringe upon Smith's religious freedom because the law that Smith broke applied to all faiths, the Native American Church was not singled out.
Religious freedom advocates were outraged. They understood that if the state can infringe upon someone's religious freedom simply by passing laws that are generally applicable, religious freedom protections would be severely weakened.
What happened next is rarely seen in American politics. A broad coalition, including liberals, conservatives, civil libertarians, Jewish groups, the Christian Right, and the Christian Left, all came together to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Though there was much debate on the road to passage, by the time the bill made it to the floors of the House and Senate, it passed easily with a unanimous vote in the House and a 97-3 vote in the Senate. The bill was signed with much fanfare by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, who would often cite it as one of the major accomplishments of his administration.
The Indiana law is a state-level version of that law. RFRA does not allow anyone to do whatever they want as long as they claim religious freedom. The law says the government can take away your religious freedom, but only if there is a compelling government interest to do so, and the government uses the least restrictive means to advance that interest.
In layman's terms, RFRA is saying that people should be left alone to live out their religious beliefs, no matter how wacky those beliefs may sound to most of us, as long as they do not interfere with legitimate government interests.
If you were to, for instance, start a "Church of the Running Red Lights," you would not be allowed to ignore traffic signals as part of your religious practice because there is a legitimate government interest in enforcing traffic laws. In sum, the state can still take away your religious freedom under RFRA, it just has to have a good reason for doing so, and saying that the government action does not target a particular religious group is not a good reason.
Yet, major news outlets are suggesting that the bill is not really about religious freedom. They do this, in part, by putting "religious freedom" in quotes, and then describe the bill as anti-gay. RFRA is not a "religious freedom" bill, it is a religious freedom bill.
Gay Rights > Religious Freedom?
Since RFRA had broad support, from Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, and an array of religious groups, how did it become controversial?
At its core, this debate is about whether gay rights trump religious freedom.
Some media outlets are misreporting that the bill would allow businesses to deny services to gays. First, the bill would not allow businesses to deny public accommodations to gays. Courts have long recognized a compelling government interest in making sure that public accommodations are open to the public.
Second, some opponents of the bill are reacting to the fact that some wedding vendors, such as florists, photographers, wedding dress designers and wedding cake bakers, have declined to serve gay weddings due to their belief that doing so would violate their deeply held religious beliefs. But in those cases, they are not declining to serve gays, they are declining to serve gay weddings.
The Case of Barronelle Stutzman
Washington state florist Barronelle Stutzman illustrates this point well. Robert Ingersoll was one of Stutzman's customers for nine years. She knew he was gay but never declined to make his floral arrangements. There was never a "no gays allowed" sign on the door to Stutzman's store. Ingersoll was a valued customer and a friend. Only after Ingersoll asked Stutzman to make the floral arrangements for his same-sex wedding did Stutzman feel conflicted.
"It was a real struggle to decide what to do with that. My husband and I talked it over, and as much as I loved Rob, I just couldn't be a part of that," she recalled.
If Washington state had a RFRA, would Stutzman's religious freedom be protected? Ultimately, that would be for a court to decide. RFRA helps ensure that religious freedom claims have their day in court, but RFRA does not guarantee any particular outcome for those claims.
To win, Stutzman would first have to convince the court that serving the gay wedding would violate her deeply held religious beliefs. To win its side of the case, Washington state would have to convince the court that it has a compelling interest in taking away Stutzman's religious freedom and it used the least restrictive means to advance that interest.
What Gay Rights Groups Really Want
In opposing RFRA, gay activist groups have demonstrated what they really want. While they used to claim a "live and let live" position, arguing that gay marriage would not affect anyone else, that is clearly not the case. Gay activist groups are trying to force those who oppose gay marriage to either go along with their agenda or be forced out of business and out of the public square.
Those who are prosecuting Stutzman are not simply putting her out of business. They are imposing fines on her that could wipe out her life savings and force her to sell her home. Similarly, Aaron and Melissa Klein in Oregon have been fined $150,000 for refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, a sum that will not only put them out of business, but will force them to sell their home.
The message these gay rights advocates are sending is clear: "Do as we say or we will not only force you out of business, we will destroy you." And that is why they will not support the religious freedom of gay marriage opponents.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
The Arkansas legislature on Tuesday approved a religious freedom bill that is similar to the Indiana law that's facing a backlash from business leaders and civil rights groups.
The state House passed the bill by a 67-21 margin, sending it to the governor’s office.
Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) is expected to sign the bill, which says that “a state action shall not substantially burden a person’s right to exercise of religion,” unless it is “essential to further a compelling government interest” and is the least restrictive action possible.
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), an LGBT-rights organization, has criticized the bill as “Indiana-style,” a reference to the Hoosier State’s controversial religious freedom bill that reignited the debate over these laws.
The HRC, civil rights organizations and business leaders have denounced those laws as sanctioning discrimination of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people as long as there is a religious justification.
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) has defended his state's law as a necessary way to protect individuals from government overreach but on Tuesday called for an immediate legislative fix to clarify that the bill doesn’t permit discrimination.
“This law dos not give anyone a license to deny services to gay and lesbian couples,” Pence said at a press conference.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
March 30, 2015|1:10 pm| The Christian Post|
A Christian florist and grandmother who declined to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding because of her Christian belief in traditional marriage has been fined $1,001 by a Washington court and will be held liable to pay the legal fees incurred by the gay couple, which could "devastate" her financially.
As previously reported by The Christian Post, 70-year-old Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene's Flowers in Richland, Washington, was found guilty of violating the state's non-discrimination law in February, after referring Rob Ingersoll and Curt Feed to another florist when they asked her to provide the floral arrangements for their wedding.
Although Stutzman sold flowers to Ingersoll for nearly a decade and maintained a positive relationship with him, when he asked her to provide flowers for his same-sex wedding, she felt she could not act against her Christian conviction to serve her friend.
Afterwards, Ingersoll took to social media to voice his displeasure with Stutzman, which drew the attention of Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who eventually filed charges against Stutzman, after she refused to comply with his demands that her shop serve gay weddings.
While Benton County Superior Court Judge Alex Ekstrom's Fridaysummary judgement orders Stutzman to pay a fine of $1,001, for now, and forces her to provide services for same-sex weddings, her lawyer, Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Kristen Waggoner, said that Stutzman is still at risk of losing her retirement savings and business as she will be responsible for paying the legal fees and damages incurred by Ingersoll and Freed, who were represented by the ACLU.
The court will hold off on making a decision on how much Stutzman will have to pay in legal costs and fees until after a ruling has been made on an appeal. ADF has indicated that an appeal will be filed. Additionally, the ruling will force Arlene's Flowers to uphold the state's non-discrimination law and serve gay weddings.
"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 responding letter to the attorney general's settlement offer. "You are asking me to walk in 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."
"Your offer reveals that you don't really understand me or what this conflict is about. It's about freedom, not money," Stutzman continued. "I certainly don't relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important."
Attached to Eckstrom's judgement was a handwritten note further asserting that businesses that offer wedding-based services cannot refuse to provide goods to same-sex weddings, no matter what their religious beliefs are.
"All goods, merchandise, and services offered or sold to opposite sex couples shall be offered or sold to same-sex couples, including but not limited to goods, merchandise and services for weddings and commitment ceremonies," Ekstrom's note stated.
Monday, March 30, 2015
March 27, 2015|1:39 pm| The Christian Post|
Oregon's legislature advanced a bill that if enacted would ban sexual orientation change efforts therapy for gay minors.
Earlier this month, the Oregon House passed House Bill 2307, which aims to legally ban medical professionals from engaging in SOCE therapy if a patient is under 18.
"A mental health care or social health professional may not engage in efforts to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity if the recipient of those efforts is under 18 years of age," reads HB 2307 in part.
"Any state board that regulates licensees described in subsection … may impose any form of discipline that the board may impose on a licensee under the laws of this state for violating a law of this state or a rule adopted by the board."
Sometimes called "conversion therapy" or "reparative therapy," SOCE therapy seeks to change the sexual preferences of a patient from homosexual to heterosexual.
The therapy is controversial, with major organizations like the American Psychiatric Association opposed to the practice.
HB 2307 has drawn the concern of Equality And Justice For All, an ex-gay organization that supports the legalization of voluntary SOCE therapy for minors and adults.
In an email sent out Thursday, Chris Doyle of EAJFA described the support for HB 2307 "particularly unconscionable" since "minors often struggle with same-sex attractions as a result of rape or molestation by pedophiles."
"To propagate their lies, gay activists have made outrageous claims that this therapy involves electroshock and other forms of aversive methods, but they have yet to offer any proof of this. Contrary to their claims, this counseling is simply talk therapy," said Doyle.
"Homosexual activists would rather keep these young people locked in a lifetime of hopelessness — and silence — than allow them to find healing from rape or molestation."
Introduced in January and also called "The Youth Mental Health Protection Act," HB 2307 garnered strong support politicians and LGBT groups.
Last month, Casey Parks of the Oregonian reported that medical professionals, clergy, and LGBT activists testified in support of the bill.
"Twenty people sent in testimony supporting Oregon's bill … including a Western Oregon University student, [who] wrote that their parents forced them to attend conversion therapy in Oregon," reported Parks.
"Only one person sent in testimony opposing the bill. Teresa Harke of the Christian advocacy nonprofit Oregon Family Council testified that the bill is 'too broad and may have unintended consequences for religious liberties.'"
On Mar. 17, the Oregon House passed HB 2307 with a vote of 41 to 18. All but seven of the yes votes were Democrats and all the no votes were Republicans.
A couple days later, HB 2307 was sent to the Oregon Senate, which referred it to the Committee On Human Services and Early Childhood.
If enacted, Oregon will join California, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia as regions that ban SOCE therapy for minors.
Several other states including Arizona, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, and Virginia have considered similar legislation, only to vote it down or let it die in committee.
In January, the Virginia House of Delegates subcommittee voted down a bill to criminalize conversion therapy for minors introduced by State Delegate Patrick Hope.
Friday, March 27, 2015
March 26, 2015|10:42 am| The Christian Post|
A small congregation in New York has voted unanimously to leave Presbyterian Church (USA) following the mainline denomination's recent vote to approve gay marriage.
Brighton Presbyterian Church, a 200-year-old congregation in Rochester, voted Sunday to seek dismissal from its PCUSA regional body, the Presbytery of Genesee Valley.
The vote to disaffiliate came not long after a majority of presbyteries in PCUSA approved an amendment to their Book of Order defining marriage to include same-sex couples.
Kerry E. Luddy, spokeswoman for Brighton Presbyterian and wife of the head pastor, told The Christian Post that the decision to leave "is not a sudden decision."
"We have been prayerfully considering this for about two years, and officially began the discernment process in mid-2014," said Luddy.
"Our reason for leaving is centered on the status of biblical interpretation within the PC(USA). We believe that Scripture's meaning and intent should not be altered to fit a current culture."
Earlier this month, a majority of PCUSA presbyteries voted in favor of Amendment 14-F, which changed the definition of marriage for the denomination.
While PCUSA's Book of Order originally defined marriage as being between "a man and a woman," Amendment 14-F changed it to "two people, traditionally a man and a woman."
Support for Amendment 14-F was notable from the start, with "yes" votes from the regional bodies, or presbyteries, outnumbering "no" votes early on.
Two weeks into March, PCUSA was a mere seven votes away from Amendment 14-F succeeding, with 79 presbyteries voting "yes" and 37 voting "no."
One of the 79 "yes" votes was the Presbytery of East Tennessee, which narrowly approved the amendment with a vote of 61-56 following a meeting in Chattanoga.
"We have a lot of students who come into our campus ministry with their story being one of hurt and shame given to them by the church," said University of Tennessee campus minister Kally Elliott at the meeting.
"Our goal is to share with them the love of Jesus Christ and to let them know that they are fully loved, fully welcomed as they are, who they are."
Genesee Valley, a presbytery that includes over 60 congregations, was one of the regional bodies to vote in favor of Amendment 14-F.
The Rev. Amy Fowler, chief administrative officer for the presbytery, told CP that Brighton Presbyterian has "just completed the first phase" seeking dismissal.
"No other congregations have indicated since last Tuesday that they will request to enter the process," added Fowler.
Regarding next steps in the process, Luddy explained to CP that Brighton Presbyterian had not yet chosen another Presbyterian church to seek affiliation with, but that it would be one "that fits both our reformed theology and one that values women in leadership."
This is not the first time PCUSA has had controversy over its move toward greater acceptance of homosexuality within the church.
In 2010, the PCUSA General Assembly approved Amendment 10a, a measure allowing for presbyteries to approve ordination of noncelibate homosexuals. In response to Amendment 10a over 150 congregations voted to disaffiliate from the mainline denomination, with many forming the theologically conservative Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians.
Some have speculated that a similar exodus may befall the largest Presbyterian church in the United States in response to the passage of Amendment 14-F.
Thursday, March 26, 2015
March 25, 2015|4:05 pm| The Christian Post|
Declaring to his congregation that homosexuality is a distortion of God's creation, Southwest Missouri megachurch pastor, Rev. John Lindell of James River Church, urged his followers in a recent sermon to vote to repeal Springfield's contentious sexual orientation and gender identity law in that city's local elections on April 7.
Question 1 on the city of Springfield ballot will ask voters whether they would like to repeal the amended version of the city'sNondiscrimination Ordinance, which was expanded in October 2014 to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes for housing, jobs and public accommodations.
"I do think it's important for you to have at least heard from me my concerns relative to the repeal of the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity bill. And if you live in the city of Springfield, we are asking you on April 7 to vote 'yes,' 'yes' to the repeal of the ordinance," said Lindell, whose church attracts about 9,000 people weekly, in the March 15 sermon highlighted by News-Leader.
"It is possible for someone who has practiced a life of adultery to stop," he noted in the sermon. "It is possible for someone who has been a life-long alcoholic to stop. It is possible for somebody who has a cutting tongue and a big mouth to stop. It is possible for someone who is engaged in homosexual behavior to stop."
Despite the issue being a political conversation that could land Rev. Lindell in trouble with the IRS for speaking out, he charged that what he's doing is perfectly legal but warned that if Christians don't stand up against the ordinance, speaking out like he's doing could soon be against the law.
"Addressing this topic or the subject of the upcoming vote from the pulpit is not against the law in this country, although it may be in the future. Nor is it outside the parameters of a Gospel ministry," he explained.
"Let me put it to you this way: To those who struggle with same-sex attraction and say God made me this way, Paul's point in Romans 1 is that our human nature has turned against what God intended and that is at the heart of all sin," charged Lindell.
"Lest we think of God's judgment primarily being lightning bolts falling from heaven on people, God's judgment as it is expressed in Roman's chapter 1 is that He gives every human being who rejects His Word and His way over to their own desires, which is a catastrophic judgment. We all have desires that are warped as a result of our fallen nature: pride, selfishness, greed, anger, bitterness, unforgiveness, lust, envy, covetousness, chemical addiction. Our desires for things God has forbidden is a reflection of how sin has distorted us rather than a reflection of how Christ has made us," he noted.
"If you're a Christian living in the city limits of Springfield, I urge you to vote yes for the repeal of the ordinance. As you leave today, we'll have ['yes' signs available for you to take with you to display.] And part of the reason the signs are going up is just simply the ballot language is confusing. You'd think if you were against the ordinance you'd vote 'no,' but no, you need to vote 'yes,' because you are for repealing the ordinance; so it's a bit confusing," he continued.
"All of us need to pray, we need to pray for the well-being of our city. For some who are sitting there and you are saying 'well, you know, at least we don't live in Springfield.' "Let me just encourage you to consider that what happens in Springfield will happen in the rest of the area," he said.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Kelsey Harkness /March 20, 2015| The Daily Signal|
Religiously affiliated schools in the nation’s capital could soon be forced to formally fund and recognize student groups like LGBT organizations, whose mission conflicts with the schools’ religious beliefs.
The measure in question, called The Human Rights Amendment Act of 2014, is one of two pieces of legislation passed by the D.C. Council that supporters say will prevent LGBT students from being discriminated against, and opponents argue is an intrusion on the freedoms to religion and speech.
Catholic University of America, located in Washington D.C., is one institution that feels threatened by the proposal.
“It’s the government telling us how to run our school and the government telling us how seriously we can carry out our religious mission,” said Larry Morris, general counsel for Catholic University. “We should be able to operate our school with regard to benefits we provide to employees, with regard to recognition, operation and funding of student organizations, in a way that’s consistent with our faith.”
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., sees it differently. She says the measure will protect students from being discriminated against by their schools or universities for their sexual orientation.
“[W]e are not going to have our LGBT students stigmatized and denied by their own universities and schools,” she said last week in a press release defending the legislation.
Morris maintains, “It’s not a matter of discrimination at all.” He says students are already free to meet and discuss issues of their choice. The difference, he says, is that under the Human Rights Amendment Act, Catholic schools would be forced to formally recognize and possibly devote funding to those groups.
“Any group of students can meet and do or talk about most anything,” Morris said. “All we are talking about here is the government requiring us to recognize and give a platform to an organization that would advocate positions that are contrary to the church’s teaching.”
The Human Rights Amendment Act would eliminate the long-standing “Armstrong Amendment,” which was created to exempt religious schools in D.C. from being forced into violating their beliefs about human sexuality by “promoting, encouraging, or condoning any homosexual act, lifestyle, orientation, or belief.”
>>> Commentary: Protecting Freedom in the District of Columbia
The Human Rights Amendment Act won the approval of the D.C. Council and was signed by Mayor Muriel Bowser earlier this year. But because all D.C. legislation must be transmitted to Congress for a 30-day review period before it can take effect, Congress—with the president’s signature—has the power to stop it.
On Wednesday, Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and James Lankford, R-Okla., attempted to do just that, introducing resolutions of disapproval that, if passed and signed by the president, would effectively overturn both the Human Rights Amendment Act and the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act, which critics say could force pro-life organizations into hiring pro-choice employees.
Cruz and Lankford will face strong pushback from a coalition of about 50 national and local groups, which on Monday sent a letter urging Congress to “oppose any effort in Congress, including through resolutions of disapproval, that would prevent two bills recently passed by the District of Columbia Council from taking effect.”
In it, they wrote:
Because of the central role that access to education plays in personal and professional development, eliminating discrimination in education has long been recognized as a government interest of the utmost importance. D.C. has a substantial and compelling interest in ensuring that educational institutions in the District afford all students equal access to school facilities and services.
Tom Burnford, the secretary for education for the Archdiocese of Washington—which oversees 20 K-12 schools in D.C.—argues that Catholic schools are being discriminated against.
“I think the irony is…it’s the government getting involved in a religious school in the name of antidiscrimination, but what it’s really doing is discriminating against the school by penalizing those schools that don’t share the government’s view on so-called marriage and human sexuality,” Burnford told The Daily Signal.
Burnford believes the legislation would undermine the purpose of parents choosing to send their children to religiously affiliated schools.
“[Parents] choose to send their child to a Catholic school because they know their child or high school student will be taught a specific set of values—a specific faith,” he said. “What’s problematic is when the government starts interfering to determine what those values are.”
Friday, March 20, 2015
March 20, 2015|5:37 am| The Christian Post|
A Massachusetts Christian academic institute under fire for maintaining a policy for students and faculty that only allows for sex within heterosexual marriage has reaffirmed its stance.
Gordon College, a Christian school located in Wenham, announced earlier this week that it's maintaining its conduct policy barring sex outside of marriage, including adultery and homosexuality.
Administrators at the college also announced Monday that they will form a task force called "Life Together" that will aim to work on human sexuality issues in the campus community.
Rick Sweeney, vice president of marketing and communications atGordon College, provided The Christian Post with a statement from the academic institution on the matter.
"The taskforce, whose name is inspired by the Dietrich Bonhoeffer book of the same title, is one of several new initiatives focused on three key areas — residence life, campus programming and the overall educational experience," reads the statement.
"In addition, Gordon is bolstering its anti-bullying policies to ensure it is best serving all students. Gordon will conduct biennial surveys to assess the wellbeing of students as it relates to sexuality and sexual identity."
In an interview with CP, Sweeney explained the reasoning underpinning the decision on the part of Gordon's Board of Trustees.
"It was important to be clear [Gordon] supports the institutional commitment to orthodox biblical teaching around human sexuality," said Sweeney.
"At the same time, the college leadership is committed to ensuring we support and care for all students including those of diverse characteristics and backgrounds … while remaining faithful to our underlying Christian theological framework."
Over the past year, Gordon had made headlines over its official position that students and faculty cannot engage in sex outside of marriage or homosexual activities.
Last July, Salem's government ended its contract with Gordon over usage of the city's Old Town Hall due to the academic institute's ban on homosexual behavior.
Salem Mayor Kimberley Driscoll told CP in an earlier interview that Gordon College's "behavioral standards" policy was "in violation of the LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination ordinance that was unanimously adopted by the Salem City Council."
"The city does not contract with private parties that willfully discriminate on the basis of age, ancestry, color, disability, family status, gender identity or expression, marital status, military status, national origin, race, religion, sex or sexual orientation," said Driscoll."… [T]he city terminated the contract because Gordon's behavioral standards code conflicted with our fully LGBT inclusive non-discrimination ordinance. It is not discriminatory to reject discrimination."
Gordon's recent reaffirmation comes as part of their process of discernment surrounding a pending report meant for their accreditor, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges.
Last September, NEASC's Commission on Institutions of Higher Education and Gordon released a joint statement noting that Gordon was to undergo a process of discernment as to whether or not their policy on human sexuality was discriminatory.
Barbara Brittingham, president of the NEASC Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, provided CP with a copy of the joint statement.
"The commission has asked the college to submit a report for consideration at the commission's September 2015 meeting describing the process and its outcomes, to ensure that the College's policies and processes are non-discriminatory and that it ensures its ability to foster an atmosphere that respects and supports people of diverse characteristics and backgrounds," reads the statement from last year.
Brittingham explained to CP that Gordon is not under investigation for its policy and the institution is not on trial for maintaining its position on human sexuality.
"Gordon College is accredited through NEASC's Commission on Institutions of Higher Education and has been so continuously since 1961. The commission has enjoyed a positive relationship with Gordon College," said Brittingham.
"As indicated by the joint statement, the commission has asked Gordon College to submit a report for consideration at the commission's September meeting describing the college's discernment process and its outcomes."
Thursday, March 19, 2015
March 18, 2015|3:51 pm| The Christian Post|
A wedding videographer in Ohio could face legal action after she declined to shoot a lesbian couples' wedding ceremony because it would have conflicted with her biblical understanding that marriage should only be between one man and one woman.
When Jenn Moffitt and her partner Jerra Kincely were searching in February for a videographer to film their wedding, they sent an email inquiry to a local video production company called Next Door Stories in Bexley, Ohio, a town in the Columbus suburbs.
CNN reports that the couple got an email back from the company's owner, Courtney Schmackers, on Feb. 4 politely informing them that she doesn't offer her services for same-sex weddings.
"Hello, Thank you for reaching out about wedding videography. How did you hear about Next Door Stories?" Schmackers' email asked. "Unfortunately at this time I do not offer services for same-sex weddings, but thank you for your inquiry!"
In an interview with CNN that was published Monday, Moffitt said that she was stunned by Schmackers' response to her request.
"I couldn't believe it," Moffitt explained. "It is a small business, and I thought this was a tight-knit community. We wanted to support local commerce and to get that kind of response was astounding."
Moffitt and Kincely have filed a complaint against Next Door Stories with the Bexley Area Chamber of Commerce. The couple has also taken to Facebook to explain the conflict, which has stirred outrage among gay rights advocates, which has shined a negative light on Schmackers' business.
Although Schmackers' refused to provide a comment to CNN on why she refused to provide her services to the lesbian couple, The Daily Mail reports that Schmackers took to Facebook to explain her decision.
"I made a business decision based on my spiritual beliefs and the biblical definition of marriage because I thought that I had a right to that," Schmackers wrote. "Unfortunately, I gave the wrong answer to the wrong person, who decided to make a private issue into a public platform and now I am fully experiencing the consequences. I am sorry you had to be exposed to it, and I'm open to any and all conversation regarding it."
Although the couple filed the complaint, Ohio is one of 13 states that does not allow same-sex marriages, and Bexley is also a municipality that does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Additionally, the Bexley Chamber of Commerce does not prohibit its members from discriminating based on sexual orientation.
The Bexley Chamber of Commerce issued a statement through Facebook on Monday condemning Schmackers' refusal of service. The post continued by stating that board members have decided that the chamber's policy must be changed so that this type of "discrimination" does not happen again.
"At our Feb. 11 board meeting, we discussed in detail how the Bexley Area Chamber of Commerce could ensure this does not happen again. The Chamber Board believes that discrimination in any form is wrong and should not be tolerated. At this meeting, the board agreed that our membership policy must be revised to reflect this. We began the process of re-writing [sic] our policies and guidelines."
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
March 18, 2015|9:47 am| The Christian Post|
The California Supreme Court has instituted a policy that prohibits state judges from participating in the Boy Scouts of America because it doesn't allow openly gay adults to become troop leaders.
California Bans Judges From Participating in Boy Scouts Over Its Policy Prohibiting Gay Troop Leaders
Earlier this year the court voted unanimously to change the California Code of Judicial Ethics, removing an exemption allowing membership in youth organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, that it claims practice discrimination.
While the Boy Scouts voted in 2013 to lift its ban on openly gay youth members, it maintained its policy prohibiting openly gay adults from actively participating in troop activities or becoming troop leaders. The Christian Post contacted the Boy Scouts of America on Tuesday, but a spokesperson declined to comment on the California cout's decision.
Cathal Conneely, a spokesperson for the Judicial Council of California, provided CP with a statement about the court's actions.
"The proposed rule change was sent out for public comment last year, and the change was supported by the California Judges Association," reads the statement, in part. "The amended rule is now consistent with the American Bar Association's Model Code of Judicial Conduct. Judges will have until Jan. 21, 2016, to comply with the new rule."
Conneely added that "the court's action eliminated an exception for nonprofit youth organizations" in general, and not just the Boy Scouts.
"Of the 22 states with sexual orientation as a protected class, California was the only state with this type of exemption — it is now consistent with the other 21 states," Conneely told CP.
Richard D. Fybel, chair of the Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on the Code of Judicial Ethics, added in the statement released in January: "The only remaining exception to the general rule is membership in a religious organization."
"One other exception — belonging to a military organization — was eliminated as well, because the U.S. Armed Forces no longer restrict military service based on sexual orientation, continued "Fybel, who also serves as a justice on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
While first approved by the state supreme court in January, the changes to the code of conduct policy that effectively bans judges from participating in youth groups like the Boy Scouts has just recently garnered headlines.
In an article posted on Monday, National Public Radio covered the change and included protestations from some within the state judiciary over the change.
"I don't think that a person appearing in my court would think that I'm biased or unfair simply because I help my sons out in their Boy Scout troop," San Diego Judge Julia Kelety told NPR. "The issue is whether individual judges can choose in their private lives to be involved in an organization that has tremendous qualities and provides tremendous support for young people."