Obamacare, Nebuchadnezzar, and Religious Liberty

Religious Freedom, , , ,

What does the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego have to do with the Obamacare mandate that forces religious employers to pay for contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients? John Stonestreet with the Chuck Colson Center makes the connection.

Listen:

[audio:http://www.breakpoint.org/images/content/breakpoint/audio/point/2014/TPT504092014.mp3|titles=John Stonestreet – A Choice from Justice Nebuchadnezzar]

“A freedom that comes with a tax or punishment isn’t freedom at all,” Stonestreet says. “Inalienable rights aren’t bought.”

When the government tries to tax or penalize someone for exercising a fundamental right, the government is encroaching on liberty. In the case of religious employers who find contraception, sterilization, and abortion morally objectionable, the government is issuing a clear ultimatum: Either compromise your deeply-held religious convictions, or pay a stiff fine.

To put it another way, employers are free to operate their businesses according to their moral convictions if they’re willing to pay the government. In the case of Hobby Lobby–one of the companies suing over the contraception mandate–this “conscience tax” would amount to millions of dollars per year.

Courts have ruled private corporations enjoy constitutional liberties such as free speech and freedom of the press. Why shouldn’t they also have religious liberty? And why should religious business owners be taxed for obeying their convictions?

There simply is no sensible way to justify it.

READ MORE

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear NM Photographer’s Appeal

Marriage, Religious Freedom, , , ,

An appeal from a New Mexico photographer sued for refusing to photograph a same-sex “commitment ceremony” will not be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Elane Photography appealed to the court after a lower court ruling left Elaine Huguenin with hefty fines for refusing to compromise her religious beliefs.

Recent polling has shown as many as 85% of Americans believe photographers should be free to decline photographing a same-sex wedding.

From Alliance Defending Freedom:

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday declined to hear Elane Photography v. Willock, the case of a photographer who was told by the New Mexico Supreme Court that she must, as “the price of citizenship,” use her creative talents to communicate a message with which she disagrees or suffer punishment.

…

“Only unjust laws separate what people say from what they believe,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. “The First Amendment protects our freedom to speak or not speak on any issue without fear of punishment. We had hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would use this case to affirm this basic constitutional principle; however, the court will likely have several more opportunities to do just that in other cases of ours that are working their way through the court system.”

Click here to read more.

READ MORE

Why Our Religious Freedom Needs More Protection

Religious Freedom, ,

Joseph La Rue and Kerri Kupec of Alliance Defending Freedom offered an excellent explanation last week on why our basic religious freedoms need better protection.

Even though the U.S. government has a federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act protecting religious liberties from encroachment by the federal government, the State of Arkansas has yet to pass a similar law protecting religious expression at the state level. Below is an explanation of what can happen when a state does not adequately protect the religious liberties of its citizens.

So, what happens in states that don’t have a clear [Religious Freedom Restoration Act]? Elane Photography in New Mexico is a perfect illustration.

Elaine Huguenin, the Christian owner of Elane Photography, declined to photograph what two women called their “commitment ceremony.” The women had no trouble finding another photographer because plenty of them were clamoring for their business. But the couple sued Elaine’s business anyway, alleging that it had violated a law banning sexual orientation discrimination.

Elaine, however, did not refuse the women because they identify as homosexual. She declined to photograph the ceremony only because she didn’t want to promote a message at odds with her sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage. So, Elaine asserted a defense under New Mexico’s RFRA, similar to Arizona’s current RFRA, saying that the government should not be able to force her to promote and participate in the ceremony when doing so violates her religious convictions.

Forcing someone to disregard their faith and act contrary to it violates their dignity as a person. But that’s what happened to Elaine because the ambiguity in New Mexico’s RFRA, like Arizona’s current one, allowed the New Mexico Supreme Court to hand down a strained interpretation that actually distinguished between Elaine as a photographer and Elaine as a small-business owner.

Click here to read the entire column.

READ MORE