We seem to be in an age of increasing government mandates that strike at the very core of the freedom of religion.  The HHS Mandate in just one example of government mandates that disregard freedom of religion.  The latest example comes from Hutchinson, Kansas, a small town northwest of Wichita.  If the Hutchinson Human Relations Commission has its way, churches will be mandated to rent out their facilities for same-sex “marriage” ceremonies.

It started back in November, 2011, when a group called the Kansas Equality Commission asked Hutchinson to add the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to its non-discrimination ordinance.  The Mayor asked the Hutchinson Human Relations Commission to study the idea and report back to the town within 90 days on its findings. The Human Relations Commission did study the issue and is recommending that the terms be added to the non-discrimination ordinance.  In the process, it put together a document entitled an FAQ sheet.  The sheet describes the practical effect of what would happen if these terms are added to the ordinance.

Some of the more chilling aspects of the change include requiring employers and places of public accommodation to allow people to use whatever restroom fits their “gender identity” at the time. The proposed changes define “gender identity” as “a gender-related identity, appearance, expression or behavior of a person, regardless of the person’s assigned sex at birth.”  What this means is that an employer or a business owner must allow a male to use the women’s restroom if he has the “appearance” or expresses the “behavior” of a female.

But the proposed change to the ordinance doesn’t stop there.  In the FAQ sheet, the Hutchinson Human Relations Commission states, “For example, if a church has a parish hall that they rent out to the general public, they could not discriminate against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party.  If the church only rents the building to their parishioners, they can continue to do so.”  The proposed change in the ordinance would mandate the churches rent out their facilities for same-sex “marriage” ceremonies or homosexual-themed parties.

Let me state this very simply – if this proposed change happens to the Hutchinson ordinance, mandating that churches rent their facilities out to people or groups that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs is patently unconstitutional.  And ADF would represent any church that is faced with such overreach and unconstitutional mandate by the government.

There is a battle raging between sexual liberty and religious freedom and there are those in our government who believe that in this conflict, religious freedom should always lose.  The Church must remain vigilant and stand to protect the right for it to live according to its religious beliefs.  It is unconstitutional for Hutchinson or any government to mandate conduct that forces a church to act in violation of its religious beliefs.  We hope that Hutchinson will see that the Constitution already mandates religious freedom and that mandate trumps the one they are proposing.

The Washington State Legislature is considering passing a bill that would allow same-sex couples in the state to “marry.”  This bill is the latest, of course, in the homosexual agenda’s march to abolish the definition of marriage.  Normally a bill legalizing same-sex “marriage” would be bad enough.  But this bill goes a step farther and poses a clear and present danger to the religious freedom of churches.  Section 7 of the SB 6239 says the following:

Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.

Let me break down this legalese.  What this bill says is that if a church rents out its facilities for non-members to use for weddings, then it will be forced to allow a same-sex couple to use its facilities for a same-sex “marriage” ceremony.  Many, if not most churches, will rent their facilities to members of the public who want to use the church building to get married.  Most churches will generally ensure that the people who are using the facilities are not going to use them in a way that is inconsistent with the church’s religious faith and mission.  But the State of Washington is considering forcing churches to open their sanctuaries to same-sex “wedding” ceremonies.

Lest you think this is an isolated occurrence, a judge in New Jersey recently ordered that a church must allow its facilities to be used for same-sex “wedding” ceremonies despite the church’s religious beliefs against such relationships.  The Judge’s rationale in ordering the church to open its facility to same-sex “weddings” was that  the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.”

All of this might sound surprising and troubling – and it is.  But for those who understand the inherent and unavoidable conflict between the radical homosexual agenda and religious freedom, the Washington Legislature’s bill and the New Jersey church case are simply sad reminders that we face a culture and a society increasingly willing to trample religious freedom in the name of sexual liberty.  Consider Chai Feldblum, President Obama’s appointed head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the EEOC).  Ms. Feldblum heads the agency tasked with eliminating discrimination in the workplace.  When she was asked what should happen “when push comes to shove, when religious liberty and sexual liberty conflict,” she admitted, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”  For those like Feldblum, the New Jersey judge, and the Washington State legislators in favor of SB 6239, the church’s freedom to follow its own religious beliefs simply do not matter.  As the New Jersey judge put it, the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.”  Put simply, religious freedom takes a back seat to sexual liberty.

It’s not too late to stop this radical attack on religious freedom.  As one court put it, the freedom of religion contained in the First Amendment is our “first freedom.”  The Washington State Legislators in favor of SB 6239 need to be reminded of this fact by a vocal populace that is tired of having sexual liberty foisted on society at the expense of religious freedom.  Speak Up now before it is too late.  And stand with ADF as we fight these battles in New Jersey and elsewhere.

Ken Hutcherson, pastor of Antioch Baptist Church in Redmond, Washington, reportedly took a stand against the Washington governor’s recent efforts to legalize same-sex “marriage,” stating:  ”As long as the Bible says it’s wrong, I’m going to fight against it like it’s the last thing I can do. It’s no different than any other sin. If someone walked around and said ‘We want to be a minority because we are divorcees,’ I would fight that just as much.” He believes that if the proponents of the new law succeed, it will profoundly restrict religious freedom, and he’s right.

Proponents of same-sex “marriage” have the ultimate goal of sexual choices being treated the same as race. In other words, they think criticizing someone for engaging in homosexual behavior should be viewed the same as criticizing someone for being Black. The religious freedom implications for this change in the law would be striking. For instance, Title VII protects religious organizations by allowing them to discriminate based on religion when it comes to hiring staff. This exemption makes sense because no one would argue a Catholic school should hire an Atheist to teach religion. But that religious exemption doesn’t apply to discrimination based on race. If the proponents of same-sex marriage are successful in elevating sexual orientation discrimination to the same level as race discrimination, religious organizations that teach biblical truth about sexuality may be forced to hire individuals who engage in homosexual behavior  for some leadership positions like teachers. (You can read more about how the homosexual legal agenda could affect religious freedom here and here.)

Pastor Hutcherson is to be commended for being willing to take a stand that may be politically incorrect, and the foresight to understand the homosexual agenda’s negative implications for religious freedom. We need more religious leaders like him.

By Joshua Tijerina, Marriage Communication Coordinator

America has not shifted on its view that marriage, by definition, is the union of a man and a woman. Contrary to poorly investigated reports and commentary, society does not appear to have an evolving view for the future of marriage either.

Now it’s important to note up front in this discussion that I am not arguing that the true nature of marriage changes based upon public opinion. But the discussion of where society stands on the issue is nonetheless a very important factor in the marriage “debate,” and it is vital for the public to understand and accept where America actually stands when it comes to the definition of marriage instead of simply accepting the falsehoods spread by activist groups who have an interest in distorting the truth for the sake of their political agenda.

Look, I can go to the Berkeley campus and find a group of students, ask them if they support same-sex “marriage,” and write a blog stating that 90% of all Californians support same-sex “marriage,” but that would not make it true. In fact, Californians have voted to keep the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman—twice.

Misleading comments and reasoning are nothing new, and no one should expect them to end, but it is important to take a moment, step back, and see what the people have actually said on this issue. In 31 states, the people have voted to support authentic marriage. And for same-sex “marriage”? Zero. There is no large-scale grass roots pro-homosexual agenda uprising happening in the United States. The advocates of this agenda might want you to think otherwise—and they will twist some arms to make it look as much—but it is wholly inaccurate.

Some have stated that because the margins of victory of the state marriage amendments have lessened over time that, somehow, this proves that American support for authentic marriage has waned. Well, as with the hypothetical Berkeley vote above, you could imagine how well a vote at, say, the University of Dallas (voted one of the most conservative by the Princeton Review) would go for the support of marriage as solely the union of a man and a woman. Likewise, in reviewing the states that have passed constitutional amendments protecting marriage, the vast majority of the early adopters were, not surprisingly, more conservative states such as Alabama (81%), Mississippi (86%), and Texas (76%), which would, logically, pass these amendments at a higher margin. States that adopted amendments in later years, such as California (52%), were typically more liberal. This is an expected response from liberal and conservative states, and it is vital to note that all of the states that have voted on the this issue have decided to protect marriage (100%). If supporters of same-sex “marriage” want to illogically deduce that the lower rate of passing in latter years is indicative of a change in public opinion, then, using that flawed reasoning, one could conclude from the last election results that by 2020 there will no longer be any Democrats in Congress.

Americans want marriage to remain the unique and diverse union that it is:  one man and one woman. The data states it. The votes confirm it. The American people have spoken again and again—31 times in fact. Sure, a handful of activist judges, one council, and four legislatures have acted against the will of the people to impose same-sex “marriage,” but when the people decide authentic marriage prevails. Let the people vote!

Anyone opposed to the acceptance of homosexual behavior as a healthy, normal, moral equivalent to heterosexuality is often accused of homophobia – an irrational fear of those engaged in homosexual behavior.  This same label is applied to any church that teaches biblical morality on the issue.  Recently, Bill Hybels, Pastor of Willow Creek Community Church in Chicago, had to defend his church’s  loving and biblical morality teachings against an attack from a homosexual activist who persuaded the head of Starbucks to breach his contract to speak at the church’s leadership summit.  Some churches, like Mt. Hope Church in East Lansing, Michigan, are sometimes even physically attacked by radical groups who support the homosexual agenda like BashBack! (an indication of irrational fear on their part).

But most pastors and churches I’m familiar with are like Willow Creek and love those caught up in homosexual behavior, wanting them to experience the freedom that Christ can give.  They don’t fear them, but they fear for them.  As Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary recently put it in his piece on the topic, “Our greatest fear is not that homosexuality will be normalized and accepted, but that homosexuals will not come to know of their own need for Christ and the forgiveness of their sins.”  Well said. If  churches truly love those who are engaged in sin that separates them from a right relationship with God, they cannot say sin is OK.  That truly would be hateful, not loving.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch