Posts

shape of United States filled in with American flag on striped background with words national news

After-School Satan Club Flops

An After-School Satan Club, which was started by the Satanic Temple in response to a Christian after-school program called Good News Clubs, isn’t fairing well. The atheist group behind the Satan Clubs approached nine school districts in 2016 that already had Good News Clubs to set up the programs. The After-School Satan Club in Tacoma, Wash., was set up in 2016, but since the club only brought one student, it has been shut down.

In contrast, the Good News Clubs are going strong. Says Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver, “[T]he Good News Clubs teach morals, character development, patriotism, and respect from a Christian viewpoint. Public schools welcome these clubs because they improve the behavior of the students and the Supreme Court has sided with these clubs.”

News Source:

NOTE: FACT provides links to external websites for educational purposes only. The inclusion of any links to other websites does not necessarily constitute an endorsement.

Get News Stories In Your Inbox Every Week

silhouette of a group of businessmen on the LGBT rainbow flag and an outline of Tennessee

Can Washington, D.C., Help ‘Tennessee Thrive’?

The extent to which then-candidate Donald Trump swamped the field of presidential contenders in the Republican Primary and then swamped Hillary Clinton should be an indication that a majority of Tennesseans rejects the liberal political values inside the D.C. Beltway. But some businesses in Tennessee don’t get it. They think we need the values of liberal political groups in D.C. in order for our state to “thrive.”

I’m referring to a new advocacy organization called Tennessee Thrives. It is composed of a number of businesses like First Tennessee; Pinnacle Financial Partners, a banking/investment business primarily in Middle Tennessee but expanding; Regal Entertainment Group, the theater chain; Jack Daniels; Auto Zone; and Saint Thomas Health. The group’s name sounds very pro-Tennessee, but it is actually an arm or an offshoot of an organization based in Washington, D.C., called Freedom for All Americans. Freedom for everybody sounds good. But what you “hear” is not what you get! It’s about less freedom and, ironically, less freedom for businesses.

Tennessee Thrives Is All About the LGBT Agenda

Freedom for All Americans and, consequently, Tennessee Thrives and its business members, are all about making sure the only voice that is heard in Tennessee politics is that of the radical politicos within the LGBT lobby and community. Yes, you heard that right. Your voice doesn’t matter unless you agree with the LGBT agenda. Let me explain.

The website for Tennessee Thrives and its business partners says that “Tennesseans must support policies of inclusivity and nondiscrimination.” That means you and me. And what are these policies?

Again they are very clear—you must support a policy that adds “gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity” to our state laws. Those words are not found in our state’s laws, but we are not alone in that regard. The laws in 31 other states don’t, either.

Yet these businesses now think we must impose on all business owners a requirement that their personnel policies must give special protection to people because of who they want to have sex with and whether their psyche tells them that their biological sex is not their real sex.

They think imposing those laws on all business owners is necessary for our state to thrive, which is ironic since the group’s website touts how Tennessee’s economy has been thriving in recent years without such laws.

Since not having sexual orientation and gender identity laws has not been a problem in relation to our state thriving, what is the real problem?

Show Me the Money

Their leaders have expressly said they don’t want any new laws that would be “harmful to the state’s economy.” So what new law, other than the one they happened to like, would be harmful to the state’s economy?

The answer is found in some of the initial stories heralding the group’s formation. One story noted the boycott in North Carolina over the law to keep men out of bathrooms and locker rooms for women. It said the boycott produced “a series of revenue losses that a group of more than 350 Tennessee businesses don’t want to see their state repeat.” Another story was about the “horrible” law Tennessee passed last year that allowed a professional counselor to make a referral if a client was asking the counselor to provide counsel contrary to their own beliefs as to what was good for the client.

In other words, they don’t want the Legislature to pass any new laws that the LGBT activists don’t like and that might cause them to threaten a boycott of the state.

What This Means and What You Can Do

With that as background, let me interpret for you what I hear these businesses saying to you and me:

We don’t care if LGBT advocates would have judges violate the separation of powers by asking them to reinterpret our laws and Constitution to suit their agenda. We don’t care about the rule of law. We don’t care about religious liberty. And we for sure don’t care like North Carolina did about the safety of women and children when men invade their bathrooms and locker rooms. The voices of all you who care about these things, even though you are the majority in Tennessee, don’t matter to us. We just want to make sure the LGBT community is happy and doesn’t boycott Tennessee, because all we care about is money, period. Yes, our Constitution, the rule of law, religious liberty, and our children’s safety are all for sale to the most organized consumer group.

These short-sighted businesses have essentially told these economic terrorists, “We’ll do whatever you want, just please don’t mention the ‘boycott’ word.” I hope our legislators are not so easily intimidated and their values are not so readily for sale.

Find out who these businesses are and then avoid patronizing them when you can. After all, they don’t think you matter anyway.


David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006. Read David’s complete bio.

FACT-RSS-Blog-Icon-small Get David Fowler’s Blog as a feed.

Invite David Fowler to speak at your event

Barronelle Stutzman

Religious Liberty As We’ve Experienced It Is Dead

Last week the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that a florist, Barronelle Stutzman, could be forced by her state to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex “wedding” ceremony in violation of her religious beliefs. What’s surprising to me is that her loss is surprising to so many Christians.

At issue in Ms. Stutzman’s case was a statute that prohibited those engaged in public commerce from not providing services to someone because of their sexual orientation. Several technical, legal arguments were made as to whether the statute should be construed to apply to her, but when you’re fighting for religious liberty on technical grounds related to the wording of the statute, then your “win,” if you win, is short lived. A liberal state will just amend the statute to close the “loophole.” That kind of fight for religious liberty, while helpful in the moment, is, as I said last week, a “useless effort” from a long-term perspective.

The real issue for those who care about religious liberty is found in the fact that the state Supreme Court rejected Ms. Stutzman’s argument that the court had “to balance her right to religious free exercise against [the customer’s] right to equal service.”

Ms. Stutzman’s Claim Actually Lost Nearly a Century Ago

Ms. Stutzman’s legal argument was before the U.S. Supreme Court 98 years ago and “religious free exercise” lost. Ironically, it was even a case about marriage! The case was Reynolds v. United States.

The question was whether Mr. Reynolds could be punished for polygamy under the U.S. laws then applicable to the Utah territory. Read carefully what the Supreme Court said of his claim that to punish him for polygamy would violate his right to the free exercise of religion:

The only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. . . . Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice? . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief?

To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

The law punishing polygamy was upheld.

It was upheld because the religious views of the time reflected in the common law and in the history of Western Civilization held that polygamous marriages were “odious” and an “offense against society.” Thus, the Court reasoned, the Framers of the Constitution could not have intended for the free exercise of religion to be an excuse to violate laws founded on the country’s moral beliefs.

Why the Stutzmans of America Will Continue to Lose

To understand why Reynolds lost and why Ms. Stutzman had to lose, we must understand the belief system that undergirded the Reynolds Court’s decision. It was a belief that a legal structure (not just a particular law) rests upon some moral code, and religious freedom can’t be used to violate the moral code found in the law. That was true then, and it is true now.

What has changed—and it explains why polygamy could be banned in 1879 and why it will not be able to be banned in the coming years—is the religious beliefs that informed our laws back then. We no longer believe that God has imposed any laws on the social order that all must recognize, including those who make our civil laws.

For example, today our moral code is increasingly finding nothing wrong with same-sex “marriage.” Therefore, a religiously grounded right not to participate in a same-sex “marriage” (unless perhaps one is a church or a minister) is not acceptable. An exception would violate today’s prevailing religious orthodoxy. The same will be true for polygamy.

Put another way, in the language of the Reynolds case, same-sex “marriage” is now “okay” not “odious.” It is more “acceptable” to society, not an “offense” against it. Therefore, Ms. Stutzman cannot make her “religious beliefs superior to the law of the land.”

Sadly, over the last century, the Christian Church became complicit in this cultural change in the religious underpinnings of our legal structure by making Christianity a matter of strictly personal behavior and by not wanting our ministers to discuss the issues of our day from the pulpit.

The vacuum the Christian Church left has been filled by another religion, secular humanism. Religious liberty for those whose beliefs are consistent with secular humanism is alive; it’s just not alive for those who, like Stutzman, hold to biblical beliefs.

The Church is now reaping the fruit of the pietism and cultural silence it has sown. Thus, conservative Christians shouldn’t be surprised anymore when courts uphold laws that force them to violate their beliefs.


David Fowler served in the Tennessee state Senate for 12 years before joining FACT as President in 2006. Read David’s complete bio.

FACT-RSS-Blog-Icon-small Get David Fowler’s Blog as a feed.

Invite David Fowler to speak at your event

White roses with Let Freedom Bloom and Justice for Barronnelle signs

WA Supreme Court Rules Florist Must Put Aside Religious Beliefs at Work

The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that the government can force 72-year-old great-grandmother and florist Barronelle Stutzman—and, by extension, other Washingtonians—to create artistic expression and participate in events with which they disagree. Stutzman provided a gay customer with flowers for more than 10 years, but when she politely declined to participate in his same-sex wedding, the state’s Attorney General and the ACLU sued her. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) will be appealing Stutzman’s case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

ADF Notes Important Points to This Case

Says ADF Legal Counsel Kellie Fiedorek about this case, “This is a grave injustice. The Court’s opinion is about crushing dissent. In a free America, people with differing beliefs must have room to coexist. It’s wrong for the state to force any citizen to support a particular view about marriage or anything else against their will. Freedom of speech and religion aren’t subject to the whim of a majority; they are constitutional guarantees.

“Our nation has a long history of protecting the right to dissent, but simply because Barronelle disagrees with the state about marriage, the government and ACLU have put at risk everything she owns. This includes not only her business, but also her family’s savings, retirement funds, and home.

“It’s no wonder that so many people are rightly calling on President Trump to sign an executive order to protect our religious freedom because that freedom is clearly at risk for Barronelle and so many other Americans.”

Barronelle Defends Her Freedom of Expression

Says Barronelle Stutzman about the ruling, “Rob Ingersoll and I have been friends since very nearly the first time he walked into my shop all those years ago. There was never an issue with his being gay, just as there hasn’t been with any of my other customers or employees. He just enjoyed my custom floral designs, and I loved creating them for him.

“But now the state is trying to use this case to force me to create artistic expression that violates my deepest beliefs and take away my life’s work and savings, which will also harm those who I employ. I’m not asking for anything that our Constitution hasn’t promised me and every other American: the right to create freely, and to live out my faith without fear of government punishment or interference.”

FACT hopes you will also stand with Barronelle because Americans don’t abandon their freedom when they open a creative business. If you share this story on Twitter, please use this hashtag: #JusticeForBarronelle

News Sources:

NOTE: FACT provides links to external websites for educational purposes only. The inclusion of any links to other websites does not necessarily constitute an endorsement.

Get News Stories In Your Inbox Every Week

 

Laurel and Hardy in the Flying Deuces

A Fine Mess In Tennessee

Often our state tax dollar is being used to draw down another dollar or two from the federal government. So, you cut a dollar from the state budget, and you may actually be losing as much as two or three dollars because you lose the federal “match.” As the proverb says, “The debtor is the slave of the lender.”

State House Majority Leader, Gerald McCormick, was recently asked about the new effort by the Tennessee State Employees Association to have state employees identify areas of wasteful spending with the hope that elimination of waste would save state employee jobs.  This effort was launched in response to Governor Haslam’s recent decision to let go 70 planners in the Department of Economic and Community Development.

But one fascinating statement by Leader McCormick that needs digesting is that federal tax dollars represent “as much as 40% of state lending.”  Wow!

I love to quote the statement, “the debtor is the slave of the lender” and while these federal dollars don’t represent “borrowing” by the state, it does represent a dependence on the federal government that is an erosion of our liberty as a state – the notion of federalism.  Federalism was the idea that states would retain their sovereignty as a part of a group of “united states” with the federal government having limited, specific powers with all other powers belonging to the states (see the 10th Amendment).

But with 40% of our budget coming from the federal government, don’t think that there are no strings attached telling us what we can and cannot do.  There are a lot of strings that wind up dictating state policy.

And that’s not all.  These federal dollars are what makes cutting the state budget so hard.  Often our state tax dollar is being used to draw down another dollar or two from the federal government (which explains, in part, why we’re up to 40% in federal revenue). So, you cut a dollar from the state budget and you may actually be reducing the service provided by the state from that dollar by as much as two or three dollars because you lose the federal “match.”  As a former state Senator caught up in a budget mess, I know this from first hand experience.

This also means that the cuts in Washington designed to attack Washington’s budget deficit and national debt will trickle (if not stream) down to the state, putting a greater demand for state cuts (which cuts are made harder for the reason just aforesaid) or increased state revenue to make up for the “lost” federal money.

Paraphrasing Stanley Laurel’s catchphrase to his comedic sidekick, Oliver Hardy, “What a nice mess we’ve gotten ourselves into!”  Except this “mess” isn’t very funny.