Connect with us

Culture

Time to give conscientious objector status to bakers and clerks

Bryan Fischer

Published

on

My father grew up in the pacifist Mennonite tradition. When it came time for him to serve in the U.S. military in World War II, he was granted conscientious objector status and allowed to serve as a medic rather than bear arms. He served his country nobly and well, and in fact was exposed to considerable risk as he provided medical care to wounded soldiers near the front.

But in classic American fashion, he was not compelled to violate his own conscience and his own deeply held religious convictions. Such concessions to Christian principle have been a part of our system of American values from the founding. Quakers, for instance, were exempt from being pressed into militia service as far back as 1757.

Not only Quakers and Mennonites but the Amish, the Church of the Brethren, and the Seventh-day Adventists have been known as non-combatants.

And the provision has not even been limited to Christians. Jehovah’s Witnesses have historically claimed CO status, and the Supreme Court in the end even allowed Muhammad Ali to avoid military service altogether on the grounds of conscientious objections based on his newly acquired Islamic faith.

Such accommodations to conscience are even embedded in the Constitution itself. In three different places, it allows the use of an “affirmation” in the place of an “oath,” out of respect for the deeply held Quaker conviction that Jesus prohibited the taking of oaths in Matthew 5:34-37.

With regard to the cultural conflict over marriage, It’s long past time that we grant conscientious objector status to Christians who bake cakes and Christians who serve as county clerks. In fact, the same CO status must be made available to every wedding vendor, whether he bakes cakes, shoots photographs, arranges flowers, prints invitations, or hosts receptions.

And the same CO status must be granted to county clerks, magistrates, judges, and justices of the peace who may be asked to dispense licenses or perform ceremonies for homosexual or lesbian couples.

Regrettably, many in the wedding license business have chosen to resign rather than resist when asked to participate in the same-sex marriage process. While resigning is certainly understandable in today’s climate, it represents a dangerous lurch in the direction of creating a society in which Christians are not allowed to serve in public office of any kind.

No American should be compelled to violate his own conscience as a condition of participating in American society, whether economically or politically. Until natural marriage is restored to its rightful place, allowances based on deeply held Christian conviction must be made.

Ohio showed us how such an accommodation can be fashioned, when Municipal Judge C. Allen McConnell politely declined to perform a same-sex wedding based upon his “personal and Christian beliefs.” Because performing such weddings is not a problem for presiding judge Michelle Wagner, she stepped forward and offered to perform all requested wedding ceremonies. Judge McConnell’s conscience thus is protected, and homosexuals get to have the weddings the Supreme Court in all its benighted wisdom has authorized.

A Christian objection to participating in a ceremony creating a counterfeit marriage based on abnormal sexual behavior is clearly rooted in Scripture. “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness,” the apostle commands us in Ephesians 5:11. From a biblical perspective, solemnizing a sodomy-based wedding is clearly taking part in an unfruitful work of darkness.

Conscientious objector status for wedding vendors and wedding officiants is an idea whose time has come.

Bottom line: if a student cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in violation of conscience, a baker must not not be compelled to bake a cake nor a judge to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony. It’s the American thing to do.

Bryan Fischer is a senior columnist for Cowger Nation, and the radio host of Focal Point, where he provides expertise on a wide range of public policy topics.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. Chuck Anziuilewicz

    July 18, 2015 9:32 am at 9:32 am

    People used to use the Bible to justify racial segregation and laws against interracial marriage. Maybe we can give them “conscientious objector” status, too, so we can go back to the “good ol’ days” when good Christian folks didn’t have to serve the “coloreds” at lunch counters.

  2. Chuck Anziulewicz

    July 19, 2015 12:34 pm at 12:34 pm

    The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that there is no Constitutional justification for denying law-abiding Gay couples the same opportunity to marry that Straight couples have always taken for granted. So NOW the opponents of marriage equality are taking their revenge, ensuring that business owners who are against marriage equality can discriminate against Gay couples even if they are legally eligible to marry. Social and religious conservatives are nothing if not vindictive.

    But a business is not a church. It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about a bakery or a restaurant, a photo studio or a factory. They aren’t in the business of providing spiritual guidance or enforcing moral doctrines. They are there to turn a profit. As such, they are obligated to abide by prevailing civil rights laws, whether those laws protect people from discrimination based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.

    Conservative columnist Erick Erickson came to the defense of Christian business owners: “Committed Christians believe in a doctrine of vocation. They believe that their work is a form of ministry. Through their work, they can share the gospel and glorify God.”

    Oh, and also rake in as much money as possible. You can wax poetic all you want about “glorifying God,” but at the end of the day these businesses wouldn’t exist were it not for the profit motive.

    Should a restaurant owner be able to refuse service to Blacks because he has “moral objections” to race-mixing? Should an employer be able to fire a Muslim employee because he wants to run “a nice Christian workplace”? And if a Christian florist agrees to provide flower arrangements at a Muslim couple’s wedding, does it mean he is necessarily endorsing Islam?

    If the answer to these questions is NO, what justification is there refusing service to a Gay couple who wish to get a wedding cake or celebrate their anniversary in a restaurant?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Culture

THE MOST STUPID THING IN SPORTS/ATHLETICS TODAY: Transgender-women vs. actual women.

Jimmy Zulz

Published

on

I think that women are starting to react and push back a bit. Finally. This is easily the most stupid thing in sports, and it boggles my mind that the people running these events haven’t put a stop to it already. And that thing is: transgender women are competing with God-made women.

I will guarantee you that there are going to be some male athletes (not all and probably not most), who are unable to compete and win in male competition, so they think hey, this is a great way to be more successful in (fill in the blank).  So, they go through the surgeries and whatever is necessary to compete as a woman and… voila! Now, they are up at the top in competition.

I heard a possibly transitioning-man on sports talk radio (I’m sorry they’re even talking about this) call in and he said, “If the man is going to go through the hardship and painful surgery to become a woman, women in that sport are just going to have to suck it up and realize she’s every bit as much a woman as they all are.”

And that’s the problem: he-now-she is much more than the God-made women in that sport, so he-now-she has an enormous advantage. Strength and ability will likely be more than most women can compete with. It’s absolute bull-crap.

The fact that some women athletes are speaking up is why they were talking about it on the radio. At some point, these God-made women are going to have to DEMAND that trans-she-males will have to have their own division, because putting men in competition with women is flat out unfair. I can’t imagine why this wasn’t done immediately.

Continue Reading

Culture

MAKING KIDS GAY? Disney to begin indoctrinating and exposing children to homosexuality.

Caiden Cowger

Published

on

Tonight, Disney Channel is airing an episode of Andi Mack, featuring its “first gay coming-out story.” This episode will mark the primer of the show’s second season, and is directed at children ages 10 and up.

Andi’s friend Cyrus Goodman (played by Joshua Rush) will begin his coming-out journey as a homosexual. Disney is using a 15-year-old boy, Joshua Rush, as an instrument to promote the homosexual lifestyle, while also exposing Rush to homosexual behavior in the process. Disney Channel is actively participating in the corruption of a minor.

It is expected that this plot-line could potentially lead to underage, teenage boys participating in same-sex kissing. This perversion will broadcast to millions of teenagers and children across America, exposing them to homosexual behavior. Such programming can cause confusion in minors, leading them to question their sexual preference, starting at the young age of just 10 years old.

“‘Andi Mack’ is a story about ‘tweens’ figuring out who they are,” Disney Channel expressed in a statement earlier this week. “Everyone involved in the show takes great care in ensuring that it’s appropriate for all audiences and sends a powerful message about inclusion and respect for humanity.”

The story line also gained praise from the GLAAD LGBT advocacy organization.

“With more and more young people coming out as LGBTQ, Andi Mack is reflecting the lives and lived experiences of so many LGBTQ youth around the country,” the organization’s president and CEO, Sarah Kate Ellis, released in a statement. “Television reflects the real life world and today that includes LGBTQ youth who deserve to see their lives depicted on their favorite shows. Disney has been a leader in LGBTQ inclusion and there are so many young people who will be excited to see Cyrus’ story unfold.”

The first episode airs October 27, 2017, at 8:00p | ET.

Continue Reading

Culture

THE CO-ED SCOUTS OF AMERICA

George Lujack

Published

on

On October 11, 2017, the Boy Scouts of America’s board of directors unanimously agreed to allow girls to join the Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, giving girls the opportunity to earn the highest rank of Eagle Scout.

“I’m saying that the Boy Scouts have a standard. You must be a biological boy to be a Boy Scout. You have to be a boy to be a Boy Scout.”

“Where is that written though?”

“In the name, ‘Boy’ Scouts.”
– Ben Shapiro

Not anymore, Ben. This is 2017 and this is the new progressive Boy Scouts of America, who announced that they will begin to allow girls to join their ranks.

What Ben Shapiro said however, is nonetheless true, “You must be a biological boy to be a Boy Scout. You have to be a boy to be a Boy Scout.” If the ‘Boy’ Scouts do not change the name of their organization to “The Scouts,” or something similar, the organization will be taking a stand in the cultural war on the side of liberal progressives over the issue of gender neutrality. Any girl who states, “I am a ‘Boy’ Scout,” will be unwittingly stating that she is a boy, even if she is a genuine scout, the type of girl who likes the scouting activities that the Boy Scouts provide and are involved in.

Although the Boy Scouts’ board of directors voted to allow girls to join their ranks, they were within their First Amendment Constitutionally protected right of freedom of association to deny them entry.

The Girl Scouts of America could wind up being a casualty of the Boy Scouts’ decision to recruit girls into their membership rolls. Back in August, the head of the Girl Scouts accused the Boy Scouts organization of a “covert campaign to recruit girls,” as a way to boost declining membership. If girls across America decide to join the Boy Scouts, en masse, it could mean the end of the Girl Scouts as a viable organization.

Other than the issue of a girl calling herself a “‘Boy’ Scout,” conservatives should not be overly concerned with co-ed scouting. Boys and girls have enjoyed a long history of sharing summer camp activities together in America, without becoming gender neutral. Boys will still be boys and girls will still be girls (most of the time).

“Girls will be boys and boys will be girls it’s a mixed up muddled up shook up world…”
– The Kinks, “Lola

However, the gender-neutral minded cultural elites would like to redefine the gender roles of boys and girls in society and confuse the gender identity of boys and girls, when possible, which is the real issue that is rightfully alarming to most Americans. Progressives have long sought to corrupt and neuter the Boy Scouts through social engineering, as they have likewise done in other institutions, and have now succeeded in doing so.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Most Popular