Religious Discrimination:  The case of two Muslims truck drivers, a Christian baker, and judicial tyranny.

A jury has awarded $240,000 to a pair of Muslim truck drivers who were fired after refusing to deliver alcoholic beverages; citing their religious convictions. The Obama administration through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) represented the two Muslims in this case, but ignored the same freedoms of the Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

In fairness to the EEOC, they have defended Christians in the past; see examples below:

On 7-17-15 the EEOC won $22,000 for a Seventh-Day Adventist who was refused a job because his religious belief did not allow him to work on the Sabbath.

On 8-27-15 the EEOC won a $586,860 award for an Evangelical Christian who refused to use a bio-metric time clock due to his religious beliefs.

On 8-21-15 the EEOC sued the National Federation of the Blind for terminating a Hebrew Pentecostal employee who refused to work on the Sabbath.

On 8-20-14 the EEOC sued for a Jehovah’s Witness who was fired because his religious beliefs required him to attend church on Thursday and Sunday evenings.

Why did the EEOC ignore the claim of the Christian baker?  The quick answer is that promoting the gay agenda trumps Christian rights. There is a more nuanced answer as presented by Dale Hansen, a blogger for the Detroit News.  He argues there is a difference in the case of the Muslim truck drivers and that of the Christian baker.

Hansen says: “While it may look like these cases are similar, the reality is they are quite different in one important aspect — discrimination. The job of the cake baker is to bake cakes. When he refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple he is not doing so because his religious beliefs say he can’t bake a cake — he would likely have no issues baking this exact same cake for a heterosexual wedding. He is doing so because his religious beliefs suggest there is something wrong with this couple. In the end, he is not refusing to bake a cake; he is refusing service to someone based on who they are. That is discrimination … They are not allowed to discriminate against a person for who they are” .

My Response:  The Christian baker baked cakes for the gay couple in the past. He is not against serving gays.  There was nothing “wrong” with this couple that prevented him from serving them.  It was only when the couple wanted to celebrate a gay wedding that the baker refused. He did not want to participate in an activity that offended his conscience. Suppose a heterosexual couple wanted a cake to celebrate a sex party.  The baker might have refused to serve as well, not discriminating against the heterosexual couple, but against an activity that offended his conscience. 

A further point is worthwhile.  Discrimination in times past was real, rendering real suffering upon its victims, in terms of lost work, inferior education, or humiliation.  There is no evidence such is the case here. The gay couple could easily have bought a cake elsewhere, nor is any claim of humiliation plausible, given the broad acceptance of the gay life style and support in the media. There was no harmful consequence to the supposed claim of discrimination.  Therefore the intent of the lawsuit was not to rectify an injury arising from an injustice, since there was no injury.  The real crime was the baker resisting the gay agenda.

My argument against Hansen focused on the narrow interpretation of “discrimination”. The broader issue at hand is our freedom to practice religion. The highest law of the land states the following, per the 1st Amendment to the Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

The “free exercise of religion” is referring to the reasonable and common practices of religion, the Christian religion in particular.  It does not sanction (say) the violent action by Islamists done in the name of religion to cut off the heads of those with whom they disagree.  There are reasonable limits to “free exercise of religion” just as there are limits to the free exercise of speech.

Given that the bakers showed no hatred for the gay couple (they had served them in the past).  Given that gay marriage was a reasonable conscience issue (such marriage is condemned in the Bible).  Their resistance to serve a gay marriage, especially given their willingness to serve gays in general, should be a accepted as a conscience issue protected by the 1st Amendment. Any law against “discrimination”  must be balanced against the law sanctioning “the free exercise of religion”. The failure to do so, logically, amounts to a rejection of the Bible and Christianity itself.

Sino-christiansnce the clear script of the 1st Amendment stands higher than any state or national law, and higher also than the justices on the Supreme Court who swear allegiance to the Constitution … any court that ignores the clear text of the Constitution becomes guilty of “judicial tyranny”.

The biggest question of all remains: What should a Christian nation do in the face of such tyranny?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s