Group will pursue Religious Freedom in courts, not ballot measure

legal court

Friends of Religious Freedom

Friends of Religious Freedom Will Seek To Enforce Constitutional Rights in Court

PORTLAND, OREGON: Current Oregon law provides protection to religious institutions and clergy for choosing nonparticipation in same sex ceremonies. But the law discriminates against individuals of faith who wish to choose nonparticipation. A Jewish pianist or a Christian violinist who may not want to participate in a same sex ceremony based on deeply held religious beliefs is currently subject to government penalties and civil actions. They face a Hobson’s choice: violate your faith or face prosecution.

The intent of IP52 is to end this religious discrimination in Oregon by providing individuals of faith with protection equal under the law to that of religious clergy. But the certified ballot title does not acceptably state this. Indeed, it states it as intolerant instead of protecting equal rights of conscience. Further, we believe Oregon’s segregation between individuals of faith and religious clergy already violates both the U.S. and Oregon constitutions and we have decided to seek enforcement of existing constitutional rights through the courts rather than to make new law.

Thus, we have resolved to suspend IP52 and, instead, back an enforcement lawsuit that will be filed shortly in Oregon on behalf of individuals of faith in expressive professions who are currently being coerced to violate their faiths. The legal teams are in place and we are confident that Oregon’s religious discrimination laws will be ruled unconstitutional.

Share
  • Pressed Rat and Warthog

    How is this any different from refusing service to a mixed race couple?

    • MrBill97702

      I disagree about the comparison to interracial marriage. I think it’s more akin to marriage to your brother, sister, parent, or animal.

      • Eric Blair

        And yet it is nothing like that.

        However, since they have decided to use the courts, you, of course, will now make some reference to them as Nazis and fascists?

      • Eric Blair

        But if your religious views taught you to believe that mixed race marriages were wrong, then it would be OK to not serve the, right?

        • MrBill97702

          But they don’t. Let’s stay in the real world.

          • Eric Blair

            Not for you, but for others it does. And presumably their religious views need protecting as well.

          • .

            Numb-sense toming often from a New World Order monk trustee!

  • Sally

    no freedom is worth the pain caused by refusing to serve someone who is just different….

    • Myke

      The pain is caused by forcing someone who is unwilling to provide a service, rather then voting with your dollars and feet and supporting someone who agrees with you. Smile, turn, and choose another capitalist.

      • What’zits BegonnePlz.

        And that appliques to Eric the Sublimated as swill!
        Start mitigating freedom of speech and choice: Densicle’s tart sport another round of Marxism, Communism, DEMonstravism and awl, analular type of Liberalism to take in tow and bestow, ta-da, New World Order-gasm.

      • Eric Blair

        So you would be against all laws banning discrimination by public accommodations?

        • MrBill97702

          Think about how anti-discrimination laws originated. It was in the midst of a culture where blacks and whites weren’t even supposed to drink from the same drinking fountain. Anti-discrimination laws were an extreme solution to an extreme problem.

          Today we’re largely past that. I would argue that they could be phased out. Even the provisions that apply to me personally. Like someone else said above, if someone doesn’t want to do business with me, I’m going to find me another capitalist who will.

          • Eric Blair

            So, you’re OK with soft-discrimination because it’s not as pervasive as it once was. Of course, once discrimination becomes OK… don’t you think that it might increase again?

            So, now that the former friends of IP52 are now going to use the courts, don’t you think that makes them fascists by your own definition?

            It is truly sad when people bend over backwards to justify bigotry. You are a very sad man. Using religion to justify and cover for your obvious hate.

          • .

            Blogwash! Culling free speech, what a ditzwinger oxymoron you tzar, Eek Bee.

  • GObill sizemore

    Social conservatives cannot win this case in an Oregon court. The Oregon Supreme Court is heavily biased in favor of gay rights. The ballot title case for IP-52 should lay that question to rest. The federal courts are just as likely to rule the same way, all the way through the Ninth Circuit. Only if the SCOTUS rules in favor of the right of conscience will there be any protections in the courts.
    By controlling the ballot title process and sabotaging the titles for measures they don’t like, the Oregon Supreme Court, which is highly political, controls not only the judicial branch but also a big chunk of the legislative branch. Who knows, maybe there is a separation of powers issue there that might be worth pursuing.

    • Eric Blair

      Yeah, because describing the ballot title as it really is instead of trying to make it all flowery is being biased. I’d say the opposite was true, and that the supporters of IP52 didn’t get away with a shell game.

      “The Oregon Supreme Court is heavily biased in favor of gay rights.

      Or, put another way, the Oregon Supreme Court is heavily biased in favor of protecting the rights of all Oregonians and fighting discrimination. I’m sure that there might be some backwater community you could move to that still keeps people in their “rightful” place.

      • GObill sizemore

        It is no secret that I have been involved in and observed first hand more ballot title cases than pretty much anyone in the country. I know biased language when I see it. The court acted to help one side of a political argument defeat another side. It was wrong for the court to do so.
        This is not about keeping gays in their place. This is an issue that people of good will, and that apparently does not include you, can discuss with cool heads and come to differing conclusions. Do gays have the right to use the power of government to force, coerce, or compel other people, people whose consciences genuinely prohibit them from participating in or supporting certain activities, to act in violation of their deeply held religious and moral convictions? That is not the slam dunk moral issue you seem to think. I know people who support gay rights across the board who do not agree that gays should be allowed to sue to force others to violate their own consciences.
        Such activities as making wedding cakes and the like are not essential services that people cannot live without or cannot easily obtain elsewhere. Gays are perfectly free to take their business wherever they wish, but instead they (by that I mean some) sue to force their beliefs down other peoples’ throats. Liberal Oregon judges may agree with them, but I bet if this issue gets before the U.S. Supreme Court, the case would be a close call and would be decided five-to-four, one way or the other.
        You can call names and deride those on the opposite side. You can pretend they are the Taliban. But a case could be made that the opposite is true. The ones with the power, the ones disturbing the peace, the ones forcing their views down the throats of others are the liberals who hold political sway in Oregon – and that is not the social conservatives of which you complain.

        • MrBill97702

          Well said.

          • Eric Blair

            So what about the Christofascists and their willingness to use the courts to to enforce your religious bigotry.

          • GObill sizemore

            This statement disqualifies you to make the statement you make in your next comment, which is an attack on my character. Terms like “Christofascits” are only used by those who reject the authority of God to determine what is right and wrong. If I am going to be called dishonorable, I am glad it is by someone like you.

          • Eric Blair

            That phrase was done ironically. Mr. Bill calls some gay activists the gaystapo simply because they go to the courts to assert their rights. I’ve been trying to get him to answer me — since supporters of IP52 are going to go to court to assert their position, does that make them fascists? He’s been strangely quiet on that issue (unless he answered below and I haven’t seen it yet). The fact that he likes your comment doesn’t speak well for you.

        • Eric Blair

          You see biased language when it benefits you. There is absolutely, in my opinion, no reason to trust you for any reason at all. I do not consider you an honorable man.

          • GObill sizemore

            At least hundreds of people who know me personally consider me an honorable man, but what does this have to do with the topic at hand. Ultimately, I will be judged by One greater than you or I and His judgment is sure. For the moment, however, I must point out that rather than answering my statements and the logic and reason they represent, you attack me personally. What does that say about the strength of your position?

          • Eric Blair

            Actually, I did address your argument, and found it wanting. You didn’t present any facts to back up your opinion, just a diversion that since you’ve been heavily involved in the initiative process. Your comment received the consideration it was due.

          • GObill sizemore

            Good enough. No need to waste any more time. Your side should triumph in the Oregon courts and that should make you happy for the moment. Hopefully, reason will be restored some time down the road. But with the liberal courts on your side, as well as the big, politically correct Nike types, it may take a while.

          • Eric Blair

            Or, certain socially conservative Christian groups will realize that using religion to justify their bigotry is an untenable position.

            Do you think Jesus would have turned away homosexuals? Would he have refused to to cure them of disease? Would he have let them starve to death? LOL.. if he operated a bakery, would have refused to serve them? Baked a cake for some “sinners” but not others?

          • They’ll Benghazzi him assure

            SOS Kerry, take Eric Blair along as a dimple mat for the captors of more than 300 Nigerian girls to set upon and play patty cake, parlay cake on what their intonational flea speech demeans.

          • GObill sizemore

            If the Bible calls something sin and you call it bigotry to say that it is sin, then you must mean that the Bible is a book for bigots. If that is indeed where you are coming from, then how can we possibly discuss this issue? Jesus did not condemn the woman taken in adultery, but he did tell her to go her way and sin no more. His mercy and profound graciousness was not without a clear exhortation to stop doing the wrong thing that she was doing. Jesus loves gay people, but that does not mean He would not say the same thing to them that He said to that woman, I do not condemn you but do not continue in your sin.

          • Eric Blair

            Yet, that is what people in the bakery are saying – I condemn you and refuse to serve you. Since it is up to God alone to judge, why are they taking on God’s role? And why this particular sin? Why such a narrow view. Shouldn’t good Christian bakers also refuse to bake cakes for Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindi?

            The bigotry isn’t just in believing that homosexuality is a sin, but in acting on that fact as the only important factor their interaction with the person buying the cake, and their reasons for the cake.

            Gluttony is a sin too.. shouldn’t they refuse to sell cakes to a fat person?

            I’ve come to realize that most Christians are very selective in the sins the acknowledge and the ones they don’t.

            The bigotry is in, equal part, their selective application of their Christian beliefs and values.

          • GObill sizemore

            So now, Eric, you think you have the right to tell Christians which sins they should feel most strongly about? Is that what you are saying? The most troubling thing about your statements is that you continue to ignore the real issue. The bakers did not refused to do business with the couple because they were gay, but because they wanted a wedding cake. The gay couple tried to force the bakers to make them a cake for their gay wedding. In other words, the gay couple made their gayness an issue. The bakers did not make it an issue until the gay couple did.
            Why would a Christian refuse to bake a cake for a Jew or Buddhist or a Hindu? They likely would not. Now, if the bakery was asked to prepare a cake that said, “There is only god and his name is Allah,” they might refuse to do so. It would not be because the person was a Muslim, but because the message they were being asked to help promulgate might offend the baker’s strongly held personal religious beliefs.
            You might not be capable of recognizing or acknowledging that distinction, but it is a real one.

          • Eric Blair

            I don’t believe I made the claim that I get to do that, I was asking why they are so selective. Why this particular sin, and not others. Please read more carefully.

            Well, for a Hindu, because they are worshiping a false God(s). I don’t believe the bakers’ qualms were with the wording, but with that fact that the cake was going to be used in a gay marriage.

            Without any wording on the cake, if christian bakers new that the cake was going to be used in Hindi or Jewish wedding, shouldn’t they refuse to bake one?

          • .

            Moist half fast and delirious celebrate Eric Blair.

            Indeed, ‘straight’ arrow SodomBytes and GomerPyles appraise his sermons amounting ass to nothing less than testicle-lar jergue du resume’.

          • .

            Fanook U, alimentary attending your BS decree of sublimation?