Religious Liberty Executive Order Good First Step

Affirming that our liberties are a gift of God that no government can rightfully take away, President Donald Trump today signed the long-awaited executive order on religious liberty.

The executive order has two main components. First, it directs government officials to consider changing regulations to allow conscience-based objections to the contraceptive mandate, which requires insurance plans to cover contraceptives and abortifacients.

Second, it instructs federal agencies to avoid penalizing tax-exempt organizations, including churches, that “speak about moral or political issues from a religious perspective.”

Speaking to the press in the White House Rose Garden before signing the executive order, the president reiterated his belief that “for too long, the federal government has used the power of the state as a weapon against people of faith, bullying and even punishing Americans for following their religious beliefs.”

While there is hope that today’s executive order will be a first step to restoring religious liberty, there remain grave threats to the fundamental freedom to live according to the dictates of one’s faith and conscience.

Joseph Backholm, President of FPIW, says he is “cautiously optimistic” about the executive order, calling it “a step in the right direction.”

Backholm hopes the executive order will be used by federal agencies to “develop comprehensive rules protecting religious liberties.”

Some religious liberty advocates, including the Heritage Foundation’s Ryan T. Anderson, expressed their concern that the executive order fails to make substantive reforms protecting religious liberty. In a press release today, Alliance Defending Freedom President Michael Ferris said the executive order amounts to “vague instructions to federal agencies [that] simply leaves them wiggle room to ignore [the] gesture.”

A draft of the executive order released in February included far greater protections for religious liberty. That draft protected the rights of those—including federal employees, religious organizations, and some businesses—who believe in traditional marriage and the traditional conception of two genders, male and female. These protections were not included in the executive order signed today.

“Our founding fathers believed that religious liberty was so fundamental that they enshrined it in the very first amendment of our great and beloved constitution,” President Trump said in the Rose Garden press conference today. “No American should be forced to choose between the dictates of the federal government and the tenets of their faith.”

On that, Mr. President, we wholeheartedly agree.

Why Are Judges Only Concerned About Anti-Muslim Bias?

Central to the legal argument of those who oppose President Trump’s executive orders restricting travel to and from six Middle East nations is the idea that his campaign rhetoric invalidates the executive orders.

In her decision against the executive order, US District Judge Leonie Brinkema from Virginia wrote, “Absent the direct evidence of animus presented by the Commonwealth, singling out these countries for additional scrutiny might not raise Establishment Clause concerns; however, with that direct evidence, a different picture emerges.” Brinkema admits that the executive order would likely have been found constitutional had it been given by any other president. She goes on to explain her opinion that President Trump’s campaign rhetoric suggests that the order “was not motivated by rational national security concerns” but “religious prejudice.”

US District Judge Derrick Watson from Hawaii concurred. Watson reasons that Trump’s comments on the campaign trail represent “significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus driving the promulgation of the Executive Order,” and that such animus was enough to violate the Constitution, even though nothing in the order is inherently illegal.

It is concerning that the precedent being set by these court decisions is that the author’s statements about the law determines its legality, not the actual text of the laws themselves. Presumably, this means any action taken by President Trump affecting Muslims will be declared unconstitutional.

Why wasn’t this novel legal standard applied to the previous administration’s actions affecting Christians, especially considering the administration’s animus toward those holding traditional religious values?

Amid the 2008 presidential primary season, then-Senator Obama, speaking of small town Americans, said that they were “bitter” and that they “cling to guns or religion.” By clearly demonstrating “religious prejudice” and “significant and unrebutted evidence of religious animus” toward conservative Christians, Obama’s comments could have been used to find his actions affecting conservative Christians unconstitutional, at least according the logic of the aforementioned judges.

Funny enough, Obama’s comments weren’t used to find his actions affecting Christians unconstitutional, and not for lack of opportunities. Obama administration executive orders and legislation often ended up in court on the grounds of religious freedom involving Christians, most prominently Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Martin Castro, the Obama-appointed chairman of the US Commission on Civil Rights, declared that “religious liberty” and “religious freedom” were nothing but “code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance.” Any reasonable person would interpret these statements as anti-Christian animus. As the head of a major federal agency, Castro’s words clearly carry weight. So why do his rhetoric and the similar statements of others in the Obama administration never seem to come up in religious freedom cases involving Christians? Why are separate standards applied in cases based on the religion in question?

The appropriate conclusion is clear: The religious liberty of Christians is not valued by mainstream America in the same way that the religious liberty of other religions is. And even more disappointing, the religious liberty of Christians isn’t valued by the courts in the same way other religions are.

As President Trump fills out the more than 100 judicial vacancies, he should make the issue of religious liberty a top priority in his selections. Judge Neil Gorsuch is a great start. Let’s hope this emphasis on religious liberty continues to be reflected in lower court appointments, too.

 

James Silberman is a guest contributor to the FPIW Blog. He is a pro-life activist from Gig Harbor, WA, and a student at Whitworth University.

We Don’t Give Up Our Inalienable Rights When We Go Into Business

Surprisingly – or maybe not – the decision made by the Washington State Supreme Court regarding Arlene’s Flowers last month went widely unreported. Although the Court’s decision was upsetting to religious liberty supporters, the outcome was already expected by most when the Attorney General’s crusade against Barronelle Stutzman was first made public. Washington State has been overstepping its legitimate jurisdiction for years now, and many pro-family advocates already understand that we are fighting an uphill battle. What is amazing, though, isn’t the decision itself, but the arguments I saw on social media in favor of the Court’s decision.

I came across some interesting things when reading through an online comment thread this morning. First, people don’t seem to understand the difference between a privately owned business and a publicly owned business. Their argument falsely assumes that a business operated out of the privacy of a home on a referral basis would have the right to deny service; however, should the entrepreneur choose to open a shop open to the public, the owner’s rights must be jettisoned. But in reality, operating a business that is open to the public does not mean it is a “publicly owned business” or that the business owner’s rights should be subjected to the demands of the mob.

There are several different types of business structures. Sole proprietorship is the most common and refers to a business that is owned (and typically operated) by one person. This person usually sinks everything they own into their business. A proprietor is legally and financially responsible for their business; if, for example, a business is sued, the proprietor’s assets will be used to pay the damages. Another business arrangement is a partnership, in which two or more people enter into a business agreement and still retain full liability. Limited liability companies (LLCs) are structured similarly to a partnership, but such an arrangement provides some protection to the owners against accidents or lawsuits. There are also corporations which act as a separate entity from their owner(s) entirely. All of these businesses are private. The owners retain their rights. A person does not relinquish their fundamental, inalienable, constitutionally-protected rights when he or she enters into business.

The individual then tried to argue that refusing services based on politics is acceptable while refusing business based on conscience is somehow abhorrent. To someone looking at it from an objective, logical standpoint, this assertion makes little sense. Why is discrimination motivated out of political beliefs allowed when discrimination rooted in religious beliefs is not acceptable? If you’re going to decry religious discrimination, then you cannot reasonably support political discrimination.

Perhaps the most erroneous argument I heard on this thread was the claim that there are protected classes of citizens. These protected classes are groups of people who, because of various claims of racism, bigotry, sexism, and homophobia, claim to need additional protections under the law. This does a serious disservice to the LGBTQ community by essentially making them second-class citizens. One commentator refers to this as “the soft bigotry of low expectations,” meaning that some feel these groups need additional protections not afforded to other groups of people because the marginalized groups are helpless without those protections. The progressive Left uses these tactics to create dependence, exacerbating these issues to assemble a larger voting block which allows them to remain in office (and receive a substantial paycheck). In return, they promise to fight for societal validation and respect for those groups. In his dissent over the same-sex marriage decision, Justice Thomas said, “The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.”

Conservatives fight against these special protections because no one’s rights should be placed above those of another. It is man’s nature to have dissenting opinions. Everyone will never agree on everything, and it is not possible to have a society where no one’s feelings are hurt. But thankfully, we do live in a society where everyone is afforded the same rights under the law. Because government cannot protect the feelings of some without violating the rights of others, its role is to protect everyone’s religious liberty, conscience rights, and freedom of speech and association, even for those who the majority finds distasteful or offensive. Perhaps Thomas Jefferson put it best when he said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

 

Kyli Erickson is a guest contributor to the FPIW Blog.

Religious Liberty: The Kleins’ Battle is Our Battle

The freedom to discern right from wrong is among the most fundamental of human rights. It is so central to our being that it is a defining aspect of human nature itself. If we have no conscience, or no freedom to express our conscience, then we are denied part of our humanity.

Freedom of conscience was on trial on Thursday before the Oregon Court of Appeals. Aaron and Melissa Klein and their business, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, are currently the subject of a major religious freedom lawsuit. The Kleins lost their bakery and were fined $135,000 for declining to create a custom-made wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. Also of note, the Kleins were given a gag order by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, preventing them from speaking publicly about the details of the case or their religious beliefs.

This comes on the heels of Richland, WA, florist Barronelle Stutzman losing her case in the Washington State Supreme Court (Stutzman was sued by Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson after she declined to provide a same-sex wedding). These cases, and the many like them currently being litigated around the country, are not about homosexuality or Christianity. What is at stake is the fundamental liberty and natural right of each of us as American citizens to live our lives according to our sincerely-held beliefs.

For small business owners everywhere, many state governments, including Washington and Oregon, are making their position clear: deny your own conscience or give up your business, have your savings accounts emptied, and possibly spend time in jail.

Canadian philosopher Stefan Molyneux explains the issue well: “If you have no freedom of conscience, you have no freedom at all. Conscience must be inviolate. It’s the essence of who we are.”

Likewise, “When people can force you to go against what your conscience dictates, they own you more deeply than any slave master,” Molyneux said on his Freedomain Radio show.

You may not personally know Aaron and Mellissa Klein, Barronelle Stutzman, Donald and Evelyn Knapp, or Cynthia and Robert Gifford, but these people represent the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Their battle is our battle. If they continue losing in court, the government will have the unchecked power to strong-arm individuals of any race, religion or creed into violating their conscience. It is my hope that every individual, Christian and Atheist, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, straight and gay, will reject that dastardly kind of totalitarianism.

 

James Silberman is a guest contributor to the FPIW Blog. He is a pro-life activist from Gig Harbor, WA, and a student at Whitworth University.

FPIW Joins Effort to Encourage Trump to Protect Religious Freedom

FPIW has joined with dozens of pro-family organizations asking President Trump “to swiftly sign a broad religious freedom Executive Order protecting the right of all Americans to freely live out their faith.”

In a letter to President Trump, Vice President Pence, Speaker Ryan, and Majority Leader McConnell, the organizations call on the new presidential administration and Congress to reverse President Obama’s attacks on religious freedom and enact strong protections for the sacred right.

The letter evokes many high profile religious liberty cases of the last eight years, including Hobby Lobby, Little Sisters of the Poor, Illinois Catholic Charities, and Sweet Cakes by Melissa:

“Under his ‘hallmark achievement’ (Obamacare) alone, the Obama Administration attempted to: force Christian family-owned businesses like Hobby Lobby to pay for drugs and devices that can cause early abortions, force Christian charities like the Little Sisters of the Poor to include those same drugs in their healthcare plans, and contravene longstanding federal policy protecting Americans from being forced to fund abortions against their religious beliefs. …

“Families in our states have felt the impact of the disregard and disdain for religious freedom from the federal level. Frequently, state non-discrimination laws have been used as a weapon to punish people of faith and prevent them from earning a living— unless they comport their businesses in the image of the government’s viewpoints. The Kleins in Oregon are a tragic example—Melissa Klein lost her bakery business and was forced to pay a fine of over $100,000 simply because as a family-owned business operated in accordance with the Kleins’ deeply held beliefs, they disagreed with using Melissa’s cake-decorating talents to participate in a same-sex wedding. Illinois Catholic Charities—an organization that partnered with government to serve the state’s poor and neglected children for over 40 years—was forced to shut down rather than comply with the government’s rule requiring them to abandon the core convictions that motivated their charity in the first place.”

It also details the Obama Administration’s attempts to limit religious liberty to a more restricted “freedom to worship”:

“The Administration unsuccessfully argued that the First Amendment does not exempt churches from employment discrimination laws, even when hiring their own pastors and teachers. Ironically, in the name of ‘preventing discrimination,’ President Obama issued an Executive Order in 2014 that discriminates against faith-based entities by preventing them from contracting with their own government unless they forfeit their religious beliefs about human sex and sexuality. One final example is the Obama Administration’s regular use of the term ‘freedom of worship’ instead of ‘freedom of religion’—implying a deep misunderstanding about the depth of First Amendment protections. We are guaranteed the right to freely live out our faith in all aspects of life—not just the freedom to worship our God within the four walls of our church or home.”

The letter concludes by asking President Trump to sign an executive order protecting religious liberty, much like the proposed executive order that was leaked earlier this month:

“A broad religious freedom Executive Order affirming that persons and organizations do not forfeit their religious freedom when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts; or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with local, state, or federal governments is an excellent and vital first step to truly make religious freedom great again. Congress should follow your lead to pass strong religious freedom protections into law.”

Click here to read the letter in its entirety.

Write to President Trump and ask him to sign the executive order: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact#page.

House Committee Debates Bringing Obamacare Mandates to Washington

Should controversial mandates from Obamacare—which many believe are on the way out in Washington, D.C.—be made a permanent part of Washington State law?

That is the question the House Healthcare and Wellness Committee considered this morning.  The committee heard public testimony on HB 1523, which would require all health insurance plans to cover all preventative services required under federal law as of December 31, 2016.  It also bans plans that would share the cost of any of those services with employees.

Even before public testimony was heard, members of the committee expressed concern about the details of the bill.  The one-page bill is remarkably short.  However, it incorporates hundreds of pages of federal law and an untold volume of “guidance” into Washington State law.  No one seemed to have an understanding of exactly what the mandates do and do not cover.

Some of those who came to Olympia today to express concerns about HB 1523. From left to right: Brett Kinney, Electric Mirror; Michael Pauley, Human Life of Washington, Arina Grossu, Family Research Council, Luke Esser, Washington State Catholic Conference

Proponents of the bill argued that mandatory coverage for “preventative care” would make it easier to detect diseases like cancer at a time when it was most treatable.

But concerns about the legislation focused on very different issues.

Arina Grossu, from the Family Research Council, testified that the mandate to cover “preventative services” includes requirements to pay for abortifacients like Plan B and Ella, which destroy human embryos and are therefore objected to as a matter of conscience by many.

Brett Kinney, Director of Business Operations for Everett-based manufacturer Electric Mirror, explained the concerns of businesses owners in being forced to pay for a product that violates the beliefs of business owners:

“We offer a comprehensive affordable medical plan to our nearly 400 employees that does not include abortifacients. Not once have we heard complaints that our medical plan or the prescriptive drug plan was not adequate to serve the needs of our employees which includes over 100 women ages 18 to 70.  This bill is trying to solve a problem that is not a problem and forcing us the employer to add cost which reduces our ability to grow our business and put more people to work.”

The Washington State Catholic Conference also offered testimony stating that they will not comply with legislation that forces them to pay for abortifacients, regardless of what the law says.

In addition to concerns about conscience rights, insurance industry representatives expressed concern that the bill appears to be an attempt to preempt a change in federal law before those changes actually take place.  They expressed a preference for waiting to see what happens in Washington, D.C., before reacting to it.

Obamacare mandates involving abortifacients led businesses like Hobby Lobby to sue the federal government, claiming that such mandates violate their religious beliefs.  In the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court held that the mandates were invalid because they violated the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  However, Washington State does not have a state RFRA, which means the protections for conscience rights in Washington State are less robust than those that restrain actions of the federal government.

To advance, this bill needs the support of a majority of the members of the House Healthcare and Wellness Committee.

If that happens, it would need to receive passage from the entire House of Representatives before moving to the Senate for consideration.

Please contact your legislators and share your thoughts about this and any other issue through the Legislative Hotline at 1-800-562-6000 or email them by clicking here. 

As always, be respectful but be heard.  If you don’t speak for yourself, someone will speak for you.

 

 

Religious Freedom Executive Order Leaked; Progressives Panic

For many, it could define his Presidency.  And it’s a decision that could come within the first month of his term.

A leak of an executive order on religious freedom indicates that President Trump is seriously considering actions that would roll back many of the Obama Administration’s  assaults on religious freedom.

Generally, they’re concerned it would give individuals and religious organizations too much freedom.  This article from the Daily Signal summarizes some of what it would do.

  • Clarifies that religious exercise is more than worship: It tells the entire federal government to respect federal statutes and Supreme Court decisions that make clear the free exercise of religion applies to all people, of all faiths, in all places, and at all times—that it is not merely the freedom to worship.
  • Clarifies that religious freedom is for more than just churches: It notes that religious organizations include all organizations operated by religious principles, not just houses of worship or charities. And it follows the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in saying that religious exercise “includes all aspects of religious observance and practice,” not just those absolutely required by a faith.
  • Requires federal agencies to accommodate religious belief: It instructs all agencies of the federal government, “to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law,” to reasonably accommodate the religion of federal employees, as required by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
  • Orders relief for Little Sisters of the Poor: It instructs the secretaries of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury to finally grant relief to the Little Sisters of the Poor and others who weren’t exempted from the Obamacare abortifacient and contraception mandate.
  • Requires availability of health insurance without abortion coverage: It instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to ensure that all citizens have the ability to purchase health care plans through Obamacare that do not cover abortion or subsidize plans that do.
  • Prohibits discrimination against social service organizations because of their faith: It instructs the Secretary of Health and Human services to ensure that the federal government does not discriminate against child welfare providers, such as foster care and adoption services, based on an organization’s religious beliefs.
  • Creates protections for religious organizations that contract with the government: It adopts the Russell Amendment and instructs all agencies of the federal government to provide protections and exemptions consistent with the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act to all religious organizations that contract with the federal government or receive grants.
  • Protects tax exempt status for religious organizations: It instructs the Secretary of the Treasury to ensure that it does not revoke nonprofit tax status because a religious organization’s ordinary religious speech deals with politics, or because it speaks or acts on the belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife, that a person’s sex is based on immutable biology, or that life begins at conception.
  • Protects accreditation of religious institutions: It instructs all agencies of the federal government to refuse to recognize any decision by a federally recognized accrediting body that revokes or denies accreditation to an organization because of such beliefs.
  • Protects federal employees from discrimination based on beliefs: It instructs all agencies that they may not take adverse action against federal employees, contractors, or grantees because of their speech about marriage outside of their employment, contract, or grant, and that agencies shall reasonably accommodate such beliefs inside of employment, contract, or grant.

While these protections would be a change from the Obama Administration’s posture on religious freedom, historically it would represent a return the mainstream.

All these protections in the executive order were more or less assumed prior to President Obama taking office and progressives believing they now had an inalienable right to make people do things they didn’t want to do in the name of ending “discrimination.”

While progressives have already labeled them as plans to “legalize discrimination“, they’re mostly a restatement of what religious freedom has always been understood to mean.

Namely, a place where people get to be who they are and the government doesn’t get to punish them for it.

You can be sure that progressives will be beating down the doors trying to convince the president not to make good on his campaign promises.

Which is exactly why he needs to hear from you.  Call the White House and tell President Trump that you want him to fulfill his campaign promises and protect religious freedom. (202)-456-1414.  Or send a message online at www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Then share this with your friends and encourage them to do the same.

President Trump Issues Executive Order to Reinstate Mexico City Policy; Prohibits Funding for Abortions Overseas

On his first Monday in office, President Trump signaled that the pro-life commitments he made during the campaign was more than campaign rhetoric.

He signed an Executive Memorandum to reinstate the Mexico City Policy.  The policy prohibits taxpayer funding of groups that perform and promote abortions overseas.  It does not, however, stop non-abortion international assistance. The order ensures U.S. foreign aid will continue to go to health care and humanitarian relief in the millions of dollars. It just will not subsidize abortion overseas.

The policy is known as the Mexico City policy because President Reagan first announced the policy in Mexico City.

President Obama, however, had suspended the Mexico City policy shortly after taking office, making federal dollars available abortion providers overseas.  At the time, a Gallup poll indicated that 58 percent of Americans opposed President Obama’s decision to end the Mexico City Policy.

The Mexico City policy is the international equivalent to the Hyde Amendment, which prohibited the use of federal tax dollars to pay for abortions domestically. (Though the Mexico City policy is more broad than the Hyde Amendment). President Trump also pledged to make the Hyde Amendment permanent law.

With the Mexico City policy reinstated and the potential of the Hyde Amendment being made permanent law, one of the primary grievances the pro-life community had against the Obama administration (being forced to pay for other people’s abortions) would be addressed in significant ways.

It is also reassuring to those in the pro-life community who may have questioned how serious President Trump was about his pro-life positions during the campaign.

An encouraging start to be sure.

 

How President-Elect Trump Made Progressives Like “Discrimination” Again

What a difference eight years makes.

When President Obama was elected in 2008, he campaigned on the idea that marriage was a relationship between a man and a woman.

His political party was obviously good with that.

When he leaves office tomorrow, most of that same political party believes that people who hold the position he held when he was elected President should lose their businesses for it.

As a result bakers, florists, print shops, pizza shops owners, photographers, graduate students and fire chiefs suffered the wrath of a mob that somewhere along the way decided that tolerance only meant tolerating beliefs you agreed with or understood.

In principle, Americans have long agreed that “tolerance” is a good thing.

But only recently did we decide that “tolerance” required you to support events, messages, and activities you personally opposed.

But then Donald Trump was elected President.

And that changed everything.

To be sure, it’s a dramatic shift in the nature of the leadership coming from Washington, D.C.

But for progressives, it also required a change in their core principles.

For years they told those who didn’t support their view of marriage and sexuality that abstention was a sign of invidious bigotry. But overnight, it became a moral necessity.

Broadway singer Jennifer Holliday (who had performed for four previous Presidents) agreed to sing the national anthem at the inauguration, but she withdrew after receiving an avalanche of ridicule up to and including death threats and calls for her suicide.

Not only were they willing to tolerate people who declined to participate in certain events, they demanded it.

Ms. Holliday had hoped her voice would help bring people together.   But, as she described it, she didn’t realize that, “We’re not doing America right now.”

When Nicole Kidman tweeted that “…we as a country need to support whoever’s the president because that’s what the country is based on,” the mob demanded (and eventually received) an apology.

As if that statement is something requiring an apology.

The designer who declined to design a dress for Melania Trump was applauded instead of picketed.

When members of the Rockette’s objected to leg-kicking for the President-elect, the progressive mob showed no indignation at their obviously discriminatory preferences but defended their right of conscience.

The difference is obvious.

The mob agrees with their convictions and consequently has sympathy for their decision to abstain.

The hypocrisy, however, is equally obvious.

If you believe in freedom only for those who agree with you, you don’t really believe in freedom.

Progressives will attempt to make a distinction between the singers who opted not to sing at the inauguration and the florists who declined to decorate for a same-sex wedding. “Sexual orientation is a protected class,” they insist, “but whatever category you wish to put Donald Trump into is not.”

But that attempt to make a distinction simply ignores the fact that protected class status is a function of a political majority’s preferences.

What if “presidents who wanted to build a wall on the Mexican boarder” were designated as a protected class who could not be discriminated against?

Should that change the rights of singers to decline to be part of the inauguration?

Of course not.

But under their preferred framework, it would.

It has been commonplace throughout history that those in power would use their power to punish their political opponents until such a time as their political opponents figure out a way to wrestle power away from them and then they use that power to exact revenge.

America isn’t supposed to be that way.

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights were created out of recognition that all of us have rights that must be protected even if no one else agrees with us or even likes us.

And no one has the right to make someone else do something they don’t want to do.

Some of us forgot this over the past eight years, but now we have a chance to remember.

We have the opportunity to reestablish the idea that freedom is good even if the way it is used offends you.

The freedom to “discriminate” isn’t always a crisis because one man’s “discrimination” is another man’s right of conscience.

Sometimes we might be the majority.  Sometimes we might not.  But that shouldn’t have any bearing on whether people can be compelled to do things that violate their conscience.

Conservatives have been making this argument for years.  Now that they’ve lost an election, progressives are coming around as well.

If Trump’s election helped bring us together again on this point, perhaps he is making America great again, already.

Breaking News: NC Set to Betray Women and Children

News broke yesterday that the North Carolina General Assembly will begin a special session on Wednesday, December 21, to consider repealing HB 2, a state law that protects the privacy rights of women and children, as well as the freedom of association and property rights of business owners.

The special legislative session is part of a backroom deal between the state legislature and the Charlotte City Council. Provided that the state legislature repeals HB 2 by the end of the year, the city has agreed to repeal a controversial ordinance requiring businesses to allow individuals to use the other biological sex’s locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms.

Unfortunately, this deal isn’t worth the paper it is written on. Once the state repeals HB 2, there will be no remaining legal barriers to stop North Carolina cities from passing ordinances that threaten the privacy and safety of women and children.

Take action by calling and emailing Speaker Tim Moore (Tim.Moore@ncleg.net; (919) 733-3451) and Senate President Pro Tempore, Senator Phil Berger (Phil.Berger@ncleg.net; (919) 733-5708). Let them know you think this is a bad deal that betrays pro-family voters and abandons women and children.