How many times do we have to say, “We told you so”? How many warnings do we have to make? How much sounding of the trumpet is required before people wake up and take heed to the imminent danger they are being threatened with?
Those of us following the homosexual, and now the transgender, activist agendas have warned for decades that freedom of all kinds are directly at risk: religious freedom, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and so on. We made it clear that as more and more of the radicals’ sexual agenda items are embraced and enforced by law, more and more of our liberties will be at risk.
I have already documented in my 2014 book Dangerous Relations nearly 200 cases of people losing their jobs, being fined, and even being jailed – just for opposing the homosexual agenda, or just for affirming marriage as being between a man and a woman.
And I have penned just as many articles highlighting more appalling cases where freedom is being trampled underfoot because of the homosexual activists’ collusion with Big Brother statism. When the heavy hand of the law gets into bed with the homosexual and transgender militants then we are all at risk.
As I have mentioned before, the law can do one of three things: it can prohibit something, it can permit something, or it can promote something. We have seen this play out over the last few decades with the radical sexual agenda. What was once forbidden became acceptable, and then approved of, and is now being enforced.
Or to put it more simply: First legalise it, then make it compulsory. That is exactly what we find with all things homosexual and transgender. What was once just the flavour of the month has now become the mandatory agenda of the century.
You WILL bow down to the homosexual activists. You WILL accept all their demands. You WILL NOT dare say anything against this lifestyle and this agenda. You WILL be punished if you resist. That is now the state of play all over the West.
And the homosexual and transgender activists have long known – and publicly stated – that the one big obstacle to their goals of global cultural and social and legal domination is the Christian church. They know that the last stronghold of resistance is Bible-believing Christianity.
Thus they have always gone after true believers, knowing full well that if they can get them out of the way, or co-opt them, then nothing will stand in their way of fully implementing everything they have in mind. Therefore the churches are the numero uno target.
So bad is it getting that today churches are having to take pre-emptive actions to prevent the rampaging pink steamroller from doing its thing. Some churches are now being forced to take out legal actions such as a pre-enforcement challenge.
A what? Legal expert Christiana Holcomb explains: “The lawsuit is known in legal circles as a ‘pre-enforcement challenge,’ a lawsuit that allows citizens to challenge a law—in this case, a law that threatens First Amendment freedoms—before the government enforces it against them. For example, organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood routinely file such lawsuits against laws they oppose.”
The case in question concerns a church in Iowa which is seeking to prevent being forced to scrub sermons found unacceptable to the state, and being forced to have its restrooms and showers open to members of the opposite sex. Another write-up on this says:
The government has no right to require a church to allow biological men to use the women’s showers in its building, even if that takes place during one of its peripheral ministries, a Des Moines church says in a legal complaint filed on the Fourth of July.
The Fort Des Moines Church of Christ challenged the Iowa Civil Rights Commission’s view that the church’s First Amendment privileges end if the building is not engaged in a worship ceremony, according to the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the church.
“The Iowa Civil Rights Commission interprets the Iowa Civil Rights Act” for public accommodations in such a way as “to force churches to allow individuals access to church restrooms, shower facilities, and changing rooms based on his or her gender identity, irrespective of biological sex,” the church’s legal complaint states.
In a pamphlet asking if its rulings apply to churches, the commission replied, “Sometimes.”
“Where qualifications are not related to a bona fide religious purpose, churches are still subject to the law’s provisions. (e.g., a child care facility operated at a church or a church service open to the public),” the commission wrote.
Enforcing the government’s understanding of gender identity would “compel the church to speak a message that violates its religious beliefs” and “forces the church to engage in self-censorship,” according to the legal brief.
The church, which holds several outreach programs on the premises that are not formal worship services, says this could have a chilling effect on the most cherished freedoms.
“The language of the Act and the City Code are broad enough to include within that prohibition sermons, theological expositions, educational speeches, newsletters or church worship bulletin text, or other statements from the Church and its leaders,” its complaint says.
Thus the Alliance Defending Freedom now has attorneys who are representing an Iowa church, and they have filed this federal lawsuit. ADF Senior Counsel Steven O’Ban said this: “Americans, including church leaders, have the right to challenge unjust laws. We don’t have to be punished or thrown in jail before we seek justice. The government should never have the unchecked power to violate foundational, constitutionally protected freedoms.”
Commentator David French has weighed into this case and wrote: “I’m old enough to remember when Christians who expressed concern that LGBT activists would attempt to regulate church services were dismissed as paranoid nutjobs. Well, welcome to our new paranoid future.”
He notes how dangerous these sorts of equal opportunity and anti-discrimination laws can be:
Iowa law provides that these protections do not apply to religious institutions with respect to any religion-based qualifications when such qualifications are related to a bona fide religious purpose. Where qualifications are not related to a bona fide religious purpose, churches are still subject to the law’s provisions. (e.g. a child care facility operated at a church or a church service open to the public). It’s unclear to me how a branch of the Iowa state government has determined that a “church service open to the public” does not have a “bona fide religious purpose,” but there it is. Under current guidance, churches in Iowa must become “members only” to exercise their religious liberty. It’s tough to imagine this guidance surviving even liberal judicial review, but even if struck down it shows where some on the Left want to take the law. Not even the sanctuary is safe.
This is exactly right. All over the West these sorts of laws are being used, and they are all rather sneaky. They will speak about “exemptions” for religious bodies, but then define what that means so narrowly that basically no one is safe. Thus a Sunday school class may fall afoul of the law.
A Bible study held in a home, conducted by the pastor, might not be safe. And plenty of other religious bodies (schools, bookstores, etc) will not be safe. So what we have here is a war on the church. And coming soon to a church near you: a war even on sermons.
The Pink Big Brother is now out and about, fully active, and we are all at risk. But we did tell you so.