This broadcaster has 499 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
March 5, 2015 12:00 pm
NC Family president John Rustin talks with Travis Weber, Director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council, about the growing threat to religious liberty from those seeking to redefine marriage, and what Christians can do to stand up against these attacks.
This is family policy matters program is produced by the North Carolina family policy Council of profamily research and education organization dedicated to strengthening and preserving the family, and often the studio hears John Rushton, president of the North Carolina family policy Council, thank you for joining us this week. Profamily policy matters is to have Weber with us on the program is director of the Center for religious liberty at the family research Council, where he focuses on legal and policy issues pertaining to religious freedom. Travis is with us today to talk about the findings of an important new pole that was just released by the family research Council dealing with the growing threat to citizens who hold to a biblical view of marriage as being only the union of one man and one woman. We will also be talking about what Christians can do to stand against attacks to their religious liberty. Travis welcome back to the program is great to have you with us again on family policy matters extravagantly well we appreciate you and appreciate the family research Council so much in the partnership that we have on working on a wide range of issues, callous traps if you want about the new pole that FRC released on February 24 at the National religious broadcasters convention was the purpose of the pole yet so the purpose was to determine how people feel about several different issues for countries facing right now in the several around marriage.
We wanted to see you know what Americans thought of marriage in terms of marriage between them and the world and then breaking that down by different ages and demographics and then we also wanted to see what they thought about it.
Who gets to decide the question you know if you think that should be between a man, a woman that people may have different views in terms of 12, the Supreme Court gets to decide that for everyone or streets get to decide it and then we also want to look at how people view dissenters who are being forced to violate their conscience when it comes to marriage. You know these wet vendor cases where people don't want to be supporting part of the celebration of same-sex marriage, and yet that's causing hostility to be directed at them and their occasion legal proceedings now so we wanted to get how kids basically felt about three different areas on the big picture perspective about the public's perception review of marriage and how it should be defined overall. People are still in general.
In support of marriage being defined between him and the woman, 53% of Americans agree that there should be defined only between one man and one woman. This number does vary somewhat based on racial demographics and snacks and church attendance expected to signify a higher percentage of Americans 61%, however, think that the Supreme Court should not be deciding this question for the country. The questions also that the pole deals with is whether Americans should be free to operate their daily lives, including their businesses according to their religious beliefs to the poll found regarding this yet. This is significant 81% of Americans think the government should leave people free to follow their beliefs on marriages. Live their lives and businesses. Significant number and you and I think it shows that many Americans generally think there needs to be limits on government intrusion, government meddling in their lives and governments to large and powerful, and people don't want the government being that the moral enforcer running around telling everyone how to behave morally but that that's were starting to see when you get into the situations were not. Conservation law conflicts with constitutional rights. A vendor case that comes up courts usually have a court system, the government backing up that system that's been the moral enforcer telling someone you have to believe this because what I can accept the fact that you conscience objection at don't want to participate in the celebration of the couch and terminology cover they want terms of, you know, we just get the trigger point equaling the marketplace etc. etc. what it comes down to is it say that you know moral enforcement of the above more warm on these wedding vendors and that's that. Because of that makes sense that you be 1% of Americans saying that government should stay out of this business never got to help people feel about specifically is especially don't like the government meddling in treating it how people operate in their personal lives well and the rubber is really meeting the road on that issue. I noted just days before FRC released opponent Aaron and Melissa Klein who have owned a bakery in Oregon were told by the state that they face fines up to $150,000 for declining to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. Now this is just one example of a growing number of examples across the country where individuals, especially those who a business is closely related to the wedding industry on being forced to confront this issue directly tell us about the case with declines and what's going on there. Yeah this is basically a situation like that which I just described, involving estate, nondiscrimination law, saying there shall be no proration on the basis of sexual orientation and you have a bakery who's approached by a couple that wants services for their same-sex wedding and yet the letting process. The provision of services intricately tied to celebratory process and the creative process and the promotion of the message. I mean, there's a message being promoted. There, everyone involved in the wedding is a spark that some way and you know that's what the client objected to have nothing against serving same-sex couples in general that you still want to be a part of promoting this message and so they were taken to court. Now we have this is basically a a judicial ruling order in a declarative bay violated another summation law exact amount of fines yet to be determined but this is the ratcheting up the process on these dissenting bakery owners and you know this is going to go through the state court system. We don't know what the conjugate to do exactly yet but it will see how Calvin appeals process works out. But you, this is concerning me is precisely the type of thing that 81% Americans disagree with and illustrates how how we really need to respect differences attending alerted to live side-by-side with these differences enough to force everyone to prove a behavior against her conscience absolutely well and just another example to just a few weeks ago, a federal court rule against Washington florist Bernell Stutzman who refused to violate her religious beliefs about arranging flowers for a same-sex wedding a similar kind of situation with declines and others again have businesses that are related to or provide services to individuals who were getting married.
Now you've written that the judge essentially elevated nondiscrimination laws above what we have known to be constitutionally protected free exercise and free speech rights, explain traps if you would what happened with the Baron L. Stutzman's case and why this should just continue to raise concerns and express the need for states to pass laws or to strengthen existing laws that ensure religious liberties are protected.
They get a case like that I described were you have a leading vendor for reports to violate her conscience by our legal system and keeps 81% of Americans say should not be decided that it was and it was decided according to principles that basically elevated up discrimination law about constitutional law arguments. The judge rejected the argument that engaging free speech here.
Judge rejected the free exercise argument under the federal free exercise clause which does have some peace .3, which he does not solidly protected free exercise rights in or to the standard of the federal religious Freedom restoration act.
I think this case a great illustration of why state refers are needed for basically state laws that put strict scrutiny and is the standard for protecting free exercise rights in conscience rights. There was no statement for play here. The strict scrutiny standard did not apply to the pre-exercise claim basically easily found it easy to dismiss the claim precisely where there are no cookie also stayed with her people like her to stay with her, and shows the need for statelessness in the face of those who claim there's no need for them also shows the gap accuracy is needed when describing these laws, the law would be a defense in this case it doesn't allow people like Marilyn and noted that situation does turn away anyone they want door go around discriminated as they wish. It's not true.
It allows a mixture of religious belief and claim of conscience that can't be substantially burdened by the government.
The government can still burn it if you can show compelling interest or least restrictive means auto parallel critic asserted a state with a clean if there's been a lot of books here referred Washington.
We don't know the judge will folded paper sold against Mr. Morgenstern but she'll eat without the protection you know, this is great illustration of why state records are needed both in Washington and elsewhere, absolutely. Well terms of heard some well-meaning Christians respond to cases like this, Bob shrugged her shoulders and saying what's the big deal just like the cake will arrange the flowers or whatever the situation may be, allow that same-sex couple to stay at your bed-and-breakfast. Note capture their ceremony about photographing it. Those types of things. What is the danger to people of faith, of not being free to live out their lives according to their religious beliefs, particularly as it relates to the issue of marriage. Yeah, I think you know the danger that were to suffer the democracy wouldn't have these different pitches marginalized dismissed it and wipe off the table is having the value to have this moral enforcing conformity apparatus to tell. Therefore, they have to believe the same thing and then the diversity which is which cause us to be a beautiful countries, like the out point about what target children, what's the point.
It just shows the inability of people to respect and uphold different view that they may not hold for you to or involving a situation that hasn't hit them personally of it is a problem because their whole system is based on respecting the whole little beach for auditors even if we don't personally agree with the use even if I may choose to serve okay to me are the same for 20 celebration. I should respect conscience rights of people who don't and shouldn't tell them look long conscience right I don't go around telling other religions there conscience against eating certain foods or being part of your ceremony. Somehow long that's oblique a full point of the sincere religious belief and the real danger here is that people are thinking something has a commitment personally.
What will some point and they don't respect differences of belief they'll hold that and you don't do that them Lisle with a lot of the framework in respect of legal protection they need when they're somehow threatened because they will not a promoter that help the system with respect to those individual beliefs, regardless of whether we agree to personal Travis as we, wrap up our discussion here and for the benefit of our listeners from your perspective, how important is it for individuals and business people to really to take a stand to not stay silent in every aspect of their lives. It's very important support of newness firmly, yet respectfully just say I'm not doing this at the feet with this is my belief and not conduct out from you can try to intimidate yell at me all you want but the sucker change my beliefs which are internally felt that he has a group of people do this because it sets a precedent, it gives the bench into the idea that we need to fight for lights which is true that people need to do this on a wide scale. As I mentioned, it needs to be done formally, respectfully, love and it could be done that way and I think accuracy is also very poor here to the other side they try to smear religious freedom laws is what license to discriminate or something like that. It understand how law works know that's not true that's why truth inaccuracies are so importantly to understand that this allows people to do these laws permit people to make a claim in court and test the government's interest in burdening the faith. It doesn't automatically say the window without allowing that right to test the government burdening court. I think we should want that in the face of government which always wants to grow would be longer summing than anything anyone interested in individual freedom. Regardless of the specific beliefs should be supported well and I think it's so important for listeners to understand that they are not alone. It's so important for folks to know that if they do step out if they do take a stand that they're not alone, that the vast majority of our culture is standing right there with them traps is people are interested in getting information about the pole working they go to get out and also to learn more about the family research Council website FRC.org. The pole is in a in a news release that we recently put out thinking of the newsroom tab on the site and click on press releases so people can find that there than elsewhere on her website could find information about different areas in which were against Travis Weber, thank you so much for being with us again on family policy matters for your great work at the family research Council's interest for the same that you take in support of marriage. Religious liberty life and all the horses, since family policy matters is information and analysis teacher of the North Carolina family policy Council known as weekly discussion on policy issues affecting the family you have questions or comments, please contact 91 907-0800 visit our website and see family.org