The following is from Bob Unruh at World Net Daily. Here’s the subtitle of his article: “‘Supremacy clause’ would reaffirm religious, speech, personal rights.” If more people would think critically about the nature of the issue a majority would arrive at common sense — it’s a behavior we’re talking about. As Laurie Higgins writes (see here for an example), no one has ever shown how homosexuality (et al) is the equivalent of race or gender. Therefore we retain our God-given right of religious liberty and the First Amendment protects our right to make a judgment about the morality of such behavior.
The cases are well known: The Colorado baker in trouble because he declined to violate his faith and promote same-sex “marriage” with his work, the Washington florist who made the same decision and the New Mexico photographer who was fined by the state for turning down a request to promote lesbianism with her services.
More and more people who adhere to the biblical definition of marriage are finding themselves in that no-win situation of being forced by “nondiscrimination” laws to endorse and support “alternative lifestyles.”
An attorney whose work on constitutional issues is well known says such conflicts shouldn’t happen. Matt Barber, vice president for Liberty Counsel Action, told WND that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is supreme, and local ordinances that demand people violate its precepts must fall.
But some place their own agenda above the Constitution, and therein lies the conflict, he said.
Not complicated. How about a clause that can be adopted as a separate ordinance or inserted as part of an existing nondiscrimination regulation that simply would point out that the First Amendment is supreme?
That’s the idea suggested by Scott Lively of Defend the Family, who has a long record of advocating for traditional marriage.