Here is the complete short post by Tevor Weber at the FRC Blog:
We are glad to see last week’s article in The Economist accurately diagnosing the hypocrisy surrounding religious freedom which has infected the agitating political Left in the last several years. This reputable magazine has pinpointed the biggest trouble of the current political and policy dynamic surrounding religious freedom: the progressive Left just can’t bring itself to support traditional Christian claims of religious freedom—even when those claims are brought under the same laws and legal standards as others which modern liberals have supported.
As Family Research Council has consistently made clear, religious freedom laws have historically had bipartisan consensus. Sadly, this is no longer true, as in the last several years the progressive Left has abandoned its support for First Amendment principles in favor of new policy goals. Meanwhile, in an ironic twist, conservatives are attacked as only supporting religious liberty when it concerns them. We have shown this not to be true. Now, we are thankful The Economist has shed additional light on the religious freedom debate.
Here is the title and opening of the article at The Economist:
Religious-liberty laws: Left, right
Thirty years ago, progressives embraced religious exemptions. No longer.
ONE day after releasing their final rulings of the term, the justices of the Supreme Court returned for an encore on June 28th. The occasion was an event that occurs roughly 7,000 times each year and normally turns few heads: a refusal to hear a case. But in the matter of Stormans v Wiesman, the justices’ “no thanks” was accompanied by a rare and sharp dissent from the court’s three most conservative members. Writing for John Roberts (the chief justice) and Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito warned that the denial was “ominous”. If the court’s refusal to take up Stormans “is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead,” Mr Alito wrote, “those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern.”
Read more: The Economist
Image credit: www.barbwire.com.