Sunday, February 19, 2017

Two courageous women, two evil court rulings

Long ago, I warned that Christians' misguided compassion would come back to bite them in the rear, and since that day, things have gotten so much worse. We Christians apparently still wish to be loved by the popular culture, and we don't seem to realize that the more we appease the beast, the more vicious the beast becomes.

Here is the latest, out of the very left-wing, very secular Washington State:

By a unanimous, 9-0 decision, the Washington Supreme Court...
... ruled that this 72-year-old grandmother [Barronelle Stutzman] who had employed gay workers and served gay customers for years, was required by law to participate in a gay wedding, even though this constituted a direct violation of her religious beliefs — beliefs which have been consistent and almost universally held among Christians for the last 2,000 years. 
Not only so, but the court upheld the attack on her personal assets as well — her house, her savings, her retirement funds — by requiring her “to pay the attorneys’ fees that the ACLU racked up in suing her,” fees which could reach as high as one million dollars.  [emphasis mine]

This kind and decent florist stated the following to the state's attorney general, regarding her motives and beliefs, and her refusal to accept an offer of "settlement":

You don’t really understand me or what this conflict is all about. It’s about freedom, not money. I certainly don’t relish the idea of losing my business, my home, and everything else that your lawsuit threatens to take from my family, but my freedom to honor God in doing what I do best is more important. Washington’s constitution guarantees us “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment.” I cannot sell that precious freedom. You are asking me to walk in the way of a well-known betrayer, one who sold something of infinite worth for 30 pieces of silver. That is something I will not do. 
I pray that you reconsider your position. I kindly served Rob [the 'gay' plaintiff] for nearly a decade and would gladly continue to do so. I truly want the best for my friend. I’ve also employed and served many members of the LGBT community, and I will continue to do so regardless of what happens with this case. You chose to attack my faith and pursue this not simply as a matter of law, but to threaten my very means of working, eating, and having a home. If you are serious about clarifying the law, then I urge you to drop your claims against my home, business, and other assets and pursue the legal claims through the appeal process.

I pray that the Supreme Court will eventually hear her case and undo the evil judgment that has been rendered against her.

I'll tell you what: I would not want to be one of those nine Washington judges when the ultimate Judgment is meted out by the Just Judge at the Day of Reckoning. Shudder. Pray for them; they need it.

Please read the short piece, here, and consider sharing on your social media. It will not go well with us if we continue to remain silent:

We welcome any liberals of good will who will stand with us on this important issue of freedom of conscience, even if they disagree with us on gay "marriage". They will surely face a particular ridicule, venom, and attack if they speak against the liberal orthodoxy, but I beg liberals of good will to do what is right.

And if you want to understand how we got here, I implore you, watch Princeton's Professor Robert P. George explain. Take the time. It's so worth it. I was in the audience the night he gave the following talk, sitting next to our amazing Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, who nodded his head throughout. Some of our bishops truly understand, and we, as the laity, also have an obligation to SPEAK.

Stop being afraid, my friends! Cultivate the virtue of courage. It gets easier as you practice courage, I promise! God will give you the grace you need. Do you trust Him enough to take care of you, just as florist Barronelle Stutzman trusts?


And now to another strong and courageous woman, an unlikely pro-life hero who stood up against the powers-that-be. 

Yesterday, we lost this wonderful lady, Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, the plaintiff in the tragic Roe vs. Wade abortion ruling. After years of being used and abused by the pro-"choice" side -- she never did have an abortion, and her little girl was placed for adoption, by the way -- she was won by love (wrote a book by that name), became a Christian, and joined the pro-life movement. 

Norma ultimately became a devout Catholic, fighting for the remainder of her days and with all her heart and soul against the evil Supreme Court decision that bears her name. May God welcome His good and faithful servant, His beloved daughter, to her heavenly reward. She had a hard life; may she have eternal rest. 

 Requiescat in pace


  1. Imagine the KKK wished to celebrate after a successful Klan rally and asked a black baker to bake a nice white cake for them, and the baker refused. Would the same court have ruled 9-0 that the baker was required by law to participate in the cerebration, and not only that, but uphold the attack on bakers assets as well — her house, her savings, her retirement funds — by requiring her to pay the attorneys’ fees racked up in the Klan suing her? I'm not a betting man, but I'm thinking they would not!

  2. Ben, you've got that right!

    This is the insidiousness of saying that the inclination to homosexual acts is as integral to a person as his or her skin color, or even his or her own sex. It turns a temptation into an immutable part of a person's essence! And therefore, anything we do to "negate" that temptation (or refuse to indulge or participate in it) is to discriminate against the "person" and not the inclination (or an event celebrating that sinful inclination). It's so twisted, and the government has NO BUSINESS saying that declining to affirm a sexual inclination is unjust discrimination forbidden by law! It's insanity!

  3. In other words, "gayness" is not part of a person's identity or essence, anymore than any other temptation or sins. But we are forced to affirm that it is! Crazy, crazy.

  4. Well said Leila! But beware...
    “It is not a pleasant task to call attention to the obvious. To make others appear to be shortsighted, let alone blind, may easily evoke resentment.”
    – Fr. Stanley Jaki

  5. Not a pleasant task, indeed!

    And only because the word "resentment" came up, this is something I just posted on my Facebook page, which I think is just spiritual gold:

    Thank you, Dr. Monica Hidalgo Breaux! The spiritual side of RESENTMENT, and how it takes hold ("...a spiritual process at work in the development of addiction"):
    • Based on a real or imagined injury, we create and hold on to a wrong toward another; we choose to distort the truth. Rebellion and hence resentment are born. (Perhaps a more inclusive term, sin, would be more appropriate.)
    • This distortion of reality produces a false spiritual high --satisfaction, pleasure, and release from the conflict produced by our wrong. Rebellion and resentment fill a need (really a demand).
    • We take nourishment from the resentment; it sustains us. It sustains the new reality, which is a lie. It hides our wrong; we don't have to face it and deal with it. Thus, resentment is used as a drug.
    • To continue justifying this wrong to ourselves, we periodically play the incident back, winning the case in court against the other person every time. By thus re-experiencing the resentment, we seek to recapture the effect of the original high.
    • Our use of resentment thus becomes habitual, producing more wrong, which requires more of the drug to cover it. The vicious cycle is set; it has a life of its own, unrelated to the initial event.
    • Persistence in this habit produces distress. Part of us always knows when we're wrong: the lie doesn't square with something inside us, with what we see in the real world outside, and with inputs we get from others. Plus, we feel guilty for enjoying this unnatural ecstasy, and our isolation increases.
    • We try abstaining from this inner spiritual habit, so we act outwardly toward the objects of our resentment as though we hold no wrong against them. But this pretense deprives us of our drug (resentment), creates a new lie that needs more drug, and forces us to treat the distress of withdrawal with the medicine that provides relief -- more resentment.
    • This mental behavior fulfills the three criteria of addiction noted earlier: tolerance, abstinence, and withdrawal. We are now fully addicted to resentment as a spiritual attitude, quite apart from any physical acting-out.
    Excerpt from SA, p. 47-49 on RESENTMENT

    (SA is Sexaholics Anonymous, but it applies to anyone with a habit of resentment)

    1. This also describes most family feuds fairly well...;-)

  6. Speaking of misguided compassion.

  7. What is the basis for telling a business owner who has a private business what types of events she must cater to? I don't understand- does the federal government really have the authority to govern the affairs of private businesses in that way? Isn't that like telling a Christian bakery they must bake a cake for a polygamous wedding, the baker refusing, and then being ordered by the court to bake the cake?


PLEASE, when commenting, do not hit "reply" (which is the thread option). Instead, please put your comment at the bottom of the others.

To ensure that you don't miss any comments, click the "subscribe by email" link, above. If you do not subscribe and a post exceeds 200 comments, you must hit "load more" to get to the rest.