PERSECUTION OF NEW MEXICO CHRISTIAN PHOTOGRAPHERS FORESHADOWS ENDA, PART 1
By Rev. Ted Pike
25 Nov 13
Editor's Note: This is an edited version of the recorded Bible study under this title at Truthtellers.org. Please join us for discussion.
In 2006 New Mexico photographer Elaine Huguenin was approached by lesbian Vanessa Willock, asking if she would photograph her commitment ceremony. Huguenin declined, saying she and her husband only photograph traditional weddings.
Willock claimed discrimination under New Mexico’s workplace anti-discrimination law. Her claim was upheld by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission and New Mexico Supreme Court. The state fined the Huguenins $7,000, which they refused to pay. Huguenin’s attorneys are petitioning the US Supreme Court to hear the case. So far Elaine has unsuccessfully argued that forcing her to go against her religious beliefs is like forcing a black photographer to take a portrait for the Klu Klux Klan. As under Canadian hate crimes laws, a good argument is no defense. Nor is the truth.
If all appeals fail and they want to pursue their profession, the Huguenins will have to obey the state's order to photograph commitment ceremonies and pay a $7000 fine. Continued refusal can result in a charge of contempt of court and possible imprisonment.
In this two-part series, I consider several important issues this case raises, especially as concerns Christian employers. In part one, I discuss how the New Mexico anti-discrimination law is an almost exact representation of ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act), recently passed by the US Senate. Prosecution of the Huguenins by the New Mexico law thus foreshadows much wider persecution of sincere Christians, particularly business owners and churches that operate businesses, that will occur should ENDA become law.
In part two, I ask the question: At what point must the Christian disobey the government and be willing to suffer imprisonment?
ADL Origins of Anti-Bias Laws
“Anti-bias” laws are the brainchild of one of the most biased organizations on earth, the vehemently pro-homosexual, anti-Christian, Jewish Anti-Defamation League. After the 2009 passage of ADL’s federal hate crimes bill, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, ADL boasted of its invention of the whole idea of anti-bias laws: “Our legal experts pioneered hate crimes laws and worked to implement them nationally.” (See Convicted Amish Are Not "Hate Criminals") Already, that law last year was used to imprison 16 imperfect Amish Christians for up to 15 years.
Anti-hate and bias laws were not a response to substantive infringement of human rights. Traditional law is meant to protect the civil rights of everyone equally. Bias crime laws and their twisted terminology and values were contrived by ADL lawyers to facilitate one objective: to renew Pharisaic Jewish persecution of Christians as begun in the Book of Acts. This persecution was cut short by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and dispersion of the Jews. The aim of these laws is harassment and imprisonment of Christians and eventual extinction of the Christian faith.
Since their first implementation in countries such as Sweden and Canada, ADL’s hate crime statutes have entrapped many on the anti-Zionist right and also many Christians opposed to homosexuality or Islam. However, workplace anti-bias laws hold much greater potential for persecution of Christians than do hate crimes laws. Millions of Christian business owners would never come near committing a hate crime but make “discriminating” choices in hiring, firing, sales and rentals every day. Increasingly, militant homosexuals are on the lookout for ways to entrap and bankrupt such “homophobic” businesses.
If Christians like the Huguenins are true to their faith and “discriminate,” they fall into a spiked pit created by ADL and the gay lobby out of which it is virtually impossible to emerge undevastated. Chances of acquittal for religious or any other reason are virtually non-existent.
All hate and bias crimes laws derive their authority from the Civil Rights Act of 1965. It granted superior rights to “historically oppressed minorities,” such as blacks and women. Considering its venerable status to most Americans, alongside the Magna Carta and US Constitution as one of the greatest legal and human rights documents of history, it is futile to expect any court to go against such unquestioned legal precedent.
For the Huguenins to prevail in the Supreme Court, the Justices would have to deny the legitimacy of the New Mexico anti-bias law. They won’t do that because such a decision would question the constitutionality of its parent, the Civil Rights Act and also impute the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act. It constitutes a series of amendments to the Civil Rights Act and its "hate crimes provision," Title 18 Section 2a. (See SPLC Should Be Tried For Hate Crime) In addition, at least 45 US states have passed hate crimes laws based on the Civil Rights Act’s philosophy of special rights for some.
Can Anti-Bias Laws be Overthrown?
Lawyers for the 16 Amish men and women convicted of the “hate crime” of forcibly cutting off the beards and hair of their Amish theological rivals promised they would attempt to have the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act declared unconstitutional. Is it feasible that the New Mexico anti-bias crimes law or all anti-bias crimes laws be declared unconstitutional? Yes, it's theoretically possible. Even the Civil Rights Act could be declared null and void and the nation return to traditional English law. Yet since most Americans (and evangelicals) consider the Civil Rights Act beyond reproach, it is very unlikely that a federal judge would rule against the authority of laws derived from it. He would almost certainly find himself overruled.
Christians should realize they are in the crosshairs of legal heavy artillery designed not only to put them out of business but, ultimately, to imprison them. Unless they receive free counsel from Christian legal advocacy groups, Christians face enormous court costs to defend themselves if indicted under bias crimes laws. In Canada the average cost to defend oneself from a hate crimes charge is $175,000. Further, if, after having been bankrupted and possibly served a prison term, the Canadian Christian continues to refuse to print wedding stationary for homosexuals, bake a wedding cake for a homosexual, hire a homosexual, etc., they face contempt of court charges and more prison. Theoretically, this cycle could consume the rest of their lives. Picketing of abortion clinics is unofficially considered a hate crime in Canada, and a number of pro-life activists have served multiple contempt of court sentences amounting to many years in prison. (See Hate Laws: Out to Get Pro-Lifers)
With all this in mind, the US Supreme Court is most likely to view the Huguenins dilemma as coldly as have the New Mexico courts. Having violated the law, they must pay its penalties.
Christians Now Second-Class Citizens
Thus, laws that exalt sodomites through special rights and privileges are becoming the law of the land. Christians are second-class citizens. “Freedom and justice for all” is now myth. No Christian, victimized by such laws, receives any sympathy from any court. Instead, laws which entrap Christians (Christian-persecuting laws) rule virtually uncontested. Besides New Mexico, other states like California and my state, Oregon, have “anti-intimidation” statutes, enforced both by the attorney general and Bureau of Labor and Industry. ADL continues to successfully persuade legislatures to enact anti-bullying laws, criminalizing criticism of homosexuality in the education system. Similar statutes exist in all levels of government down to city council ordinances. Even colleges and universities enforce very similar pro-homosexual anti-bias rules.
The time to effectively fight these laws was in the 1990s. When the National Prayer Network sent out mass mailings to the pastors and legislators of America, both state and federal, exhorting them to speak out against hate crimes laws, then entering state legislatures. Such hate crimes bills were filled with exactly the concepts and terminology of ADL hate laws even then persecuting Christians in Canada and Sweden. But at that time we could not get the attention of the religious right. Canadian-style persecution had not yet come to America, and Americans were oblivious to its threat inside or outside our borders. By 2000 ADL had almost effortlessly persuaded 45 states to adopt some version of an ADL hate law. ADL almost passed their federal hate law at that time.
Today, even though evangelical opposition to anti-bias laws remains weak, it is made much weaker because, although Christian leaders now know ADL is behind hate laws, they actually protect ADL from criticism because such Jews are “God's chosen people.” The Old Testament prophets, Jesus, and the apostles out of love fiercely criticized ungodly Jews. Yet most evangelicals teach that God will curse those who criticize Jews, "the apple of God's eye." As a result, church leadership never mentions ADL as the primary reason for our loss of freedom on a wide variety of fronts. Paradoxically, while Christians and their legal defense organizations may ineffectually protest bias crimes laws, they will never expose the architect of those laws. This frees ADL to pump out even more legislative sewage, such as ENDA on the federal level and cyber-bullying bills for the states.
High Price for Ignoring Christ’s Warnings
What can be done for people so intent on assisting those who seek their destruction? Scripture says that because the ancient Israelites would not obey His statutes God sold them into the hands of their enemies. Pro-Zionist evangelicals specialize in ignoring the many New Testament warnings, including those of Christ to beware of “the synagogue of Satan,” anti-Christ Judaism. Thus, workplace anti-bias laws are very largely a co-production between Jewish supremacist activism and ingenuity and Christian permissiveness, providing a "no criticism zone" for ADL deviltry.
Meanwhile, the church is increasingly coming under the power of a persecutive legal system which intends to incarcerate Christians like the Huguenins who won’t compromise. But tomorrow, possibly under ENDA, it intends to criminalize and imprison vastly greater numbers who will not bow down before sodomites or any of the twisted laws of Jewish supremacism.
(Tomorrow in part 2 of this article I ask: When should Christians go to prison rather than compromise? This will be posted on Monday, Nov. 25.)