The 3 - November 28, 2021

This week's edition of The 3, highlighting three relevant topics impacting the Christian community, includes the conclusion of a lengthy court case of a Washington state woman who bravely fought the good fight regarding religious freedom.  Also, California's highest court will be hearing a case involving the use of pronouns corresponding to so-called "gender identity," rather than biology.  And, new language being issued by the State Department affirms so-called "reproductive rights," and could be interpreted to mean support for abortion.

Action against florist in Washington State who declined to provide products for a same-sex wedding ceremony ends

The struggle for religious freedom for Barronelle Stutzman, a florist in the state of Washington, has ended, but not with the victory she had hoped; a story on the Alliance Defending Freedom website reports that after almost a decade, she "has chosen to retire so her beloved employees can run her business, Arlene’s Flowers. She will withdraw a pending petition for rehearing at the U.S. Supreme Court and make a payment of only $5,000 to the two men who sued her."

They sued her because she politely declined to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding ceremony. ADF said that man who had initially contacted her "...never filed a complaint with the attorney general’s office, which brought an unprecedented action against Stutzman because of news reports based on social media posts." The story also notes that the men did sue Barronelle "through attorneys with the ACLU."

The ADF website documents more of the process:

Stutzman asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take her case after the Washington Supreme Court ruled against her in June 2019. The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the state high court’s ruling and ordered it to reconsider in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in another ADF case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The state court then issued essentially the same ruling. Stutzman again asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the cases, but the high court declined to hear the case over the objection of three justices, resulting in her rehearing request.

The site relates that the "settlement agreement...ends a lawsuit brought against floral artist Barronelle Stutzman nearly a decade ago without forcing her to act against her religious beliefs or to pay potentially ruinous attorneys’ fees."

Top California court to hear case involving pronouns based on "gender identity"

The controversy over whether or not people who insist on being referred to with pronouns that contradict their biological gender will now visit the California Supreme Court, according to an article on the ChristianHeadlines.com website, which states that, regarding a law prohibiting what is termed, "misgendering:" 

The multi-faceted law placed new restrictions on long-term care facilities and was geared toward protecting LGBT residents – yet a section on pronouns has sparked major pushback.

The controversial section makes it unlawful to “willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.” Violating the law could subject the employee to criminal penalties, including fines and jail time.

This follows a court decision earlier this year on the law, which was signed by then-Governor Jerry Brown in 2017. In the decision, "a three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeals unanimously struck down the controversial pronoun section of the law."

Administration inserts so-called "reproductive rights" into religious freedom report

Throughout our government, religious freedom protections are being challenged, and an article that was published on the Family Research Council and re-published at The Christian Post highlights yet another example.  According to author Arielle Del Turco, who has been a guest on The Meeting House:

Secretary of State Antony Blinken reinstated an Obama-era addition to the State Department human rights report—reporting on foreign countries’ laws and programs regarding abortion and contraception. The new addendum to the 2020 report released in March now features sub-sections on “reproductive rights” in the individual evaluations of every member country of the United Nations.

The term “reproductive rights” is code for abortion, and its use in official U.S. human rights reports is inappropriate. A “right” to abortion is nowhere to be found in international human rights law; meanwhile, the right to life certainly is.

What are the implications? Del Turco notes, "State Department reports set the tone for U.S. human rights advocacy and are frequently referenced by NGOs and international bodies. The topics that the United States chooses to cover in these reports conveys to the rest of the world what the United States considers human rights and what type of human rights issues our foreign policy will prioritize."

She adds, "Instead of leveling the playing field, legalized abortion pressures women into viewing their children as enemies of their success. Abortion is not necessary to ensure equality—having equal protections and rights under the law are." She also writes, "Rather than monitoring (and by doing so, implicitly promoting) access to abortion around the world, the State Department should re-focus its efforts on addressing the truly pressing human rights abuses that are unique to women and girls."