Sunday, February 27, 2022

The 3 - February 27, 2022

This week's edition of The 3 includes three more stories of relevance to the Christian community, including Christian sites being banned by Facebook due to subject matter surrounding gender identity.  Also, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing the case of a website designer who received a court ruling against her in her attempt to prevent action taken against her for standing on her convictions.  Plus, a former nurse who would not refer women for abortion has won a large court settlement.

Christian sites suspended from Facebook due to themes of gender identity

Recently, warped gender ideology has resulted in several Christian feeds being removed from Facebook. The Christian Post reported that two pages devoted to helping people overcome unwanted same-sex attraction were banned, then reinstated.  The article says that Help 4 Families and Living Stone Ministries were the ministries on the receiving end of this action.

Denise Shick, who directs Help 4 Families, that, according to the words of the article, "Facebook removed the organizations' pages from its platform at the behest of LGBT activists."

The Christian Post also reported recently on The Babylon Bee's latest skirmish with Facebook, when it had a post suspended referring to a satirical piece on Amy Schneider, described as "a trans-identified female, passing the total amount of winnings that a biological female had earned on 'Jeopardy!' during Schneider’s reign."  The article says:

Facebook reportedly told the Bee that the post “goes against our Community Standards on hate speech” and that the post will not be visible to others.

The article reports that:

Bee CEO Seth Dillon said in a statement posted on the affiliated website Not the Bee that he would appeal the decision labeling the post “hate speech.”

“Remember how Facebook recently rolled out new rules stipulating that ‘real satire’ cannot ‘punch down’? Are they really willing to say that defending women against a male takeover of their records is ‘punching down’ and – even worse – ‘hate speech’? We’re going to find out,” stated Dillon.

High court to hear case of web designer in pre-emptive challenge against using site to promote content that violates her faith

Another religious freedom case out of Colorado has been accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to the website for Alliance Defending Freedom, whose client, Lorie Smith of 303 Creative, which designs website, lost in a Federal appeals court in a case in which she was seeking protection from being forced to endorse ideas about sexuality that violated her religious beliefs.

The ADF site relates:

The 10th Circuit issued an unprecedented decision in the case, 303 Creative v. Elenis, holding that Smith serves “all people regardless of sexual orientation,” yet Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act requires her to engage in speech that violates her conscience and in turn creates a “substantial risk” of removing “certain ideas or viewpoints from the public dialogue.”
ADF General Counsel Kristen Waggoner, stated: “Colorado has weaponized its law to silence speech it disagrees with, to compel speech it approves of, and to punish anyone who dares to dissent. Colorado’s law—and others like it—are a clear and present danger to every American’s constitutionally protected freedoms and the very existence of a diverse and free nation.”

Pro-life nurse who would not refer women for abortion wins legal settlement

Sandra Mendoza Rojas, of Rockford, Illinois, had served as a pediatric nurse for 18 years, but lost her job at the Winnebago County Health Clinic in 2015. The reason?  According to LifeNews.com, "She said she refused to comply with a new requirement that nurses be trained to help women obtain abortion drugs and refer women to abortion facilities."

The Life News article quotes from a CBN.com report, which stated: "An Illinois trial court ruled Wednesday that Winnebago County must pay more than $374,000 in attorney’s fees for requiring a Christian nurse to provide abortion referrals and contraception."  

The article goes on to quote from the court ruling: “The Health Department improperly discriminated against (Rojas) by refusing to accommodate her objections of conscience in her existing job at the clinic,” adding, “The Court has concluded that the Health Department could have reasonably accommodated (Rojas’) objections without removing her from her job.”

No comments: