GND2's list of court cases

Because this movie is crap and all about propaganda.

My name is Darth Jar Jar. Master of the Drunken Force technique. All of you will be my slaves.

Are those the same cases like at the end of GND1?

I already heard that they had nothing to do with "Christian persecution". ;)

I've only skimmed it, but there doesn't seem to be anything remotely like the premise of the film on the list.

Thank you for posting this comprehensive list of cases. None of them show any type of Christian "persecution" though so GIND and GIND 2 are still rightwing fantasies.

Yes, the list of cases at the end of GIND2 is disappointing in failing to exemplify anything like what the film depicts.

That said, there does seem to be an odd mixture of parties in that list who simply don't want to do business with people they don't agree with and/or like (and refuse to sell them a cake, T-shirt, or whatever with that person's message on it) versus a number of valid reasonable accommodation cases which probably shouldn't have gone to court at all.

A free society of diverse belief and opinion works best when there is flexibility toward allowing individuals to practice freedom of conscience. For example, I want nothing to do with most Tea Party rallies but I would defend their right to assemble and hear their speakers. However, if some aspect of my job (such as working as a private security detail and bodyguard) required me to stand in a plain clothes non-uniform immediately behind or next to an Aryan Nation speaker addressing some far-right rally such that the Associated Press photo published nation-wide gave the impression that I was an assistant --and a member in full agreement with the Aryan Nation speaker--that would concern me. What about my religious freedom rights and freedom of speech rights (including my right NOT to appear to endorse speech contrary to my beliefs) under reasonable accommodation case law? (Of course, the Constitution says that the government can't infringe and compel in various ways. The rights of an employer to control what I do and don't do is yet another matter---and I always have the right to find another job with a more accommodating employer. Do I always need force-of-law protections?)

What would "reasonable accommodation" look like in that particular security service instance? An example would be a compromise where I'm allowed to appear in a security guard uniform with company logo (or, if I'm an off-duty police officer doing free-lance security work, I could wear my standard issue police uniform.) That would allow me to emphasize my neutral role while doing my job and the Aryan Nation speaker still gets to exercise his free speech rights. He would still have the right to hire a security detail to protect him from violence but wouldn't have to force me to appear to be in agreement with his brand of speech. Surely that is a reasonable accommodation of everyone's rights and a win-win for all.

There will always be situations in which compromise is not so easily achieved to everyone's satisfaction. But is it good for society when every conflict becomes fodder for the courts and a windfall for astronomical legal bills? If I'm a pastor walking into a print shop to order the duplication of weekly church bulletins and the anti-theist owner of the shop says, "I hate everything you stand for but will print your worship service bulletins because the government says that I must under penalty of law", I will probably be prone to thank him for his time and do business with the competing Christian couple down the street who have examples on their wall of beautiful artwork and layouts suitable for my needs. I definitely prefer that scenario to filing a lawsuit saying "The anti-theist printer didn't refuse my business but he made me feel uncomfortable and discriminated against. He gave me little choice but to spend time looking for another printer. I want compensation for that pain-and-suffering and loss of my time."

We are becoming a society of easy offense. We shouldn't be surprised that young people today have gotten the message that simply stating "I feel offended" and "Your speech makes me feel unsafe and under attack." makes the adults scramble to meet their every demand. Notice the recent events at Emory University where some unknown person chalked on various sidewalks on campus the simple message "Trump 2016". Protests erupted under the outrage of "hate speech" and demanded that university administrators find the culprit and strictly prohibit such speech.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kicker/are-these-protrump-scribb_b_9547972.html

One student who described herself as Latina expressed a common theme among many of the minority protesters reacting to the Trump slogans:

“I legitimately feared for my life. I thought we were having a KKK rally on campus.”

Instead of taking advantage of a teachable moment, the university president scrambled to pledge the severest repercussions against the author(s) of the easily erased chalk messages, a routine means of casual expression on the campus for as long as anyone can remember. Have we truly come that far where simply expressing support for a political candidate who has been winning the support of many voters in free elections gets called "hate speech"? We used to have more agreement in this society that the best solution to speech as ignorant and ridiculous as Trump's speech is always more speech, not less. How ironic that the forces of political correctness and "I have the Constitutional right to never be offended or risk hearing anything I disagree with" are actually helping to motivate some elements of our society to jump on the Trump bandwagon. They see it as getting the last laugh and expressing their contempt for those who want to destroy free speech protections. (Take a look at what the campus newspaper had to say about "neutral messages" being the speech which should be approved for the campus.)

Yes, the GIND movies are appallingly silly, filled with exaggerated stereotypes and cliches, and they reinforce an imaginary reality. And that is exactly why they are ill-advised. We as Christians have a terrible track record of choosing our battles poorly and crying wolf so many times that when important freedoms are truly at stake, few will be prone to listen. We waste our political capital at the wrong times and places and then find ourselves extremely ineffective when religious freedom and free speech rights are truly at stake. Are screenwriters and producers really so lacking in thought and creativity that they can't seem to come up with story lines which provoke serious thought by both Christians and non-Christians?

Many Christian bloggers and Christian magazine columnists have already identified the major flaws in these films. One of my favorites hit the nail squarely on the head: GIND and GIND2 are not about being faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ as they are about tribalism, the championing of "We are the good guys. They are the bad guys" and "Everything we are doing is good and everything they are doing is bad." Indeed, that is why these movies are so dependent upon unrealistic, downright cartoonish, actually, lame stereotypes. It's as if the producers think that their intended target audience is so feeble-minded and purely emotionally-driven that exaggerated imaginary morality tales where the Christian always wins--in the now as well as in eternity--is the only way to sell a movie. (And that is quite a different theme than what we see in the Bible.)

I've seen several Christian bloggers refer to this kind of genre as "persecution porn for safe and wealthy, very privileged Americans." I cringe at the word play but I see their point. And considering that the original GIND movie made a huge profit, the excuse that Christian film producers lack the funds to produce quality movies with reasonable production values becomes a moot point. Again.

Your list of cases proves that peresuction of Christians in America is not a myth.

wanted reproductive choice.

Knapp v. City of Coeur d’Alene

The Knapps ran a wedding chapel, similar to the Vegas Elvis wedding chapels, and ran it as a for-profit company. Their website clearly listed them as offering to perform or to host wedding for pretty much anyone, and of any faith.

When Coeur d'Alene passed an law against gay discrimination, the Knapps immediately ran to the local TV station claiming they were being threatened by the city. On the day a Federal Court ruled Idaho's ban on gay weddings unconstitutional, the Knapps changed their chapel's status to "religious institution" and changed their website to say they ONLY offered "traditional, Christian" weddings.

They still kept claiming they were being threatened by the city with arrest, lawsuits, etc. Interviews with the city found somewhat amused officials who kept pointing out no one had complained to them about the Knapp's wedding chapel, and the city wasn't even paying attention to them. Apparently, the Knapps were trying as hard as possible to make themselves some kind of martyrs, despite no threat.

The ACLU finally pointed out no one was threatening any action against Knapp (though by then the Knapps had sued the city for a non-existent threat), and wouldn't because as a religious institution there was no law which could force them to perform a gay marriage!
Their lawsuit was ultimately dismissed and they've never been charged with a crime or sued by anyone...

State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers
The State of Washington has long had a law, clearly spelled out and on the books, that a for-profit non-religious company, be it a corporation or an sole proprietorship, was required to serve ALL customers unless they were in some way engaged in criminal behavior or being disruptive. But basically, if you're a for-profit firm, you're required to serve anyone who walks in your door.
When a gay couple sought flowers for a wedding, the firm refused to serve them, a clear violation of Washington's law. So...they were sued by the state to force compliance with the law. Pretty much end of subject.


Planned Parenthood v. Leavitt
Actually, it was Utah Women's Clinic, Inc. that sued Leavitt as Governor of Utah, not Planned Parenthood. Nor was anyone involved in this "pro-abortion" rather than being pro-choice.
The State of Utah passed a law requiring (this was back in 1994) a woman seeking abortion had to have read and signed an informed consent form within 24 hours of an abortion, and it had to tell her certain things (not all of which were medically factual). The Clinic sued to overturn the law.
The judge in the case not only attacked the clinic, claiming their 106 page motion was just a PR document, the judge found for the state on all issues and against the Clinic, with prejudice (meaning they can't refile even with new evidence), and ordered the clinic to pay all fees for both sides PLUS to pay penalty sanctions. The Clinic appealed that, and the judge held that against them, ordering them to pay even larger penalties.
The Clinic appealed this to an Appeals Court, which upheld the state's informed consent law, but tossed all the sanctions and penalties, pointing out the Clinic's position may not have held up in this specific court, but their position was entirely reasonable and not a frivolous lawsuit.
Again...that's it!! No one was being sued or charged or threatened with discrimination lawsuits!

You know, I've long noted that the anti-abortion crowd loves to claim to hold some high ground, a "Christian" position, and yet they can't seen to help but lie perpetually! If their positions are so Christian, so strong and valid, why do they constantly lie about them?