According to the Seattle PI, State Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed suit against Arlene’s Flowers & Gifts after owner Barronelle Stutzman declined to supply flowers to a homosexual couple’s wedding. Now, while the radical Left is screaming “discrimination,” “bigotry,” and “hatred,” it is important to note that Stutzman never denied service due to discrimination based on Richard Ingersoll and Curt Freed’s “sexual orientation.” In fact, the two men were pleased with Stutzman’s services, as they were repeat customers for nearly ten years.

No screaming matches or harassing phone calls or e-mails transpired when Stutzman declined to service Ingersoll and Freed’s event. Reportedly, Stutzman recalled, “He (Ingersoll) said he decided to get married, and before he got through, I grabbed his hand and said, ‘I am sorry. I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.’ We hugged each other and he left, and I assumed it was the end of the story.”

Peace, love, and civility, as it should be. Live and let live, as it should be. In the example of Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz, “It’s a free country.” What’s the problem? You can buy flowers somewhere else, right? But the options — or opinions — of the Looney Left aren’t available to conservatives, apparently.

Ironically, the same liberal thinkers who infused my college experience with the important lesson of small business owners unquestionably rallied behind Starbucks, a multi-billion dollar “greedy” corporation, when its CEO implemented a company policy based on his ultraliberal worldview. But I guarantee they will not support this small business woman for simply choosing to respect the sanctity of marriage. Nor have they supported Oregon’s Sweet Cakes owners, a young couple with three small children who declined to fill a wedding cake order for a homosexual wedding. In retaliation, these “progressives” marched with hostile picket signs in front of this bakery every Saturday to picket and harass the owners, their customers, and their partnering businesses.

And it is not just small businesses. Remember when Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy merely mentioned his personal — not corporate — policy on same-sex “marriage?” Goodness knows we had city mayors threatening to ban Chick-fil-A stores from Chicago and Boston. (And we all know how successful that plan was.)

So, once again, let us all put our money where our mouths are. Buy your values. This time for the sake and sustainability of small business owners.

How can Senate Democrats blatantly snub women this way?

A Senate resolution to honor Lady Margaret Thatcher was supposed to be passed Wednesday night. Nevertheless, per a Senate source, the resolution fell subject to partisan politics. It’s no secret in Washington, D.C., that both sides hold different measures to antagonize the other side. But it’s petty and disgraceful to use a measure like this for political gain. Not only did Margaret Thatcher make the history books for being appointed prime minister of Great Britain, she also helped the United States wipe out communism.

We aren’t talking about some one-trick pony like Sandra Fluke. We’re talking about a foreign leader who held one of the most powerful offices in the world — a leader who conquered overwhelming odds.

Despite one’s political leanings, you can’t dispute the accomplishments of Margaret Thatcher. In only highlighting one of her accomplishments — being the first and only female prime minister of Britain to this day — those of others seem dismal by comparison. So why, then, do Senate Democrats seek to degrade her by blocking a resolution honoring her achievements (achievements, I might add, that have done more for women’s rights then any left-leaning feminist)?

Where’s the cry of “foul”? Where are the Senate’s progressive women, and why are they not standing up for such a remarkable female who made feminine history?  Oh, that’s right; she was conservative, so they’re silent. Talk about pushing women’s rights back!

A woman such as Lady Thatcher deserves respect and honor for her great achievements. Instead, her legacy is mocked and blocked by hypocritical sycophants. I leave you with Lady Thatcher’s own words “If they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

Feminists are, predictably, having what we in the deep South used to call a “hissy fit.”  They are reacting with rage and bombast to a letter published in The Daily Princetonian that advised coeds not to waste their college years where they are surrounded by a high “concentration of men who are worthy of you.”  Susan Patton, a graduate of the Princeton class of 1977, reminded the students that “the man you marry” will be “inextricably linked” to their future happiness. No. Really?

As a 20-year-veteran of the political arena in Washington, D.C., I have seen several generations of college graduates come to the nation’s capital, where bright and intelligent men and women are overworked and underpaid to pursue their dream of making a mark on the world.  Invariably, they are steeped in the current myths about “establishing their careers” and “becoming financially stable” before even thinking about marriage. When they finally — and belatedly — get around to pursuing a life-time partner, many find, however, a dearth of desirable potential husbands or wives (i.e., eligible in terms of equal/superior intelligence and education with compatible values and good prospects as a friend, mate, and parent). As each year passes, chasing professional advancement, the odds worsen for women of finding Mr. Right, even in this era of supposed gender equity.  The cold hard facts are that men who’ve become established in their professions can usually much more easily than women find a pool of potential mates (usually younger) from which to choose.

Mark Regnerus pointed out in, Premarital Sex in America, there is a two-fold problem for women: First, the young men who chose not to sleep around tend to find a mate early; those who are left carry a lot of baggage from years of promiscuous sex with numerous other girls. Second, it is mainly the guys pushing “casual” sex, but it is the women who pay the larger price in terms of emotional costs, STDs, and the results of increased numbers of partners.

Successful marriages are based on mutual respect and common interests and values. Being “unequally yoked” (whether in intellect, education, faith, status, potential, or prospects) often makes for shaky, dysfunctional, and/or doomed relationships. Nobody wants to go back to the days where women went to college solely for the “Mrs.” degree, but it is foolish for women to ignore the fact that after college they likely will never again be surrounded by as many guys who meet their criteria for marriage.  Nor is it wise for young men to ignore the fact that they will never again have the opportunity to evaluate the characteristics of so many young women and choose one to cherish and grant the privilege of carrying their name, bearing their children, and sharing the ups and downs of life together.

In today’s “hook-up” culture, young men and women have to buck not only the anti-marriage biases of their generation, they also have to buck the “sex without consequences” myths that short-circuits their ability to bond and creates emotional (and often physical) “baggage” that hurts their chances for the happy, fulfilling, life-time marriage that the majority ultimately want.

Here is a personal assessment by my husband of 50-plus years: “I don’t get the controversy today.  In college, I pursued — with great persistence — the girl I wanted to be my wife.  Smartest thing I ever did.  We were both 22-year-old virgins and flat broke when we married fresh out of college; all we had was the $100 my dad gave me as a wedding gift plus $300 my older brother loaned me.  Persevering through the ups and downs, we built a wonderful and meaningful life that has been full of challenges and equally full of passion, joy, and the satisfaction of walking side-by-side, pursuing our career ambitions together, raising two great kids, and now enjoying our seven terrific grandchildren.”

Do you ever wonder how the ancient Israelites frequently managed to mess up so badly?  Again and again, the Bible recounts their seeming inability to remember the basic commands repeated so many times in the early books of the Bible.

I recently read the speech that Joshua gave to the people of Israel before he died, urging them to be faithful to the Lord.  He reminded the entire assembly, one last time, about the benefits of obedience and the consequences of choosing sin:

Now therefore, fear the Lord, serve Him in sincerity and in truth, and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the River and in Egypt. Serve the Lord! And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell.  But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. (Joshua 24:14-15)

Israel as a whole responded by resolving to follow God.  And, for a while, they remained faithful.

But in Judges, the next book of the Bible, God’s chosen people start to waver.  Chapter 1 begins with the tribes of Reuben and Judah working together to drive their residual enemies from the Promised Land.  However, this account is immediately followed by a detailed listing of how the various tribes had failed to drive out all the foreign peoples from the land, as God commanded.

When I consider this account a little more deeply, I realize I can be the same way.  There are areas in which I fail to submit to God entirely in my own life, and there are basic commands I can all too easily “forget” when convenient.

As I’m sure the Israelites did, I can come up with excuses about why I shouldn’t obey.  This very problem is addressed by Dietrich Bonheoffer in The Cost of Discipleship:

“When Jesus demanded voluntary poverty of the rich young man, the young man knew that his only choices were obedience or disobedience. When Levi was called from tax collecting and Peter from his nets, there was no doubt that Jesus was serious about those calls.  They were supposed to leave everything and follow him.  When Peter was called to step onto the stormy sea, he had to get up and risk taking the step.  Only one thing was demanded in each of these cases.  That was their entrusting themselves to the word of Jesus Christ, believing it to be a stronger foundation than all the securities of the world. … Simple obedience was required.”

A dose of reality, isn’t it?  For the original disciples (who were literally and verbally called by Christ) and for the first generation Israelites (whom God led into the Promised Land), there was no denying the reality of God’s will for their lives.  They were reminded of their God-given mission day in and day out.

In the same way, Christ followers must be reminded every day of God’s truth.  If we are not intentional about allowing the Word to speak into our lives, we start sliding down the slippery slope toward disobedience.

As John Owen has often said, “Be killing sin or sin will be killing you.”  Our souls must be consistently treated with heavy doses of Biblical truth — personally and in community — to remain healthy Christians.  Otherwise, we are doomed to lose our fight against sin.

They’ll call me a bigot, but I prefer to see myself as a realist.  So let’s jump into it.  The Today Show’s Jenna Wolfe dropped an unexpected bombshell into the national conversation over “gay marriage.”  She announced on air (and in her blog) that, “My girlfriend, Stephanie Gosk, and I are expecting a baby girl the end of August.”

First and foremost, I am pro-life.  Let’s just put that up front.  I love babies.  Children are life changing, and I’m sure Miss Wolfe is already finding that out.

However, I’m also like that little kid who yelled, “The king has no clothes!”  If there’s something to be said and no one wants to say it for fear of hurting the feelings of others, well, you’ll find me there.  Sorry to rain on your parade, but truth is truth.

So here we go.  The headline on the Today Show’s website starts out with the word “Surreal.”  But, in truth, it should read “Unreal.”  Jenna Wolfe and her girlfriend, Stephanie Gosk, are most certainly not expecting a baby girl at the end of August, not in the biological sense, anyway.

When a man and a woman unite in a sexual union, the woman provides the unfertilized egg and the man provides the sperm.  Those two things — biologically exclusive to members of the opposite sex — merge and the miracle of life begins.

So herein lies the crux of our dilemma: Miss Wolfe and Miss Gosk are both women.  That’s not an anti-“gay” statement; that’s a true statement.  Biologically speaking, they cannot, of their own volition, produce a child.  I’m sure they’re both nice women, but they need a man in order to have a baby.

And if they need a man in order to have a baby, then who can honestly say that this is the only contribution a man can make?  Who can honestly say that Miss Gosk can replace — truly and completely replace — the father who should be present in that child’s life?  Consider, if you will, all the social science data to date that shows that children do better in a traditional mom-and-dad household.  Which parent does the child not need?  A young lady asked that very question to a state legislature recently — “Which parent do I not need?” — and no one could answer her.

It may be politically correct to celebrate the news of Miss Wolfe’s pregnancy.  It may be politically correct to celebrate Miss Gosk’s role as the child’s “other parent.”  But it is selfish, and supremely so, to deny the child — and others like her — the benefit of either a mother or a father.  Two men cannot produce a child.  Two women cannot produce a child.  And neither of those familial arrangements is fair to the overall development of a child.

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m sure Miss Gosk will be supportive and loving and caring to Miss Wolfe’s child; but she will never be — can never be — the child’s father.  And, to me, that’s just sad.

Today’s guest blogger is Christian Shelby, a volunteer with Concerned Women for America.

Goodbye pumpkin spice latte. Forever.  

Last year during this exact week, I wrote a blog titled, “Starbucks Disrespects Values Voters,” calling out Starbucks’ CEO, Howard Schultz, for supporting a liberal political agenda that totally disregards the traditional values of many customers and staff members.

Another year gone by and Schultz has become even more extreme and intolerant. At Starbucks’ annual shareholders meeting, Schultz sent a clear message that he does not want the business of anyone who believes that marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman, pointedly telling one such shareholder, “You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company.” This outburst reportedly came right after Schultz stated he wanted to “embrace diversity of all kinds.”

He doesn’t want our business. Schultz statement isn’t tolerant. It is prejudicial and bigoted. So where are the newspaper headlines reading, “Starbucks CEO Refuses Pro-Marriage Supporters Service,” which is exactly the message his statement conveys?

What’s next, Starbucks? Two separate drinking fountains for liberals and conservatives or “now hiring” signs reading, “Heterosexuals Need Not Apply”?

Considering that there are twice as many conservatives as there are liberals, Schultz should have heeded my warning a year ago. In fact, during this year’s meeting, conservative shareholder Tom Strobhar admitted that after the company voiced its support for same-sex “marriage” in Washington state, the company saw a drop in profits.

So in the end, Schultz is only tolerant of approximately 2 percent of America’s 300 million citizens who live homosexual lifestyles. I do not hold an MBA, but I do remember that 4^th grade arithmetic teaches us that the profits made from 2 percent are less than the profits from 98 percent.

I’ve already dumped Starbucks. I prefer Dunkin’ Donuts, anyway.

Looking ahead to Tuesday — when the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that could determine the future of marriage — President Obama recently “explained the legal argument for same-sex marriage” claiming that the Constitution does support a fundamental right to same-sex “marriage.”

Obama argued at an impromptu press conference his legal argument for same-sex marriage when asked a question about the Supreme Court’s review of California’s Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage. ABC News reported that the President said,

“[T]he Supreme Court needs to ask the state why it’s doing it, and if the state doesn’t have a good reason it should be struck down. … Whenever a particular group is being discriminated against, the court asks the question, what’s the rationale for this, and it better be a good reason, and if you don’t have a good reason we’re going to strike it down.”

It is funny how the President says, “We’re going to strike it down,” as if he is the Chief Justice rather than the President of the United States.  President Obama should work on improving his execution of the job he was elected to before moving onto another position. If he took the time to brush up on the judicial case law of this country – in which he sits not as a judge, but as president –  not only would he clearly see the reason not precedent for staying in the Oval Office and out of the courtroom, his erroneous legal views on marriage would also be exposed.

Sadly, it appears the president’s understanding of our nation’s Constitution and case law is similar to his understanding of economics…or should I say, lack of it?

It appears the president is also forgetting one of the leading cases regarding same-sex marriage, Barker v Nelson, which reasoned, “The Constitution does not protect a fundamental right for same-sex couples to get married.”

Furthermore, the most common case cited by same-sex marriage advocates is the Supreme Court case, Loving v Virginia. The issue in Loving v Virginia was the validity of “Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statutes, the central features of which are the absolute prohibition of a white person marrying any person other than a white person.” Although the case focused on racial discrimination in light of the 14^th Amendment and not same-sex unions, Chief Justice Warren stated, “Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to existence and survival.” The court mentioned nothing of a civil right for same-sex marriage.

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) later this month.  It wouldn’t be a surprise if this group of Justices again ignores the parameters of the Constitution and forever changes history.

Concerned Women for America encourages those who wish to protect the U.S. Constitution and the definition of marriage to come to D.C. for the Marriage March set for the morning of March 26, 2013, the day the Supreme Court is set to begin hearing oral arguments on these important cases.

Today’s guest blogger is Alex Swoyer, Chapter President of Young Women for America for Ave Maria School of Law.

Wife and warrior Naghmeh Abidini testified at a Congressional hearing last Friday to raise national awareness for her husband, Pastor Saeed Abedini, and to urge the State Department and President Obama’s Administration to take long-overdue action. Saeed is an Iranian-born U.S. citizen who was arrested in Iran last July and imprisoned in the notoriously brutal Evin prison.  The Islamic Regime of Iran claims that Pastor Saeed is a national security threat, and yet, even they have stated that the real reason for his imprisonment is his Christian faith.  Saeed converted from Islam to Christianity in 2000 and subsequently started an underground church movement.  He and his wife have been living in America as U.S. citizens and have traveled back to Iran many times.  This past July, Saeed made another trip to Iran in order to gain final approval for the orphanage he is building.  This project had the full approval of the Iranian government, and he has complied with all of their past demands with regards to his activities in the country.  However, he was arrested in July 2012 and, at the beginning of this year, he was sentenced to eight years in Evin prison.

The U.S. State Department and the Obama Administration have been glaringly absent in this case.  In fact, they have done more in the past for non-U.S. citizens imprisoned in Iran than they have been willing to do on behalf of Pastor Saeed.  They were notified about the hearing, but their response was that they had no one available to attend. Quoting Dietrich Bonhoeffer during the hearing, Naghmeh said, “Silence in the face of evil, in itself is evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak; not to act is to act.”  The State Department’s shameful lack of acknowledgement of this issue, especially their refusal to send a representative to the hearing, is absolutely appalling.  Congress has acted on this issue, but it is the State Department and the Obama Administration’s responsibility to lead this case and demand Saeed’s release.  While White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has made mild comments in response to media questioning on this issue, President Obama has remained entirely silent. Likewise, the only comments that have been made by the State Department have been in response to questions from the media or from Members of Congress.

During the recent U.N. meetings, the E.U. spoke out specifically on behalf of Pastor Saeed, and yet, when it came time for the U.S. delegation to speak, they made no mention of his name.  “Imagine you’re a U.S. citizen detained for your faith abroad, and the E.U. is speaking out, but your own country is remaining silent,” said Jordan Sekulow, attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) and Nagmeh’s legal counsel.

However, thanks to the tireless efforts of Naghmeh, the relentless work of the ACLJ, the extensive and regular coverage by Fox News, the over 100 Congressmen who signed a letter to the State Department, especially the specific leadership of Congressman Trent Franks (R-Arizona) on the Hill with this issue, Congressman Frank Wolf’s (R-Virginia) leading of the Congressional hearing, and the 538,000 Americans who have signed the petition and called their representatives, a State Department representative did finally agree to meet with Naghmeh to discuss her husband’s imprisonment and torture.

Congress has done what it needs to do. Americans are doing their part, as the petition for Saeed’s release increases by about 15,000 signatures a day; it is now at nearly 600,000.   Many public figures, including several Christian recording artists and politicians, have spread the news about this issue to their audiences. Now is the time for the State Department and the Obama Administration to get their act in gear or face the growing outrage of the rapidly increasing number of Americans who are following this case.  Naghmeh and her ACLJ attorney, Jordan Sekulow, appeared on Fox News this morning setting this Friday as a deadline for the State Department to make a clear statement demanding Saeed Abedini’s release.

Please join CWA and continue to pray for the immediate release of Pastor Saeed Abidini. If you were not able to watch the Congressional hearing and Naghmeh’s moving testimony, you can watch it here.

Chelsen Vicari, CWA’s Communications Strategist, contributed to this article.

What have the Democrats been doing for the last (Fore!) years?

Yesterday, Senate Democrats released their first budget resolution since the last budget was passed — only 1,415 days (or four years) ago!  The last time the Democratic-led Senate passed a budget was 1) before President Obama took office, 2) the House of Representatives was controlled by the GOP, and 3) the iPad was created!  I’m sure we’re thinking the same thing: “What was life before the iPad?”

It’s that same question American families and taxpayers should be asking. What was life economically four years ago? Our current elected leaders have chosen to play partisan politics instead of doing one of the most vital parts of their job, releasing and passing a budget every fiscal year.

The Senate Budget Committee is expected to vote on the Democratic resolution Thursday, March 14. If passed, it will increase spending for roads and raise taxes on corporations and wealthy Americans — all in the name of protecting middle-class earners, naturally.

But no one should be grabbing for their white hat any time soon. The Democrats in Congress may be messaging that they’re helping the middle class, but what they have cleverly omitted is that yesterday they also voted down an amendment offered by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), which would have held off funding to ObamaCare until after the economy was stable.  In short, Senate Democrats just sentenced the middle class to more regulations and guaranteed increases in insurance for business owners.

Budget talks will likely be met with opposition from both sides — nothing new from what we’ve seen for the past four years. Let’s hope the “No Budget, No Pay” measure that was passed by both House and Senate (which would keep members from collecting their paychecks if they fail to pass a budget by April 1), is incentive enough for your elected leaders to actually do their jobs for once in the past 1,415 days.

Lifetime’s newest series, “Preachers’ Daughters” debuts tonight.  So all of you fellow P.K.’s (preacher’s kids) let out a sigh of relief; someone will finally understand what we went through!  But I also wonder if this is a shameless opportunity to paint religious dads and moms as aliens from outer space – you know, the “crazy Christian” stereotypes that Hollywood loves to spew.  Sound familiar?

I tuned in to GCB (Good Christian B**ches) for the same reason.  How does the world see us?  Or perhaps the better question is, “How does Hollywood want the world to see us?”  Society is fascinated by Christians and our faith.  The T.V. series “The Bible” serves as a case in point.  More than 27 million tuned into its first episode last week.

Tonight, we can all be the judge, like every reality “big brother” show leads us to be.  But I’m afraid what you’ll see here is what a TV camera would catch in most of our homes.  That is, not-so-perfect parenting executed with the best of intentions.  Whether it’s interrogating the boy that comes to pick up your daughter, finding pictures on Instagram you’re not so proud of, or finding out who your kids’ friends are, these are very real conversations happening in households everywhere.

Hopefully, “Preachers’ Daughters” will show how to have these hard conversations.  Or maybe they’ll show us exactly what not to do.  But it should point directly to the society in which we are raising our children. Not only are they more sexualized than ever, but they are exposed at every level to temptation and societal pressure.  Do I think it’s appropriate that these preachers agreed to have their daughters more exposed by allowing a camera to follow them around?  No.  I’m never a fan of profiting off of people figuring out their lives.  But since it’s in front of us, I pray these moms and dads use it as a way to reach out to the viewing audience and bring glory to God’s name through what may be their imperfect attempts at grace and love.

Parenting is hard.  And no one is perfect.  But more than a show, we have the Bible to show us how to love, how to discipline, and how to guide those around us to a life of obedience and success in God’s eyes.

To Hollywood, I say, continue trying to capture what’s mysterious about us.  It’s hard to see it on camera, because it lies in our hearts and our convictions.

To these girls, I say, figure out that your mom and dad are trying to help guard you from the hurt of the world.  No, your parents are not God, and you ‘don’t have to listen’ to them.  But we were blessed with parents who cared enough about us to want the best.  And not everyone can say that.

Love, from one preacher’s daughter to another.