Why should Christianity and Judaism be any worse off – precisely because they are “deeply rooted in history and tradition” – than a new religion that is the antithesis of something rooted in our history and tradition?  Does the fact that the homosexual agenda is not deeply rooted – the very litmus test required to assert a fundamental right – instill it with more legitimacy to imprison violators than the Christian religion which has been the dominant religion since the founding of the country?

Religious Protestants, Catholics, and Jews have been under strict scrutiny by the activist courts for violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment for simple, peaceful, and innocuous displays of religious symbols.  Some of these religious symbols, such as a replica of the Ten Commandments, or references to God, such as the one in the Pledge of Allegiance, have been a part of this country since its founding.  Yet, the legal community feels that anything short of eradicating public display of Judeo-Christian symbols violates the constitutional directive against establishing a national religion.  Why shouldn’t paganism and secular agenda items, which are adhered to with more fervor and devotion than any major religion, be subjected to the same scrutiny?

Let’s be clear, nobody is being fined or thrown into jail for not being a Christian.  Nobody has had their property rights violated for opposing Christian beliefs.  On the other hand, individuals are now being jailed or fined for not servicing homosexual weddings.  And I’m not just talking about Kim Davis.  There have been endless cases of private business owners who have been fined or forced to abandon their livelihood for refusing to service the homosexual religion with their private property and private labor.

At what point is this not a government-sponsored religion infringing upon the most unalienable rights of religious liberty and property rights, in violation of the Establishment Clause?  As James Madison wrote in an essay on Property in 1792, “conscience is the most sacred of all property.”  His original draft of the First Amendment was even more effusive than the final version adopted by Congress.  “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship…nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed….”

Yet, we now have actual property rights and the most sacred property – conscience – being forced to yield to a new super right – an entitlement to force states to redefine marriage – in order to service the fervency of the homosexual agenda.  How can this be anything but the establishment of a national religion?

[Editor’s note: This article is incomplete. The source for this document was originally published on conservativereview.com–however, the original URL is no longer available. Also, one or more original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid; those links have been removed.]