religious freedom

Christian Coffee Shop Owner Labeled a ‘Bigot’ Despite Helping the Homeless

A Christian coffee shop dedicated to helping the homeless in Denver, Colorado is being targeted by protesters for promoting biblical truths.

Founded by Jamie Sanchez in 2023, The Drip Café hires participants of “Project Revive” – a local program providing biblical and practical resources for homeless individuals seeking a fresh start.

Both The Drip Café and Project Revive are extensions of Sanchez’s homeless ministry, Recycle God’s Love. The organization is committed to “serving those who have been forgotten” by providing “hot meals, clothing, hygiene, life-saving winter supplies, and most importantly, the love of Christ.”

While Sanchez’s programs have done an incredible amount of good for Denver’s homeless population, The Drip Café continually receives extreme pushback from protesters.

Prior to the café’s opening day in 2023, Sanchez began receiving messages accusing the establishment of pushing an “anti-gay” agenda. He told Fox News:

It was really strange, actually, because we all of a sudden started getting like messages on Instagram about how we hate gay people and random comments like that.

And come to find out there was an organized group ready to protest the opening of our café before we even opened.

We did some digging, and we found out it was strictly because we were Christian.

Confirming Sanchez’s suspicions, a local group called the Denver Communists protested at The Drip Café on its opening day.

The protesters specifically opposed the following belief statement from Recycle God’s Love:

We believe that a homosexual lifestyle is contrary to God’s Word and purpose for humanity and is sin (I Timothy 1:10).

Moreover, this organization is instructed to Love those living such lifestyles.

We Believe that showing hate towards people in these communities is not the way Jesus would respond.

Therefore, although disagreeing with the lifestyles we believe to be sinful, we must show love.

Since the café’s opening day, protesters have relentlessly accused Sanchez’s business, claiming “Drip Café exploits homeless labor and disguises it as charity,” and “The Drip Café condemns queer people to death – with love.” 

Most generally, the group asserts the shop’s affiliation with a “right-wing” church that supposedly hates the LGBT community,

A member of the Denver Communists commented to Fox News,

There are plenty of Christian denominations that don’t share their bigoted view, such as the ELCA [Evangelical Lutheran Church in America], and we’ve been joined by pastors and many Christians in our protests.

Drip has doubled down on its homophobic position. Jamie and his bigoted coffee shop don’t have a monopoly on Christianity, but he sure is willing to try and profit off of it.

Additionally, a blog post from the Denver Communists stated,

We may not succeed in running The Drip out of town before the end of its lease, but that is ultimately irrelevant.

The protests against the hate-café are serving as a training ground for new queer-rights activists, the message of queer liberation is being spread, and our ultimate victory, while delayed, is inevitable.

In reference to the opening day protests and comments, Sanchez recalled,

I was in shock. Our whole purpose opening the café was to serve the homeless community and help people get off the street, change their lives.

And here we got a group who just hates us because we’re doing that and we’re Christian.

The Denver Communist group continued protesting outside Sanchez’s café every weekend for some time. Now, the group only gathers during a monthly art walk event on the café’s street, Santa Fe Drive.

Although these protests have died down, hostility towards The Drip Café has not. Sanchez says the coffee shop has been vandalized on several occasions – broken windows, “Keep Santa Fe Gay” stickers slapped onto the property and even a spray-painted image of a hanging KKK member on the café’s front door.

Additionally, a recent Instagram post promoted an upcoming protest, “Drag Against Drip,” advertising the group’s plan for “drag performances right on the homophobes’ doorstep.” 

Sanchez has also reported aggressive interactions between the protesters and his customers. He specifically recalled how two protesters once followed an elderly woman into the shop and how a blind Christian DJ was screamed at outside the café. Sanchez commented,

Here’s this group trying to act inclusive, and they are harassing a Black blind guy in front of my café because he’s Christian.

The Denver Communists have also written aggressive messages about the coffee shop on their website and social media platforms, claiming the “bigots” at the café are “advocating for violence while hiding behind polite words.”

As if that isn’t enough, the group has also connected Sanchez to neo-Nazis, to which he responded, “It’s very silly of them to say I am part of a Nazi group, considering I am a brown-skinned Hispanic.”

Despite the constant hostility over the past two years, Sanchez says he has shown the protesters nothing but love:

The communists have told me I’m not welcome, told me to kill myself, and my response is, “I love you, and you are welcome to come in peacefully.”

We have offered them free coffee and food on cold days.

I’ve never shown anything but love to them and that’s why the only pictures they have of me is praying for them.

I understand that they feel like they are having an identity crisis, and they might feel hopeless and lost and the only way to rectify that feeling is through the Son of God who is Jesus Christ.

Since Sanchez has found no help from local authorities, his team at Drip now offers live worship music in the shop every First Friday in an attempt to “drown out” the protesters’ chaos.

While some harbor hatred for Sanchez and the café, Drip’s Google reviews are filled with love and praise for the inspiring establishment. Several reviews include comments such as:

I love this place! My coffee always tastes great, the staff are incredibly kind, and it’s inspiring to have a coffee shop that loves Jesus out loud. Very refreshing.

I came in from out of town and had a coffee here. they were the most welcoming people, they prayed with me, and I absolutely admire what they are doing for the homeless community!

They provide so much for the community by feeding the homeless, getting them off the streets and offering an environment of prayer, kindness, amazing food and love even for outsiders who hate on them for simply being Christian.

These reviews demonstrate that although hate often takes center stage, hope still exists in the midst of such darkness.

Please join the Daily Citizen in praying for Jamie Sanchez, The Drip Café, and all others who are being persecuted for their promotion of biblical truths.

Related Articles and Resources

Don’t Forget to Pray for Persecuted Christians Around the World

Protester Mocks, Prevents Working Mom From Supporting Family

Jack Phillips Wins: Colorado Supreme Court Dismisses Lawsuit Harassing Him

Justice Samuel Alito Warns of Declining Support for Free Speech and Freedom of Religion

LA Riots, Agitators and the Timeless Tensions of Culture

Image credit: Denver 7

Supreme Court Defends Religious Freedom, Parental Rights Over ‘LGBT’ Curriculum

In a decisive victory for people of faith, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of parental rights and religious freedom over mandated “LGBT” curriculum in public school classrooms.

The decision affirms schools can’t force children to participate in LGBT classroom material without offering parents the right to opt out based on sincerely held religious beliefs.

Background

The case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, involves a group of Maryland parents from diverse religious backgrounds asking to opt their children out of mandated LGBT curricula at school.

As reported by the Daily Citizen, the case originated in 2023 when the school district eliminated an opt-out provision for LGBT children’s books read in the classroom.

A multi-faith parent group sued the school district, claiming the policy infringed on their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

They requested a preliminary injunction to prevent the school district from requiring their children to read, listen to or discuss the storybooks while the case was being litigated on the merits of its constitutional claims. The parents lost in both lower courts.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in April.

Opinion

The majority opinion was authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.

The Court ruled parents have the First Amendment free exercise right to opt their children out of LGBT classroom materials in public elementary schools.

The majority affirmed when schools force exposure to content conflicting with sincerely held religious beliefs, like marriage and gender identity, the schools substantially burden the rights of religious parents.

The Court applied strict scrutiny because it involves the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Here, the Court held the school district’s failure to allow religious opt-outs violated strict scrutiny because the school offered opt-outs in other contexts but refused to accommodate religious objections to LGBT material.

The majority reversed the lower court’s ruling and granted a preliminary injunction to the parents, which requires the district to provide notice before using LGBT curriculum and permits students to opt out of the instruction while the case continues to be litigated on its merits.

Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion emphasizing an important “implication of this decision for schools across the country.”

He wrote:

The Board may not insulate itself from First Amendment liability by “weav[ing]”religiously offensive material throughout its curriculum and thereby significantly increase the difficulty and complexity of remedying parents’ constitutional injuries.

He warned, “Insofar as schools or boards attempt to employ their curricula to interfere with religious exercise, courts should carefully police such ‘ingenious defiance of the Constitution.'”

Public schools have officially been put on notice by Justice Thomas.

The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.

Dissenting Justices argued this decision might undermine the role of public education in exposing students to differing perspectives. They suggested the administrative burden to opt students out would be too cumbersome and that this might lead to students being exempted from essential history or science concepts based on religious objections.

Impact

This case will have long-lasting implications not just in Maryland but in public schools across the nation.

Religious freedom and parental rights have been strengthened in every state. This ruling recognizes parents have a First Amendment right to protect their children from instruction contradicting their sincerely held religious beliefs. Based on this case precedent, schools will now be required to provide notice and opt-outs for LGBT materials, especially for young children.

Public school districts and boards nationwide must now reconsider their approach to LGBT content and change their policies or face lawsuits from parents ready to protect their children and defend their religious freedom.

Focus on the Family applauds the Court’s decision. This case draws a clear line in the sand — public education must respect parental rights and the religious convictions of Christians and all people of faith.  

In Victory for Parental Rights, Iowa Law Permits Students to Receive Religious Instruction

A recently enacted Iowa law now allows public school students to receive optional religious education during the school day, despite opposition from an atheist group.

Effective July 1, the bill authorizes Iowa students to receive up to five hours of “private religious instruction” per school week.  

The law’s stipulations include:

  • Religious instruction must be provided by a private organization and may not be conducted on school property.
  • Religious organizations must keep attendance records and assume liability for their students.
  • School funds may not be used to support religious programs.
  • Parents or guardians must notify the school that their child will be attending a religious program.
  • Parents or guardians must provide transportation to and from students’ religious classes.
  • Students may be excused for religious instruction up to five hours per week.
  • Students must agree to make up any school work they may miss during their absence.

Additionally, the law permits parents to take action against any school that does not allow students to attend religious instruction classes.

On Friday, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed the bill (House File 870) into law. The bill previously earned a vote of 96-2 in the Iowa House of Representatives, followed by a unanimous vote of 47-0 in the Iowa Senate. 

These majority votes prevailed despite previous pushback from the anti-religion group, Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF).

When Ohio passed a similar law in 2023, FFRF sent letters to Ohio’s school districts expressing their disapproval: “Public school districts are not legally required to authorize released time bible study classes.”

FFRF specifically targeted LifeWise Academy, a program that seeks to provide “Bible-based character education to public school students”:

LifeWise’s goal is clear: they seek to indoctrinate and convert public school students to evangelical Christianity by convincing public school districts to partner with them in bringing LifeWise released time bible classes to public school communities.

Public school students have the First Amendment right to be free from religious indoctrination in their schools.

However, the Ohio and Iowa laws are consistent with the 1952 Supreme Court decision in the case of Zorach v. Clauson, which permitted New York City students to receive religious education during school hours:

No one is forced to go to the religious classroom, and no religious exercise or instruction is brought to the classrooms of the public schools.

A student need not take religious instruction. He is left to his own desires as to the manner or time of his religious devotions, if any.

Similar laws authorizing optional religious education have been passed in other states, including Oklahoma and Indiana.

In a recent statement, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel Greg Chafuen said:

Parents have the right and responsibility to guide the upbringing and education of their children.

The government should not stop families from raising their children in their family’s faith.

As the U.S. Supreme Court explained, respecting parents’ decisions for their child to participate in released time programs “follows the best of our traditions.”

Such legislation does not inhibit students’ education, but rather ensures their First Amendment right to freedom of religion – a constitutional right that should never be infringed upon.

Related Articles and Resources

Bring Your Bible Day

Indiana Governor Signs Bill Protecting Students’ ‘Release Time’ for Religious Instruction

Christianity Invented Childhood. It’s Time We Defend it Again

Three Important Cases for Parental Rights, Supreme Court Rulings Expected Soon

California Family Wins Early Legal Victory for Parental Rights, Religious Freedom

Tennessee Governor Signs Bill Protecting Free Speech in Schools

Religious Liberty is the Preserver to Keep America Afloat

California Family Wins Early Legal Victory for Parental Rights, Religious Freedom

A California school district must allow parents to opt their children out of some activities pushing gender ideology, the Southern District Court of California ordered in a preliminary injunction issued last week.  

The decision is an encouraging early win for Carlos and Jenny Encinas. The parents of three young kids made the difficult decision to sue Encinitas Union School District last year after their 11-year-old son, a Christian, was forced to teach his kindergarten buddy about gender identity.

“[The preliminary injunction] prevents the school district from teaching [students] about gender ideology in the [kindergarten] buddy class program unless they provide advanced notice and opt out [opportunities],” the Encinas’ lawyer, First Liberty Attorney Kayla Toney, told First Liberty Live.

“That’s exactly what our clients were asking for all along.”

Background

The Daily Citizen interviewed Toney and Carlos shortly before the district court’s ruling. Carlos confirmed he and his wife weren’t itching for a grueling legal battle. They just wanted to opt their sons out of activities teaching gender ideology — or forcing their sons to teach gender ideology to others.

When La Costa Heights Elementary and Encinitas Union School District denied both of the Encinas’ opt-out requests, the couple had nowhere else to turn.

“We are seeking resolution from the court system because we have no other choice,” Carlos told us.

The Encinas family experienced ruthless bullying for trying to exercise their parental rights. Carlos and Jenny received threats and harassment online for being “hateful.” The couple’s two sons became targets of other children — and even adults — at school.

Eventually, the Encinas boys moved schools altogether. But the family remains determined to see their case through.

“I feel like God’s got a plan in this and chose my son and our family for a reason,” Carlos reflected. “I have absolute faith that we are part of a spiritual battle that is going to be part of an ultimate renewal.”

To read more of the Daily Citizen’s interview with Carlos, click here.

The Case

The Encinas’ case alleges Encinitas Union School District infringed on their family’s:

  • Parental rights
  • Right to freely exercise their religion
  • Free speech rights

The district violated Carlos and Jenny’s parental rights by denying their request to opt out of activities teaching gender ideology.

California law requires schools to allow parents to opt out of sex ed lessons. Encinitas Union claims this law only applies to material taught in traditional sex ed units, rather than sexual material in general. The Encinases argue parental opt-out requirements apply to all sexual content, regardless of the curricula it’s rolled into.

Toney sums up:

[The district] is claiming that they don’t have to provide [parental] opt-outs when the exact same material about sexuality and gender identity is taught in other classes, in younger grades, outside the sexual education unit.

The district also violated the Encinas family’s right to freely exercise their religion by denying their request to opt out. A school cannot constitutionally deny religious exemptions while granting other, non-religious exemptions. Toney expands:

The school is able to provide opt-outs, and is required in certain circumstances. It’s very common in a school environment.
[But] the free exercise clause says that, if there’s a system of exemptions for any reason, then religious exemptions have to be provided too. Religion can’t be treated less favorably than other interests.

Encinitas Union School District violated the Encinas’ eldest son’s free speech rights by forcing him to teach gender ideology to his kindergarten buddy. Toney explains:

Our position is that what happened to Carlos’ son was compelled speech, because the government — the school district — was using the children to teach its own message about gender that directly conflicted with [his] religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court has considered “compelled speech” a violation of the free speech clause for nearly a century.

The Ruling

The Southern District Court of California granted the Encinas family’s request for preliminary injunction against the district. The injunction will not only prevent the district from violating parents’ rights while the case is adjudicated, but also require schools like La Costa Heights to notify parents about sexualized lessons.

Until now, Carlos tells the Daily Citizen, these lessons have been shrouded in secrecy.

“In talking to other parents, we discovered a pattern in the way the school and the district suppressed objections to [inappropriate sexual material],” he explained. “It was like they wanted to hide how they were promoting some of this stuff in the classroom.”

The judge largely affirmed the Encinas’ arguments, according to Toney — an encouraging sign for future rulings. He expressed particular concern over the district’s alleged free speech violations.

“The judge here was very focused on the children, and how children have a right to believe in God,” Toney recounted to First Liberty Live. “They have a right to express their faith and they have a right to not be forced to express a message that they disagree with.”

Mahmoud v. Taylor

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case similar to the Encinas family’s just last month.

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, families of diverse faith backgrounds argue a Maryland school district violated their right to freely exercise their religion after the district taught LGBT children’s books in elementary school classes — without notice or the chance to opt out.

Like Encinitas Union School District, Montgomery County Public Schools tried to get around parental opt-out requirements by rolling inappropriate sexual material into other subjects. Outside of sex ed, Montgomery County tried to argue, the school district isn’t required to allow parents to opt out.

As the Daily Citizen previously reported, the six conservative justices seemed sympathetic to parents during oral arguments, expressing concern that Montgomery County could be burdening families’ religious exercise.

Carlos felt profound relief after listening to the case.

“It was amazing to hear some of the highest legal authorities in the land ask some of the questions we, ourselves, asked early on.” he told the Daily Citizen.

Like, “Wait a second, why can’t you guys opt us out of this? We just don’t want to participate.” To have a Supreme Court justice ask that same question over and over again, and get the same unclear explanation, and then have that justice come back and say, “Wait hold on, I’m still not understanding the answers” — that’s another kind of inspiration.

To learn more about Mahmoud v. Taylor, click here.

Why It Matters

The Daily Citizen is grateful to the Encinas family for putting themselves on the line to protect the right of all parents to raise their children according to their faith.

We will continue to cover this important case.

To read more about the Encinas’ story, click here.

Additional Articles and Resources

California Family harassed After Trying to Opt-Out of Activities Teaching Gender Ideology

Supreme Court Sympathetic to Opt-Outs for LGBT Curriculum

Common Spirit Denied Teen Body Medical Care After Parents Objected to Doctor’s Bizarre Questions

Three Ways the Media Supports Sexually Explicit, Inappropriate Books for Children

Liberal Father Seeks to Disprove Concerns Over Sexually Explicit Books in Schools, Becomes Convinced These Books Are Not for Children

Sexualizing Schoolchildren: Classroom and Library Books

Religious Liberty is the Preserver to Keep America Afloat

At an ecumenical prayer breakfast in Dallas back in 1984, President Ronald Reagan said,

“Without God, there is no virtue, because there’s no prompting of the conscience. Without God, we’re mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what the senses perceive. Without God, there is a coarsening of the society. And without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.”

Those words swirled in my head, as I had the honor to attend the Rose Garden ceremony as President Donald Trump announced the formation of a presidential commission to protect religious liberty. The commission members are:

Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, chair
Dr. Ben Carson, vice chair
Ryan Anderson
Bishop Robert Barron
Carrie Boller
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, archbishop of New York
Rev. Franklin Graham
Allyson Ho
Dr. Phil McGraw
Eric Metaxas
Kelly Shackelford
Rabbi Meir Soloveichik
Pastor Paula White

In his executive order announcing the commission, Trump stated,

“It shall be the policy of the executive branch to vigorously enforce the historic and robust protections for religious liberty enshrined in Federal law.  The Founders envisioned a Nation in which religious voices and views are integral to a vibrant public square and human flourishing and in which religious people and institutions are free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or hostility from the Government.”

The commission will protect parental rights, conscience and school choice. It will also address anti-religious bias and government overreach and advise the White House on policies to safeguard religious liberty.

The present struggle over religious liberty, and the need for such a commission, boils down to two competing sides. The first side believes they have a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment to practice their faith freely and openly in society. The second believes religious liberty is not a fundamental right, and any mention or practice of faith in the public square is a dangerous conflation of church and state.

Unfortunately, for the past 60 plus years, any public display of faith by an individual or community – prayers by elected officials, religious content in public schools, and many other expressions of religious conviction – has come under attack.

The result has been, as Reagan so eloquently noted, a coarsening of society with Americans now warring against each other rather than standing together in a common bond of unity, regardless of their faith.

If there is a real attack on democracy, it is because of this lack of respect for religious liberty.

President John Adams warned us of this in 1798 when he told the Militia of Massachusetts: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Daniel Mark, an assistant professor of political science at Villanova University and an Orthodox Jew, understands this. He has written that religious freedom is under attack because traditional beliefs are a threat to radical autonomy. He concluded: “We need to discover – or recover – a proper account of rights. This begins with a proper grasp of the good of religion, and finally, all of the goods that constitute human flourishing.”

Or in the words of another great American, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his 1953 inaugural address:

“We who are free must proclaim anew our faith. This faith is the abiding creed of our fathers. It is our faith in the deathless dignity of man, governed by eternal moral and natural laws. This faith defines our full view of life. It establishes, beyond debate, those gifts of the Creator that are man’s inalienable rights, and that make all men equal in His sight.”

He then added a short sentence that succinctly sums up our nation’s current state: “A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.”

It is no coincidence that the roots of our present poisonous public discourse can be traced to the abandonment of religious liberty. If we are to preserve our fragile union, it is critical that we set aside our differences and restore religious liberty for all. Otherwise, as Adams, Eisenhower and Reagan warned us, we will lose it all.

That is why I see the establishment of this commission by President Trump as a hopeful first step to bringing about that restoration so that we can once again, be “One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”