Talk:Alliance Defending Freedom

Objection to recent edit

I strongly oppose this recent edit to the article -- the ADF has done a lot of good work on religious liberty issues and has strongly defended the religious liberty of Christians on numerous different issues. They are even brave enough to defend young Earth creationists (AiG, Andrew Snelling, etc.). They are clearly conservative and pro-religious liberty -- and they have a "badge of honor" from the SPLC to prove they are truly conservative. So despite all this, we're going to completely defame them and treat them almost like a leftist organization simply because they chose not to take a position on the travel ban?

Two things here: considering that the ADF exists to protect religious liberty, I'm not surprised that they didn't take a position on a case that is about immigration and national security. Also, keep in mind that they didn't oppose the Trump Administration in the case -- they simply didn't take a position. Also, there really should be a source that their leadership is part of the "Never Trump" movement. This isn't enough for me to harshly attack them in the article's intro.

I am OK leaving all of the info in the article, but the intro should be rephrased closer to how it was before. Taking no position on a non-religious liberty case is not enough to defame the organization. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2018 (EDT)

I have an open mind about this, but there was a "coup" at ADF in early 2017 and Never Trumpers apparently took over. ADF was a great organization but today it looks more like yet another anti-Trump group. Its stinging statement of neutrality on Trump's attempt to protect our country is striking and insulting. If you can point to good conservative work ADF has done since its coup, such as filing amicus briefs against a right to abortion by illegal aliens, I'd love to see it. I don't think the new ADF has done so.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2018 (EDT)

The ADF has done a lot of good conservative work since this "coup" (and seriously, are there any sources on this? -- I'm interested in this, even outside of this debate).

• National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
• Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
• Arlene's Flowers v. State of Washington | Arlene's Flowers v. Ingersoll
• Rowan County v. Lund

The above are only cases that were recently decided in the Supreme Court or are currently pending. In May 2017, the ADF filed a lawsuit for creation scientist Andrew Snelling because the National Park Service was discriminating against him. How many legal organizations today would help a young Earth creationist?

• The ADF praised Trump's first 100 days: [1] The ADF priased several other Trump Administration actions: [2][3][4]

It's clear that the ADF is a conservative organization that is devoted to religious liberty. I wouldn't be surprised if they're not perfect (but we can find flaws in pretty much every conservative figure or organization if we look hard enough), but their record, even after 2016, is really good. I am OK with including info about not taking a position on the travel ban case (as I mentioned above), but turning this article into a literal attack page against the ADF (rather than simply criticizing its shortcomings) is ridiculous.

And as I stated above, the travel ban case has nothing to do with religious liberty. I don't see why the ADF needs to take a position on it. That's like saying a pro-Second Amendment organization should take a position on Trump's tariffs, or that an America First immigration organization should take a position on Trump's pro-life actions, or that a pro-life organization needs to take a position on the Trump Administration's deregulatory actions. It's great if they do, but it's outside the scope of their missions. It's the same for the ADF. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2018 (EDT)