text: Lorna Dueck ends with..."Doing no harm to the vulnerable should always trump religious freedom. Normally I find myself fighting for religious freedom, but when freedoms start to hurt others, that’s when we reach for the greater good of love moving through law to protect those who need it most."
  
  I wonder if Lorna's greater Evangelical Christian family south of the border would agree that perhaps their freedom should be curtailed through law rather than their continued support of  "Trump religious freedom" and its efforts to remove healthcare that would hurt so many others?
  
  A bit of a tangent perhaps but I find evangelical arguments at times too convenient in their ambiguity :)