There are claims that religion is being
used to discriminate against women and LGBT people, but isn’t it the other way
around? It seems our increasingly socialist-leaning government is the one using
women and LGBT people to discriminate against religious people – namely
Christians – to paint them as evil and strip them of their fundamental
freedoms.
Wrong and hateful discrimination
obviously exists, such as abusing someone for his sexual preference or
religious views. But there is also the type we all practice daily in making the
discriminating decisions on how to live our lives in ways best suited to our
Constitutional right to pursue life, liberty and happiness. It is here that an
over-reaching government, in the name of fairness, is putting our liberties at
risk.
Cited examples of religious-based
discrimination include business owners
refusing to provide forced insurance coverage of contraception/abortifacients;
pharmacies turning away women seeking to fill birth control prescriptions; and
bridal salons, photo studios, and reception halls declining service to same-sex
couples planning weddings.
But what some call religious-based
discrimination is really just free commerce. Nobody has the right to demand a
service be rendered, and under our First Amendment right to freedom of
religion, citizens are free to not only worship as they choose, but to publicly
live their religious beliefs, including in how they choose to earn a legal
living.
As long as citizens are allowed these
fundamental freedoms, they are empowered, and in that, government is kept in
check. Of course this is despised by a big, godless government with big
socialist dreams. Rather than strip citizens of individual liberty in one fell
swoop, though, it’s being done incrementally and by dividing people.
First, freedom-loving citizens who
don’t wish to be controlled must be vilified. A Christian morally opposed to
paying for abortifacients is now simply a hater of women. If your religious
beliefs tell you that photographing a same-sex wedding is the same as endorsing
a sexual practice you believe is a sin, you are automatically a hater of
homosexuals. And it is not enough to be maligned for not wanting to partake in
certain commerce; now you will be punitively fined and even forced to do so,
essentially making you a slave.
Complicit in this are certain activist
women and LGBT people who demand their wants be met specifically by the very
people who do not wish to meet those demands. To these activist “victims” it
doesn’t matter that contraception is easily accessible overall, or that plenty
of entrepreneurs would gladly provide services for same-sex events. These
“victims” disregard available options and choose to impose their personal
beliefs on religious people –the so-called “haters” – who ironically are the
ones accused of imposing their beliefs on the “victims”.
Seeing the opportunity for control, government
is increasingly backing the “victims” through anti-discrimination policies – most
recently through LGBT policies that address discrimination based on sexual
orientation, gender identity and
gender expression – and which are being
systematically implemented all over the country, including dozens of cities
across Michigan (with plans for statewide implementation in the works).
On the surface,
protecting against actual wrongful discrimination based on one’s sexual
identity sounds fine. But when such policies can be used to undermine one group’s
freedoms, while granting special powers to another group, it is no longer about
equality, but control. In the attempt to defend certain aspects of human
dignity, such policies end up pitting people against each other and create a
protected class in which “victims” don’t need to prove their victimhood, but innocent
people must prove they are not malicious discriminators. This sets the stage
for a whole lot of trouble.
For instance, under these policies, not
only are business owners being forced to provide services against their will,
but an employer who hires a homosexual and then fires him because the employee
stole from the register can be sued for anti-homosexual discrimination. The
burden would be on the employer to prove his innocence.
Or, under the “public accommodations”
clauses of some ordinances, a typical girl-crazy teenaged boy could say he “identifies
as a girl” and enter the girls’ locker room to watch them shower. As many of
these ordinances dictate, if a girl complains, she is the one punished for
discrimination against a “gender-confused” boy.
What’s most concerning is that
activists oppose any and all religious exemptions currently built-in to some
anti-discrimination policies. Imagine how far things would go should such
so-called safeguards be removed. It would create a society where religion is
forced underground completely and private entrepreneurs, clergy and every day
citizens become unwilling servants of government without freedom of speech --
while the “victim” class is held up as justification for this control. Sadly,
if those who value liberty don’t push back on these efforts, things will get rapidly
worse.
What LGBT activists refuse to accept is that religious beliefs surrounding homosexuality go back thousands of years. LGBT activism is a few decades old. Read "After the Ball", the 1990 book written by homosexual activists that outlines a clear strategy that's been put in place for normalizing homosexuality, while painting Christians as bigots and homophobes. If LGBT's truly want acceptance, forcing people to forfeit their deeply held religious beliefs under threat of punishment is not the way to do it.
What LGBT activists refuse to accept is that religious beliefs surrounding homosexuality go back thousands of years. LGBT activism is a few decades old. Read "After the Ball", the 1990 book written by homosexual activists that outlines a clear strategy that's been put in place for normalizing homosexuality, while painting Christians as bigots and homophobes. If LGBT's truly want acceptance, forcing people to forfeit their deeply held religious beliefs under threat of punishment is not the way to do it.
What do you think? Click on the comments link in the bar
below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.
perfect example of this is Houston's lesbian mayor demanding that clergy turn over their sermons so she can check to make sure they don't refer to homosexuality as a sin. She actually sent them subpoenas (I think she backed down now) but the point is, a govt official thought they had the right to take aways people's rights to religion and speech because of her political beliefs. Very scary. Thanks for this Julie - but brace yourself, you'll probably be crucified by the real haters - those who hate the fact that people are allowed to believe what they want.
ReplyDeleteAccording to gay radicals, I am supposed to ignore God. Well, they say I'm allowed to worship Him on weekends at a church or in my own home, but that I have to pretend His rules don't apply anywhere else in my life. I'd like to ask them, what makes them think their beliefs are more important than mine? Yes they will say my not wanting to take pictures of their wedding violates their beliefs. But doing so violates mine. So what is more important about their beliefs? They are not interested in equality. They want control just like the article says. It is just not right.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your column.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised to see that a newspaper is printing more than one viewpoint on this topic.
t's rare to see God's opinion on issues taken seriously.