There Will Never Be Total Equality In America.

I don’t venture too much into politics in my writing… or even in my own personal thought life. I really just don’t care; which is probably due to my young age and my ignorance about the political terminology being thrown around in the news. But the recent talk of Arizona’s SB1062 and other changes in legislature regarding gay marriage (and the twitter warfare among a few high profile Christians surrounding them all) has finally got me thinking on these things.

As I’ve seen people (Christians) like Kirsten Powers and Jonathan Merritt advocating against SB1062, and others advocating in favor of SB1062 (the more popular Christian response to these issues), I’ve tried to step back and objectively see things from both perspectives. And as I’ve done that, I’ve found that I sympathize with both sides.

From a secular worldview, which does not adhere to Christian doctrine or Christian morality, it would most certainly be discriminatory to be denied service based on sexual/relational gender preference. Because based on this worldview, sexual/relational gender preference is morally neutral.

From a Christian worldview, being forced by law to provide service—like baking a wedding cake for a ceremony celebrating behavior that the teaching of their faith says is morally damnable— would most certainly be discriminatory against their religious convictions.

So the question is…. which is more important? Gay rights or religious rights? For Christians, we would say religious. While unbelievers would obviously say the former. Both sides have different worldviews with different beliefs regarding morality and ‘life priorities.’ The Christian views honoring God as top priority, while the secular man/woman views being happy and doing good to others as top priority. One side views their sexuality as being a priority player in their identity, the other side views God’s revealed truth as being a priority player in their identity. We have different ideas of what parts of our lives are worthy of “legal protection.”

And this will always be the case.

There will always be a tension surrounding issues like these while differing worldviews exist. What affirms one person in one worldview offends another holding another worldview. Christianity will almost always clash with every other worldview when it comes to sexuality and romance.

So what’s the solution? What do Christian bakers do when presented with a request to bake a cake for a gay couple? Honestly… if it were me, I would just bake the stupid cake and view it as an opportunity to form a friendship with them and share the gospel and worldview that I hold so dearly. I wouldn’t see my service to them equal to an affirmation of their behavior.

But, if the Christian baker does not want to provide service….. why can’t the gay couple just say “to hell with them” and go to another baker? There are way more secular people who own secular-run companies than there are Christian people who own Christian-run companies. The pickings aren’t slim. Just go somewhere else.

Religious people need to realize they can’t force gay/non-religious people to take on their worldview and gay/non-religious people need to realize they can’t force religious people into their worldview. Nor can the government ever effectively legislate “morality”—because everyone’s “morality scale” is different, depending on their worldview.

I’m not writing this blog to propose a solution…. I don’t have one. I’m just expressing the fact that the only time that all of humanity will have the same worldview is when God-in-the-flesh, Jesus Christ, steps back into this realm and establishes His Kingdom once and for all. On that Day, the arguing will cease because the Truth will be undeniably visible and known to all.

Until then, we as Christians need to get along the best we can, show the most respect we can, share the gospel as much as we can, and remember that our citizenship is ultimately in heaven…. not the USA.

no equality

About these ads

30 thoughts on “There Will Never Be Total Equality In America.

  1. Well put Matt. I think in many cases, the business person could take your point of view and provide the service and hope for an opening to share the Gospel and love of Christ. Some however, would not feel able to do so. As a pastor, who also has a gay brother, it is a complex problem. I am an orthodox Christian believing in marriage for one man and one woman as God designed. If approached by a gay couple I would have to tell them I am unable to perform their wedding ceremony just as I was forced to do with my brother and his partner, both of whom I dearly love and care for. Feelings are hurt and relationships do suffer. It is a fact. I feel I am accountable to my Lord and Savior and cannot betray my ordination vows and Christian conscience. If business people are compelled to serve against their Christian conscience, it is only a short distance to the point where the Church and clergy are compelled as well. May God give us all wisdom and courage for the work that is before us. Thank you Matt for your consistent witness and frank honesty. God bless you brother! + + +

    Like

    • They may all eventually have to comply or face lawsuits/fines etc for discrimination. I think what I would do as a business owner is agree to provide the service, but I would tell them the proceeds were going to be donated to NOM, PFOX, RHN or some similar organization. Then they would have the option of picking another service provider if they didn’t want their money ending up there.

      Like

      • Ha! NOM, PFOX, RHN (I actually don’t know that last one, but I’m assuming it’s similar to the first two) … Diabolical, but brilliant. Yep, I would take my business somewhere else.

        Like

      • It is kind of funny because I got the idea from someone on the other side of the issue. I had asked what he would do as a gay baker for instance asked to make muffins or whatever by one of those groups for a convention for instance, and he said he would donate the money to a marriage equality organization.

        Like

      • Like one of those whites only restaurants or hotels or train cars in the 1960s saying if you force us to serve blacks, we will donate the proceeds to white supremacist groups. Yeah, like that.

        Like

  2. What has happened in the cases of these businesses is they did NOT consistently deny the patrons service based on sexual MORALITY. They denied them wedding cake, photos and other wedding service based on being GAY.
    Big difference.
    And not just that, they didn’t do this with giving ANY of the other patrons information of WHAT religion they practiced, nor that they had moral objections to divorced and remarrying patrons, non virgin patrons, patrons who indulged in ANY other kinds of immorality EXCEPT homosexuality.
    In fact, there was a Mennonite owned bistro that used their venue for all kinds of parties, and events. They served champagne, wine and cocktails without restriction and had a license to do so. But claimed they refused to have a lesbian wedding reception because of THEIR religion.
    Except their religion doesn’t allow alcohol to be drunk, served or sold.
    Nobody is putting their money where their mouths are. This isn’t about religious freedom, this is about discriminating against gay people without accountability.
    Most of all, this is the rankest and most despicable kind of intellectual dishonesty on display.
    Why not just obey Christ’s commandment of treating another as you’d be treated?
    The rest usually takes care of itself?

    Like

  3. Hi Matt,

    I have been following your blog for a while now and am finally going to leave a comment here. You and I both know who the real you is yet religion is keeping you from living your life the way you were meant to live it.

    I was a born-again christian once and actually read the bible this time. I remember all the guilt and shame I felt about being who I was and terrified at the thought of going to hell. But see, I have a real problem. Actually, it isn’t a problem. I can’t read things and then ignore what i just read. The horrific atrocities in the bible. The murdering of innocent children, rape, incest, all of the horrific things that were sanctioned by this god. One day while reading the bible in a single instant I became an atheist. If you want to truly feel what enlightenment is like, read the bible again and don’t ignore the bad things. You, too will become an atheist and experience what I did. I was liberated! The fake guilt I felt my entire life vanished in an instant.

    BTW, I am an atheist but not an atheist activist. When I think of you my heart hurts because I know how tortured you are inside. I care about you. Hopefully one day you can truly be happy and live your life the way you are supposed to live it. Being you.

    Hugs

    Like

    • born again, but terrified of going to hell? Should be born again and realized I was saved by grace. That’s the mindset a new convert should have after repentance. Most of the “horrific tragedies” mentioned in the Bible, which I believe you are referring to, took place in the old testament. The horrific tragedies that took place in the new testament were geared towards believers. Mark 4:16,17.

      When you were reading the bible that day and became an atheist, are you sure it wasn’t just that you stopped trusting because of you incorrectly interppreted what you were reading? It sounds like you only saw what you wanted to see. It sounds like you’re an atheist that doesn’t trust God anymore, not one that doesn’t believe He exists.

      Like

    • Amen to you @miss_sudo! I feel as though Matt is so tortured. I pray for him to find peace with the way God made him, and stop aligning himself with the forces that seek to marginalize him and other gay people.

      Like

      • Matt nor anyone who has found the freedom in Christ is definitely not tortured. We are sinners naturally in our flesh but we have the Spirit of God which has given us a completely new perspective. There will be some battles with the old nature inherited from the fall of humanity but the reality is that sin has serious consequences. The way of sin is generally the easy route since we are simply going down the natural inclination of our fallen state. Experiencing and knowing Christ has been the most fulfilling and exciting experience in my life and for anyone has who truly experienced the new life. We will have days when our flesh screams for satisfaction but our spirit in us reminds us of the big picture of what we have.

        Just read the latest stats from the CDC and it alarms me that so few seemed concerned about the negative implications of the gay lifestyle. I still remember the haunting memories of watching a friend died from his involvement in the gay lifestyle even though he at the end came back to Christ. Despite attempts to present it in the best light, involvement in this lifestyle has a high rate of tragic implications. These are the latest stats directly from the CDC website: Comparing 2008 to 2010, the number of new HIV infections among MSM increased 12% from 26,700 (95% CI: 23,400–30,000) in 2008 to 29,800 (95% CI: 26,200–33,500) in 2010, with a 22% increase among MSM aged 13–24 from 7,200 (95% CI: 6,100–8,300) in 2008 to 8,800 (95% CI: 7,500–10,100) in 2010. Although MSM represent about 7% of the male population in the United States, in 2010 MSM accounted for 78% of the new HIV infections among males.

        James wrote this about sin in James 1:12-15 as a reminder to believers concerning their struggle with sinful desires. ” God blesses those who patiently endure testing and temptation. Afterward they will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him. And remember, when you are being tempted, do not say, “God is tempting me.” God is never tempted to do wrong, and he never tempts anyone else. Temptation comes from our own desires, which entice us and drag us away. These desires give birth to sinful actions. And when sin is allowed to grow, it gives birth to death.”

        Like

  4. Matt, I really liked this post and I agree with pretty much everything you said. And I know where you’re coming from with the “Just go somewhere else” part. Luckily, in today’s world there are plenty of bakeries who would be more than happy to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. And if the Christian baker wants to refuse someone’s business, that’s his or her loss. But what if the gay couple lives in a highly conservative area and all of the nearby bakers refuse to serve them? Why should they have to go to the next town or city to get their wedding cake? This may seem like a bit of a stretch, but bear with me: Think of the plight of black people before integration. “Just go somewhere else” was basically the whole mantra of segregation. Ajnd everything was separate and not equal. That’s an extreme example, but the principle is the same. If people can legally discriminate against particular groups, some people (in this case, gays) are going to get the short end of the stick.

    And Abel, I’m sorry you had to make that difficult decision. I’m sure your brother would’ve liked to have you officiate his wedding, but he can’t legally make you. The truth is, most gay people don’t want to force churches to marry them. For one thing, there are plenty of churches already willing to marry gay couples so there’s no need to bother with ones that aren’t. And for the overwhelming majority of gay people, fighting for equal marriage rights had absolutely nothing to do with the religious definition of marriage and everything to do with the legal definition. If anyone ever tried to pass a law that would force churches to do ANYTHING, I would hope that everyone would be against it. THAT would be a violation of religious freedom.

    Like

    • Gay rights by definition, can not be equated to the civil rights movement on the basis that a person’s sexual identity/orientation is not innate or an immutable characteristic. Our constitution protects against discrimination based upon characteristics such as race & gender that are immutable. Homosexuality is a lifestyle by choice & moral relativity & situational ethics comes into play when there are no references governing our moral compass.

      Like

      • You’re a bit off. Let me help you out with one key thing you are missing: Religion.

        Our constitution protects against discrimination based upon religion. Religion is not immutable. Religion is a lifestyle choice & moral relativity & situational ethics come into play whether or not there are references governing our moral compass. People are allowed to be atheist, Jewish, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, or whatever religious beliefs they have in America.

        And we can’t discriminate against them.

        Because discrimination is discrimination whether a characteristic is immutable or not. Just like we can’t discriminate against interracial couples, even though being in an interracial couple is a lifestyle choice.

        Gay rights, by definition, can be equated to the civil rights movement – just like interracial couple’s rights can be, and just like religious rights can be.

        Like

      • I was going to point out that almost nobody thinks that being gay is a choice anymore (not even the author of the blog post above) but Alex’s point is valid. Our basic rights shouldn’t hinge on us being able to prove without a doubt that our sexual orientation is innate and immutable.

        (Just for fun, though, do some research on homosexuality; you may be surprised to the learn that the scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is determined very early on in life, possibly even in the womb.)

        Like

  5. This is a very poor argument, and shows a misconception of what discrimination is, and also I believe speaks wrongly of behalf of nonbelievers and puts words in their mouth they do not believe and would not say. As such, believe it is an unfair spin on the true issue, meant to make it seem more to one side than the true issue. I often see this when iy comes to Christian and gay being the groups involved, so that may be clouding judgement. I mean nothing personal by this: I simply want to address the words here.

    Discrimination is when someone Is treated differently than others due to a characteristic. This could be sexual orientation or religion, or also race, gender, disability, etc. So it is business discrimination if a business sells hats or rents rooms, but denies couples who are interracial or are Jewish.

    Discrimination is not being forced, like all people, to not discriminate. The government requires a Thai restaurant to serve all people and not discriminate, just as they do to all businesses, and that is not discrimination against Thai people or Thai beliefs.

    Christians are protected from discrimination, which means a bakery cannot refuse service to someone because they are Christian. Even a gay baker cannot refuse service to Christians. This is federal law. On the other hand, anti discrimination protections for gays does not exist at a federal level.

    As such, it is obviously not discrimination to force a Christian to serve a gay person, anymore than it is discrimination to force them to serve a black person. I suggest you replace religion and sexual orientation with any other characteristics, and you will see the truth.

    So, what is more important, nondiscrimination for gays or for Christians? Neither. They are equal. Equal with nondiscrimination for blacks, disabled, and women. Nonbelievers and believers alike understand this.

    Nondiscrimination laws do not give you a license to discriminate, and non discrimination laws are not in themselves discrimination. They apply to all.

    And nondiscrimination laws dont exist only for when the pickings are slim, they exist for when the pickings are plentiful. You cant turn a Jew away and say there are plenty of other bakeries, any more than you could turn away a black person or a gay person.

    You can have whatever worldview you like, seeing any type of people as subhuman.

    You cannot, however, discriminate against them. That is the difference, and this is the solution.

    Like

    • Your line of reasoning is wrong.The Christians in the law suits never discriminated against homosexuals. They had in many times already served them in many cases it was when the homosexual wanted them to engage in an activities against their conscience by condoning homosexual marriage, or a gay pride march (in the case of a tee-shirt business). It is IMOP very different to say I am sorry that is against my belief system and refer them to another vendor then to take a person to court and destroy their livelihood. Apple’s and Oranges.

      Like

      • No, I’m right, and the court cases all back be up too. They refused to do their wedding arrangements, which is a service they do, because the couple was gay. They would have served the wedding arrangements if it was for a straight couple. That is discrimination against them for being gay. Just as if they refused to do an interracial wedding, or a Jewish wedding.

        It’s still discrimination if they give Jewish couples birthday flowers, but not wedding flowers. They dont have to condone the Jewish wedding, their business has to not discriminate though.

        But you’re right about one thing – it is apples and oranges to compare illegal discriminating against someone to suing them for illegally discriminating against you. If you dont want your livelihood destroyed, dont break the law. Dont blame the person you committed a crime against.

        Like

      • Read my comment Kiara.
        It’s an example of how inconsistent such vendors are in their reasoning, and how they expect their customers to know what their religions is, let alone how the vendor is supposed to know what the sexual morality is of their customers.
        There are laws regarding discrimination and what businesses serving the public and the public expecting “reasonable accommodation.”
        It’s unreasonable for a vendor, who doesn’t display their religion and it’s restrictions for everyone to expect their patrons to know what that is, nor to have the vendor make selective moral judgments about some sexual behaviors forbidden in their religion but not ALL of them.
        Doing so ONLY with gay people is anti gay discrimination and THAT is illegal.
        And as for “going somewhere else”.
        That’s wrongful and don’t assume that someone can do that. Don’t EVER assume someone should have to do that just because we happen to be talking about wedding cakes.
        Pharmacists have pulled this crap on females who have needed vital medications and care, and I and a friend of mine had this done to us by a restaurant in a city we were visiting never to return to again.
        Being turned away at a point when you’ve made an appointment, come a long distance, sometimes had to take time off of work only to be turned away because someone decides they don’t want to serve you, “going somewhere else” isn’t an option.

        Obviously the majority of people who say that, never in their lives suffered the experience of Jim Crow or severe prejudice, and humiliation that goes with it and aren’t listening to the eyewitnesses who HAVE!

        Like

    • Great article, Kiara. Thanks for linking to that. I notice from the conversation that most people had not even read the bill. But it’s all a moot point now as the it was vetoed. My only question (and this will come with lots of eye rolling and guffaws…about the same thing that happened when it was first postulated that the earth might actually be round) is how long will it be before the militants start demanding that churches (because of their tax exempt status) perform gay marriages or open their facilities for gay parties (as many churches do rent out their facilities for such things). No one thought they could force the Catholic Church to pay for abortion and contraceptive “health” benefits for their employees either.

      Like

  6. Great explanation of law:

    There are basically three kinds of services. Public, private and volunteer. Public services are highly regulated by laws that protect people from discrimination and even force the establishment to provide services to all (even if they can’t pay or are in the country illegally). Private services are just that — private. They are somewhat regulated by the government (meaning they have to comply with tax laws and other laws for non-profits), but very minimally. Private services have certain rights. Try to get a vasectomy at a private Catholic hospital. They will refuse this service because it violates their moral principles and politely refer you to another medical center that will perform the surgery. (I suppose a person could sue the hospital for denying them this service — and try to force them to perform the surgery against their privately held beliefs. Hopefully such a lawsuit would fail.)

    The laws in the USA (Federal and State) are complicating regarding what constitutes a “public service” and “a private service”. Even exclusive, selective clubs (such as woman only or men only golf clubs) are being targeted by lawsuits. Can a girl join the Boy Scouts of America? At least two have tried, and lawsuits have ensued. The rights of private business and club owners are continually being eroded away, along with the freedom to make choices based on either their moral beliefs or the main purpose of their business/club. Many activists are opposed to anything private. They are lobbying the government to make every business “public”, under the same government regulations that public services adhere to. This would mean that organizations like the Boy Scouts of America would be forced to admit girls (and “others”) and become the “Boy, Girl, and Transgendered Scouts of America”. There would no longer be private establishments that exclude heterosexual (yes, I typed the right word) like on gaytravel.com, which has a list of places that only accommodate homosexuals (exclusive!!!).

    There seems to be a difference with businesses that provide essential services whether on not they can discriminate. A private phone company, water company, or power company cannot disconnect their services because of moral conviction, belief or other reasons (aside from not getting paid — but even then, there are laws about shutting off power if that is the person’s only source of heat, regardless of payment.)

    I have heard many homosexuals say (out of spite because of the whole gay marriage debate) that they would like to see American law outlaw divorce. However, wait until they are legally married, things don’t work out — and the two of them want a divorce (with all of the legal protection such an act affords). Suddenly said people will change their tune when it applies to them.

    Already even some atheists have chimed in, saying they want to live in a country that still gives private citizens and businesses the right to freely deny services in cases that violate their conscience. As it stands, these freedoms are quickly disappearing. I don’t know if I would want the “right” to force a Catholic doctor in a Catholic hospital to do a vasectomy on me (might not be the best idea — unconscious with a surgical scalpel present), or force a pro-choice free-lance photographer to take pictures for my “Right to Life!” infant photo shoot. I think I still want to live in a country that allows private clubs and private businesses the right to be exclusive and in some cases to discriminate (no boys joining the Girl Scouts of America). But this is all changing, and that is why this blog post stirs the pot so much. More lawsuits, more litigation, less freedoms, more “equality” and “safety” under vast and far-reaching government controls. This isn’t about homosexuals or heterosexuals. It is about continuing to move down a path that places people with certain moral convictions in real jeopardy because they aren’t part of the “new cultural norm”.

    Like

  7. Matt,

    I have spent so much time for so many years struggling and praying over the issue of politics and our Christian response. We need to be careful about resorting to politics as the ultimate answer to everything and it seems that too many are more worried about political battles than the great commission given to us by Christ. The early Christians were not interested in transforming Rome into a Christian nation but preaching the gospel, making disciples and radically living out the love of Christ to a world that hated and killed millions of them. History shows us that after 300AD that the politicization of Christianity by Constantine proved to be the worst thing that ever happened to us.

    We need to instead focus on Christ told us about treating the world around us. Why do we call ourselves his follower when we acted in some unloving ways when Christ told us clearly what and how we should treat unbelievers in Matthew 5:43-48

    ““You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that. But you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.”

    We need to be like our father in heaven who rains on both the just and unjust. Yes homosexual marriage is not approved by God but the main problem that people have is their unregenerate hearts. We should be concerned about primarily their need for Christ but if we treat them in this fashion then we may closed the door to sharing the gospel with them by the way that we treat them. Salvation in Christ will bring out the right behavior.

    Lastly Paul told us in 1 Corinthians 5;12-13 the following ” It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. God will judge those on the outside”. It is clear from scripture that we are not to judge the sexually immorally in the world but to only judge those who are sexual immortality within the context of the church. Lets us be honest that the church is to fixated on this sexual sin while turning a blind eye towards the lust of the heart, greed, gluttony and more prevalent sexual sins. Lets clean up our house and then our witness will be more convincing to the world around us.

    How far do we do go on this issue? I would stop at the doors of the church since we are to judge things within the context of the church. I am referring to the fact that the act of marriage itself is a sacrament and to have a minister do one within the context of the church goes the intentions of God has ordained as Christ told us concerning it being a man and a woman. For a church to do that would be crossing the line that is not longer about love but an open acceptance of sin. Love for Christ must always precede and exceed our love for others and the most loving thing you can do is tell people within the church the truth that faith in Christ means that we die daily to our natural desires which war against the Spirit in us.

    Like

    • The church needs needs to more honest about the fact that all of us struggle with sin inside us but it should never define us. We need identified with the new life in Christ not the old life in us which seeks to dominate us. This will bring greater freedom and more hope for all of us because it is about all of us finding our life and identity in Christ.

      Like

  8. This is one of those issues where people keep talking past each other because it is unclear what the issue is really about. So Matt, I liked that you pointed out the crux of the matter here:

    “Religious people need to realize they can’t force gay/non-religious people to take on their worldview and gay/non-religious people need to realize they can’t force religious people into their worldview. Nor can the government ever effectively legislate “morality”—because everyone’s “morality scale” is different, depending on their worldview.”

    But the truth is that the non-religious CAN force Christians into their worldview, by using the law. And that is exactly what they are doing. Most Christians are weak in their faith, and don’t understand what is even happening yet. Many Christians don’t even realize that these laws DO force them, in various business situations, to treat homosexual relationships exactly the same as a marriage. Seculars don’t care that gay marriage goes against the Christian religion. In fact, they get a kick out of it, because gay marriage laws basically make the marriage element of Christianity illegal, calling it “discrimination”. But it is wrong for a Christian to call 2 men a marriage. It simply isn’t true. Not only does it go against God’s word, it’s not even true on the natural level. 2 men simply do not “equal” a husband and wife. It’s not the same thing. Even a child can see that. But we’re not allowed to say it anymore. It’s now been declared “bigotry”. It’s “denying service to gays”. It’s literally insane.

    Now I can say I’ll just act as if 2 men are a marriage, but in my heart I won’t believe it. But at that point I have betrayed the truth. I am not witnessing for Christ, but folding. The first Christians could have bowed down to false Gods, knowing in their hearts it wasn’t true. But that wouldn’t have been real Christianity. It’s not so different today. “If you deny Me before men, I will deny you before My Father.” Think about it, Christians. It doesn’t mean you can’t be kind and diplomatic. But don’t be wimps and don’t knuckle under to lies or be enslaved to the approval of men rather than sticking with the truth God has made clear about marriage being husband and wife. In America we shouldn’t have to give up our businesses to follow Christ.

    It’s always framed as “denying service to gays”, but that’s really an untrue – or at least an incomplete – way to present the situation. Christians are being pressured to go against their morals and equate marriage with homosexuality. And that is really the goal of these laws, to make what is really “differentiation” into the crime of “discrimination”. Seems like a subtle difference, but it’s an important one. I hope Christians will not be too slow to pick up on what is really going on.

    Like

    • I find this really offensive, because it ignores the way in which Christians are using the law to force their worldview on gays. And that force takes much greated harm. Of course, that force is gay marriage bans in most states. That is gay people being forced into an anti gay worldview where they are not married, have no spousal rights, have no spousal benefits or responsibilities.

      And if it is wrong that Christian’s are forced by law to not discriminate against gay couples who are married, why is it that gay couples, or any other couples for that matter, are forced by law to recognize straight Christian couples who are married? Gay people are forced by law to recognize your marriage in all legal things, you know that right?

      In your entire post, you promote the idea that Christianity should be superior to all else and that you are the true victims when that isnt so. Ignore that gay people cant marry, Christians are the true victims who all can marry. Ignore that gay people face discrimination, Christians are the true victims who have always been protected fromd discrimination.

      The law forces ALL of us to treat people equally, as it should, with no superior special rights for straight Christians.

      Even children can sew that love and marriage deserve to be treated equally. Youth are overwhelmingly in support of equality and against religious people treating others unfairly and discriminating against them. Have what beliefs you want, say what you want (you are in fact allowed to do that), just don’t discriminate, and you will not be discriminated against.

      Like

  9. First I would like to state that the Law that would allow discrimination sounds like it is coming from the “religious right”, and is hypocritical at best. “If” Christians who are in business which caters to the world at large need this law to be protected from offering their services to the gay community, then what makes them think that they are able to serve those that are “adulterers, atheists, thieves, liars, idolaters, fornicators or just plain sinners at large.
    I remember the Lord stated He was not going to take us out of the world, we are to be a light unto the world;

    1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
    1Co 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
    1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
    The church or the true “Body of Christ” has NO authority to make laws that bring about control over the sinners of the world! We have no authority to do so. The true church should NOT be politically involved whatsoever, because God will judge the wicked!

    Passing such laws in essence is leading to a fascist state! Let us true believers have NO part in this wicked plot!

    The Lord is merciful unto all, Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
    Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
    Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
    Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
    Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
    Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

    Excellent article Matt!
    The Lord bless you……..

    Like

  10. I am a former Christian who led a repressive and self-hating life because i was told gays are sinful and going to hell. i no longer adhere tho this. i am out and proud.

    We queer folk are citizens of this nation and are not to be treated ad second class citizens. i find it offensive for you to say there will never be total equality in America. We left England for religious persecution and this nation was founded on separation of church and state as well as freedom of and from religion. I’d love for you to say this to African Americans!

    If one is going to own a business in this country, they have to realize ALL citizens have a right to do business there. Otherwise, turn away and refuse service to divorced people, former prisoners, people of different beliefs/faiths, and on and on and on!!!

    This country is NOT a theocracy. If you want that, then move to Saudi Arabia or some place similar.

    Like

  11. Ohhhh Matty Matt– I think you should write about things you know more about…this is not one of them. Good grammar and puncuation though!! ;-) And you’re still pretty :-P

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s