Comment:
Just out of curiosity, do are you intending to say that it it is a legally protected right to actively discriminate against homosexuals? Do you not realize what a slippery slope argument you are making here? If we set up a government that has the power, from the majority position, to take away the rights of minorities, what happens if there is a culture shift and religious folks suddenly find themselves in the minority? Would it still be okay for the majority to discriminate against and deny basic rights to the minority? The basis of the freedoms that you are trying to deny a minority group in this instance is the basis of what enables us to practice our religious beliefs safely. Singling out groups with different ideals and oppressing them hardly seems to me to be the way to ensure religious freedoms. I'm curious as to your thoughts on this. It seems hypocitical to me for us to demand freedom of religion, yet at the same time not extend the same levels of freedom to different groups because of differences in social ideology.
SoL response:
To answer your first question, freedom to practice religion is enumerated in and protected by the Constitution while unlimited sexual behavior is not, so yes, Americans have the rig
ht to discriminate against certain practices that are contrary to their religious beliefs. For instance, churches can refuse membership or excommunicate those who don't follow the church's doctrines. And business owners have the right to refuse service or employment to those who openly defy the owners' moral religious beliefs. And states can choose to preserve the traditional God-based definition of marriage. At least that’s how it’s supposed to be.As for your concern for minorities, the fact is there is no end of “minorities” people can fabricate. Not only do sexual proclivities and conduct not constitute a true minority (how can they when people change their sexual orientation? – e.g.actress Kelly McGillis just announced she is becoming a lesbian because she’s fed up with men), but special protection for any and every group that comes up with a complaint is not workable. Therefore, we must stick with the basic rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights according to original intent, ensuring them for bona fide minorities such as those based on race which is unchangeable.
There is a conflict, but not the one you are thinking of. The issue at stake here is not all freedom or none, but which particular freedoms will be allowed. Government support of unrestrained sexual freedom and government support for religious freedom cannot co-exist. Which will our nation choose? Will the majority, which is conservative, rule? Or will unchecked rogue judges continue to invent new rights and policies out of whole cloth?
If we rely on the original intent of the Constitution there is no slippery slope here. But if we don't, the way things are going there is indeed a slippery slope toward discrimination of traditional morality and religion. If governmental action continues, as it has recently done, to prefer unrestrained sexual freedom over traditional religious freedom, ignoring the Constitution and its intent, then religious people will certainly be increasingly oppressed and America will no longer be a good, free, strong nation.
Again, the right to freely practice religion is not the same as the right to engage in any kind of sex. The first is guaranteed by the Constitution. The second is not a basic right but one invented by godless sexual revolutionaries.
As for the differing social ideologies you mentioned, America was built and stands on certain ideals. We at SoL believe in conserving the particular worldview embraced by our founders, and by doing so must therefore discriminate against other worldviews harmful to society.
Christianity has always discriminated against the practice of homosexuality while inviting those caught up in it to come to Christ and change their ways. Followers of Christ separate the infinite worth of people from the things they do.
Thanks again for sharing your concerns.