Indiana is in the news because they have the audacity to think that freedom of religion might warrant protection. All of a sudden the world seems to be crashing in on them because a few think that someone might dare to disagree with them or decide that they don’t want to do something that they demand be done. All that’s being said is that a person cannot be compelled to act in ways that conflict with their religious convictions, but the LGBT community is crying, “Foul.” It seems that their concern is that they could be refused the supposed right to compel everyone to deem their lifestyle normal or acceptable. I think that this is less about denying the wishes of an arguably immoral few and more about the protection of those who firmly believe that they should not have to engage in activities that conflict with their interpretation of morality.
It is safe to say that both sides agree on one thing – that the other side holds views that they find abhorrent. The Christian holds that God’s Word is clear that an alternate sexual lifestyle is in violation of the natural order and against the will of God; the LGBT community holds that those on the religious right are haters and using religion to deny them what they feel they are owed. Aside from the argument over whether the homosexual, or other diversely orientated person, is exercising a choice or simply a victim of their birth condition, (an argument that I have with some of those closest to me), the question seems much broader than that. This is really a discussion over freedom.
I believe that a gay lifestyle is wrong. OK, There, I’ve said it! But, that said, if two gay people can find a way to marry, though I think it absurd and an abomination, I say, “Have at it.” I need not judge them for their actions, that’s God’s job. I may discern within myself whether or not their acts are in compliance with the absolute truth I find in the Bible, but I would defend their right to be as wrong as they want to be – just do not require me to say that it is right. The book of James is all about contending for the faith and there are many places in Scripture where the question is asked, “who will carry our message and who will stand for the faithful?” We are called to, “…come out and be separate from the world.” Remember that all of Jerusalem was condemned because they stood in silence as the prophets were killed – silently consenting. Is there a difference between condoning and compelled acceptance?
If we stand silently by in the face of what we know to be evil, are we not stating in the loudest of terms by our silence that the evil is good? And why is it that the Christian is being singled out as being the hater here? There are other faiths that prescribe far worse than prayer and forgiveness for those who violate the commands of their god than do biblical Christians, yet we are the ones singled out. Why are there not rainbow parades against the front lines of groups like ISIS? Is Islam too feared to press supposed LGBT rights against them? Can the LGBT community only target a faith that says to do good to your enemy and pray for them, as worthy of litigation and mandated acceptance?
Is this really about forcing a Christian photographer to shoot a gay wedding against his conscience or is it about forcing a paradigm shift in world thinking to demand that a man living in mock marriage with another man be pronounced from the rooftops as normal? And how is it proper to demand that the LGBT community be accepted in the face of what many would call disgusting and then deny the religious community the right to demand that their conviction be just as accepted though some might consider them homophobic? Does not the right of one person, (or group), end at the point where the right of another person, (or group), begins? If Bill wants to get with Bob, must I like it? If little Suzy has 2 moms, do I have to say that it’s normal? Granted, I should not, and would not, berate Suzy or make her feel less because of a choice of the adults in her life, but there is no mandate that says I have to condone it either.
If there is a baker somewhere who refuses to bake a wedding cake for Adam and Steve, let the LGBT community get together and refuse to shop there. They can feel good about it and the baker can have the comfort of his conviction. Everybody wins. Are there no gay bakers? Is it impossible to find a transgendered wedding planner? If my convictions offend you, how can that offense be worse than your convictions offending me? Is it jealousy that the convictions of a hetro-photographer are newsworthy while the disdain of a gay photographer is not, that causes all this fuss? Let someone refuse to serve at a ceremony of the alternatives and the walls come tumbling down, but were a LGBT to refuse to serve at a hetero occasion, who would say a word?
Make your case with your commerce. If you are offended with the actions, or inactions, of someone, don’t shop there. Boycott the offensive. If you don’t like, or agree with what I write, boycott me! If every LGBT person in the world decided not to read my writing I’d be OK with that. It isn’t that I hate anyone, hate takes way too much energy to waste it on things like who’s sleeping with whom, but I shouldn’t be compelled to act against the godly precepts that clearly tell me the difference between what is right and what is wrong. It’s within your right to refute the precepts I choose to accept as much as it is my right to refute yours but when you tell me that I must say our precepts are equal, you have crossed a line, and that is something I cannot do.
There is good in this world and there is bad; there is relative good in this world and there is relative bad; there is absolute good in this world and there is absolute bad. The law in Indiana may not be perfect, in fact it is ridiculous that this needs to be codified at all, but this is the world in which we live. The intent of the legislation is valid though, since one side is moving toward being a protected class, the other side deserves the same consideration. Either no one seeks protection or everyone needs it. Protecting the convictions of every group is no more beneficial than not protecting any of them. How about if we begin to lobby for the protection of the rights of the middle class, white, God fearing, heterosexual, natural citizen of these United States?
It is only because the concepts of righteousness and normalcy cannot be agreed upon that everybody needs protected status in the first place. If we all agreed on what it meant to act correctly, we wouldn’t need legislation to do it for us. The world will never find universal agreement because the world does as the world does; it’s worldly. For the believer, agreement is easy because God has given us a set of standards that we trust as morally correct. The world acts in ways that attempt to satiate itself while we are called upon to act in ways that glorify and are…
All for the Glory of Christ