Some people subscribe to a view that being gay is like being left handed. Sometimes they can write with a right hand but its awkward and doesn't work as well and they know its off and not 'natural.' It just feels more natural and really good to write left handed. A small minority of people are left handed and so should be treated no differently than right handed people. (Where are the left handed scissors?) Other people subscribe to a view that a gay inclination or attraction is a reflection of a totally debased debauched mind perhaps coupled with an adjustable hormonal rebalancing perhaps brought on by family trauma or mental illness regardless of how many gays think that they cannot or won't change, and there are plenty of examples of people who came out of a gay lifestyle and live heterosexual lives with families so it is not an "immutable" or "unchangeable" phenotypical or genotypical characteristic but a choice of action and conduct. There is no proof regarding which one is scientifically valid regardless of how many people feel either way. But to insist that everyone embrace gay sex for life in marriage, against the teaching of three major religions, because you view or adopt the first theory is not sound policy, because the first theory is just a theory. Its the way some people feel about themselves. It is the way a political movement of aggressive gays insist all gays and everyone must view being gay. That doesn't make it true for everyone gay or not. It is not true in fact for everyone-for all those who once were but are not now gay- a population Obama wishes did not exist and ignores because he wants to delude himself into thinking the theory is true. It might be his truth, but that does not make it true for all gays or any gays.
If a private limo driver or cab driver had a pregnant woman jump in their cab with a huge belly and said "take me to the abortion clinic on x street" and driver was against abortion, can the driver refuse service and tell the woman he won't do that as a private business serving the public? Of course- a cabbie can refuse service and tell you they don't want to take you to a bad part of town if he doesn't want to--or the airport--or anywhere he doesn't want to -he reserves the right to not serve people he doesn't want to. Recently a case involving two Muslim truck drivers found the drivers were discriminated against because they would not take a load of alcohol and were fired. It was discrimination against them based on clear religious conviction and belief that its wrong to drink alcohol so they were not going to drive it anywhere. Neither was being asked to drink it. No one shouted if you don't like alcohol then don't be an alcoholic. They were requesting that they not be made to do something against their conscience by participating in something their religion said was immoral and the court found they didn't have to or lose his job. The EEOC brought this action initially.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/30/muslim-truckers-who-refused-to-deliver-alcohol-awarded-240000/
The EEOC's press release HERE: http://www1.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-22-15b.cfm
This is no different than Kim Davis or any flower provider or cake baker or anyone else who thinks gay marriage is immoral and they do not want any part of it. No one should shout-if you don't like gay marriage don't get gay married to them. They are perfectly happy baking a birthday cake, just like the cabbie above might have been fine with taking the pregnant woman to her sister's house just not an abortion clinic. If a Muslim truck driver doesn't have to ship liquor or lose his job Kim Davis doesn't have to sign gay marriage licenses. Its her constitutional right not to have to do that if she finds it immoral according to the tenets of her religion- however whacky you may feel about that religion.
No Christian, Muslim or Jew or anyone should have to be discriminated against on the basis of their clear religious conviction that gay sex is immoral- and it does not matter what the state of that Christian's morality is or how many times they were married or divorced or if they are sinfully casting stones- it is a question of allowing that person to live their life according to their conscience. That is their constitutional right. It should be firmly protected.
The view that being gay is nothing different than being left handed, or that it has no moral implication such that it is illegitimate to attribute morality at all to sexual acts, and so should be treated no differently than heterosexual, as opposed to someone plagued with inappropriate sexualization of same sex people immorally as a product of a debased mind, is a value judgment simply made up without foundation in fact or science- even if there are more gays coming out there insisting that they are just left handed. More people sinning doesn't make more morality. More people subscribing to a wrong theory doesn't make the theory right.Gay people being talented, beautiful, funny or "loving" also does not make the theory right-it is irrelevant. Shoving the theory down everyone's throat as if it were universal fact demanding legal respect is just piss poor policy.
The African nations are correct to rebuff the President in his gayification of discrimination laws.
What is completely unacceptable is anyone slandering anyone with labels of "hater", "homophobe" or "bigot" because they subscribe to their religious teachings and have a conscientious objection to actions they find immoral. That is ignorant and unacceptable and it needs to stop.
No one would think to call the Muslim above a WinoPhobe, or a hater of drinkers. He just find the actions immoral. I am sure the cabbie above doesn't hate the woman he is refusing to take to the abortions -to the contrary- he doesn't want to participate in her butchery for her own good as well.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/30/muslim-truckers-who-refused-to-deliver-alcohol-awarded-240000/
The EEOC's press release HERE: http://www1.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-22-15b.cfm
This is no different than Kim Davis or any flower provider or cake baker or anyone else who thinks gay marriage is immoral and they do not want any part of it. No one should shout-if you don't like gay marriage don't get gay married to them. They are perfectly happy baking a birthday cake, just like the cabbie above might have been fine with taking the pregnant woman to her sister's house just not an abortion clinic. If a Muslim truck driver doesn't have to ship liquor or lose his job Kim Davis doesn't have to sign gay marriage licenses. Its her constitutional right not to have to do that if she finds it immoral according to the tenets of her religion- however whacky you may feel about that religion.
No Christian, Muslim or Jew or anyone should have to be discriminated against on the basis of their clear religious conviction that gay sex is immoral- and it does not matter what the state of that Christian's morality is or how many times they were married or divorced or if they are sinfully casting stones- it is a question of allowing that person to live their life according to their conscience. That is their constitutional right. It should be firmly protected.
The view that being gay is nothing different than being left handed, or that it has no moral implication such that it is illegitimate to attribute morality at all to sexual acts, and so should be treated no differently than heterosexual, as opposed to someone plagued with inappropriate sexualization of same sex people immorally as a product of a debased mind, is a value judgment simply made up without foundation in fact or science- even if there are more gays coming out there insisting that they are just left handed. More people sinning doesn't make more morality. More people subscribing to a wrong theory doesn't make the theory right.Gay people being talented, beautiful, funny or "loving" also does not make the theory right-it is irrelevant. Shoving the theory down everyone's throat as if it were universal fact demanding legal respect is just piss poor policy.
The African nations are correct to rebuff the President in his gayification of discrimination laws.
What is completely unacceptable is anyone slandering anyone with labels of "hater", "homophobe" or "bigot" because they subscribe to their religious teachings and have a conscientious objection to actions they find immoral. That is ignorant and unacceptable and it needs to stop.
No one would think to call the Muslim above a WinoPhobe, or a hater of drinkers. He just find the actions immoral. I am sure the cabbie above doesn't hate the woman he is refusing to take to the abortions -to the contrary- he doesn't want to participate in her butchery for her own good as well.
Whenever accommodations can reasonably be made to accommodate religious views they should be made so long as rights of others are not infringed upon. The Muslim truck drivers schedule could perhaps have been changed so he drove the next load of anything but alcohol (and bacon) and the pregnant girl can catch the next cab. The gay couple wanting a cake doesn't get to insist that everyone in the world will want to facilitate or participate in their celebration while there is a gay baker down the street who needs the business. The Constitution does not demand all Americans must approve of everyone else's conduct. Were that the case the laws which prohibit service of alcohol to clearly drunk people in bars with keys in their hands would all have to be voided. Were that the case then judges couldn't examine adultery in divorce or custody cases ever.
The people currently being discriminated against the most are the people who hold true the second theory: that there is a permissible morality assessment regarding gay behavior and they would be violating conscience to participate in something they view as debased or debauched. Those people are the new persecuted in the Western Church. They are losing jobs, clients, having their businesses boarded up, fined and blasted all over the media and social media as "haters" "homophobes" and "bigots" in pure defamation.
This has to stop and right itself with the next President.
The people currently being discriminated against the most are the people who hold true the second theory: that there is a permissible morality assessment regarding gay behavior and they would be violating conscience to participate in something they view as debased or debauched. Those people are the new persecuted in the Western Church. They are losing jobs, clients, having their businesses boarded up, fined and blasted all over the media and social media as "haters" "homophobes" and "bigots" in pure defamation.
This has to stop and right itself with the next President.
No comments:
Post a Comment