LGBTQ Rights - Again

 From The Christian Post: 

 As I write this article, LGBT activists in Seattle used legal leverage in attempting to put a stop to Sean Feucht’s “Revive in 25” Christian music tour. Performance permits for Feucht’s tour were revoked in eight Canadian locales. Woke activists in the U.S. also urged cities to make it illegal for this particular set of Christian concerts to happen.

Why? Because the singer reads from the Bible and holds to Scriptural views of gender and human sexuality. The militant LGBT activists say that Feucht’s music and sharing of the Gospel constitutes “malicious harassment” and must be stopped. Of course, all persons (including those whose views about sex and gender run counter to the Bible and human biology) are worthy of respect, dignity, and due process. Just not special process.

I understand what the author is trying to say, but the truth of the matter is that militant Christian activists like the Alliance For Defending Freedom are guilty of securing special rights for themselves on the basis that if a Christian baker, web designer, photographer, & booksellers ought to be accorded special rights that both the Bible & CO’s State Constitution deny everyone else. 

According to CO, 

Free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his opinions concerning religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state. No person shall be required to attend or attend support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination against his consent. Nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.

A business permit is rightly construed as a species of an oath.  When you obtain a business license, you are agreeing to abide by the laws governing the civil rights of your customers and employees.   The ADF & other Christian activists believe dissenters ought to be given the right to conscientiously object without any legal (& dare I say moral) consequences.   When the Bible says we must give up precious things to follow Christ (Luke 14:25 - 33).  When the Bible tells us to count persecution a joy & avoid litigiousness (Matthew 5, 1 Corinthians 6), they seek to go to war with CO preemptively from time to time. 

Matthew 5:41 was written as a confutation of the Sanhedrin and Zealots who were the dutiful culture warriors of their day.  The Sanhedrin was teaching the people that loving your neighbor was a cover for hating your enemies.  The Zealots acted accordingly.  

According to Matthew 5:41, if the jackbooted Roman soldier compels (or otherwise requests) you to walk a mile, you will walk two.   If the soldier (African-American couple) compels (or otherwise requests) you to walk a mile (not redline them), you will walk a mile (not redline them) and walk a second (show them a home, sell to them if they financially qualify).    This applies to all civil rights legislation.  

According to God, a business owner does not have a religious right to do as he/she/they desire.  You can’t deny service to your enemies, even if your enemy is a Roman soldier.   That was true in Exodus too: If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall bring it back to him. 5If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying down under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it; you shall rescue it with him.  

However, as soon as you point out that this applies to LGBTQ people, these people cry foul.   They say that refusing to bake the cake, to take just  one example, is a matter of religious liberty.  

The idea that baking the cake is an act that somehow infringes upon the religious liberty of the baker is driven by the axiom that doing so is an invidious act of collaboration with Evangelicals’ sociopolitical/cultural enemies.  Matthew 5:41 addresses that position by commanding that the baker serve the couple by baking the cake.

Does gay marriage itself or the use of a website/page relative to a gay couple’s wedding constitute a practice inconsistent with the good order, peace, or safety of the state?  No, it does not.  The fact that gay marriage and requiring businesses to comply with the law upsets some people is not the definition of a threat to good order, peace, and safety.   Threats are the product of their ignorance &/or moral compass of the DCWs, not the law. 

However, the refusal of service to gay people is symptomatic of the oppression of gays in CO society, which, over time, does negatively affect the good order, peace, and security of CO.  Religious freedom does not extend to activities that are part of a web of deceitful and immoral practices that underwrite threats to the peace and safety of CO’s citizens or good order, insofar as they objectively oppress one or more targeted populations.  Requiring someone to comply with Mt. 5:41 - 48, Proverbs 25:22, Romans 12:20; & other texts is not the definition of unjust oppression.  

The authors words strike as Orwellian & reminds me of the day when Christian activists would alleged that civil rights protections in matters of employment, housing, & public accommodation amounted to “special rights” — even moreso when gay marriage was on the ballot.   How is seeking protections on the basis of a linguistically neutral categories like “sexual orientation” & “gender identity” special process/rights?   It’s not — everyone is protected.   

Therefore, while it’s true, LGBTQ activists’ push to exclude a particular set of concerts based on the band’s viewpoint is hypocritical on their part, given the manner in which Christian activists have historically sought to justify their bigotry, even seeking to avoid legal consequences for it preemptively, strikes me as even more hypocritical— especially in light of what the Bible they profess to believe has to say in these matters. 

The author continues: 

Secondly, “Disagreement with alternative lifestyles is borne out of fear and/or hatred.” Because serious, scholarly research mitigates against the claims of LGBT ideology, the “phobic” trope remains the default response to most scrutiny.

Neither phobia nor animus drive the counter claims of genetics, psychology, sociology, theology, or natural law. Isn’t it at least possible that dissent against LGBT activism is borne out of a desire for truth and societal good?  Couldn’t at least some of those who disagree seek reality over narrative? 

1.  According to Matthew 5:41 - 48 & 7:1 - 13, that isn’t at all true.   If you chronically refuse to paraclete people who are not like you, then the people to whom you cast your pearls of judgment/give serpents & stones, people you consider swine, then one day both they & the LORD will rise up against you.    These texts were written, in part, to the angry religious bigots of the day, & if you take the position of the bigots, then you probably are one too. 

2.  The author calls on the human image (genetics, psychology, sociology, theology, or natural law), which is exactly the opposite of what the Bible teaches about the proper epistemic basis for faith & practice. 

What is the purpose of the created order?  To testify to God’s existence, attributes, & authority (Romans 1:20).   Humanity is guilty of suppressing God’s image & authority & substituting their own & other created images then reasoning accordingly.    Therefore (and since God has no sexual attributes & no sexual characteristics, “natural” does not mean “heteronormative/heterosexual” & “unnatural” doesn’t have anything to do with “genetics, psychology, sociology, ecclesiastical tradition, 

& / or “natural law.”   

If so, then God says on the one hand that the creation’s moral purpose is to testify to God’s own image & authority and then indicts us for morally repugnant thinking relative to the epistemic basis of theology, philosophy, & ethics,  while on the other hand, God points us to the human image & its alleged heteronormativity when it comes to sex, gender, & sexual ethics touching on LGBTQ issues, & out of this comes the bigoted agenda of militant Christian activists who, having used the human image to do sexual ethics then justify themselves & their refusal to paraclete LGBTQ people.   That is how bigotry operates. 

He continues: 

Finally, it is wrong that LGBT activists insist that messages counter to their ideology must be legally suppressed. The Constitution protects the immutable, natural rights shared by all people. The activist’s insistence on discrimination against viewpoints with which they disagree must not find legal support in a constitutional republic.      

At best; this is half-true.  The Bible teaches the 3 uses of the Law:  Individual, Ecclesiastical, & Civil (Matthew 4:1 - 11).   The command to not “Raca” someone is both individual & corporate and it applies in the Civil Sphere not merely the Individual & Ecclesiastical.   The Constitution does protect the immutable, natural rights of people, & the Bill of Rights and more than one State Constitution are clear that (a) there are unenumerated rights that ought to be protected & that Religious Liberty does not extend to the nullification of oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness, &/or justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state. 

It amazes me what people will do to avoid replicating & restoring to people they have historically failed.   It also amazes me that people, in this day & age, will willfully bury their heads in the sand as if their people aren’t guilty of perpetuating the state of ideological war that is destroying American society (and others).   They also continue to claim that they aren’t behaving in bigoted fashion when they clearly are.  

O LORD, HEAR OUR PRAYER(S)!