By T.L. HEADLEY, MBA, MAT, MA
Should a person be forced to take part in an activity that contradicts their religious or moral views?
What if that person owns a business? Should that business be forced to perform a service contrary to its owner’s religious views?
What about a minister? He or she provides a service. Should they be forced to conduct a marriage that violates a tenet of their faith?
How about a church? Should a church be forced to allow its sanctuary to be used for services it finds wrong according to the teachings of its faith?
The Constitution says … “Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or … the free exercise thereof.” It also absolutely guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. Taken together, it is clear that individuals, businesses, churches and ministers should be able to deny services based on their morals or their articles of faith.
There is no grey area. To suggest that a business owner or an individual MUST provide services that contradict their fundamental religious beliefs is a direct violation of the Constitution. To suggest otherwise is either out of ignorance or intent. There is no excuse for either.
Now, that said, a friend of mine on Facebook asked a question about Christ. He asked whether Christ, who was a carpenter by trade (there is some room for disagreement on this but that’s another argument) would build a house for a gay couple were he here today.
His argument was that Christ would do so to show God’s love for all.
I won’t attempt to put myself in the place of Christ. I will say that there is reason to believe Christ would refuse to do so as it would serve to empower the sin. He may, as one person answered, offer to build two houses for the couple and tell them to “go and sin no more.” The more I think about it, the more I think there is some validity to that belief.
Christ never forgave the woman at the well. He told her flatly that she had sinned and was sinning and to ‘go and sin no more.” His statement was based on the fact that those who threatened the woman were just as guilty of sin as she was and therefore were in no position to judge her and execute that judgment.
Applying this to the question of whether a Christian individual or Christian-owned business should participate in an activity they believe violates the tenets of their faith, I think the answer is once again clear. To force their participation would in essence be no different than forcing a Jewish person to eat pork.
Now, as for the issue of birthday cakes and pizza, and whether or not a business can refuse to cater a gay wedding due to the religious beliefs of its owner, once again I think the answer is clear. It is clear that a high percentage of Christians and Christian denominations see homosexuality as a sin. It is clear as well that this belief is well-established in the church and has been for 2000 years. It is not something created recently to provide legitimacy for bigotry or racism. It is a fundamental church teaching.
And it’s also clear that the Constitution affords people protection to exercise their faith in the manner they see fit without interference from the government.
Again, there is no grey area and no room for argument.
I am a Christian (admittedly a very struggling one) and I believe strongly in the importance of preserving and protecting the rights afforded us all in the Constitution. Allowing government to force individuals or businesses to provide services that violate the individual or business owner’s tenets of faith is a fundamental violation of those rights.
Frankly, I believe fully in individual liberty manifested in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, etc., and that extends to the public square or it is not worth the paper it is written on.
I believe it is our right to choose who we want to do business with, who we want to associate with, who we want to speak to, live beside, who our children go to school with, etc.
Again, we either have those rights and they extend to the public square or we don’t have the rights at all. For those who disagree, are you saying that we have freedom of speech unless someone disagrees with it and then we can only speak in our houses and then at a whisper? Are you saying that we have the right to freedom of religion unless it offends someone and then we can’t speak about it outside the church?
Here’s my take in a nutshell. If the government tells me I HAVE to bake a cake, build a house, or let a [insert group of your choice] eat in my restaurant, then I will die before I do it. Once that is my right and it is understood, then I will gladly bake that cake, build that house and open the doors of my lunch counter to everyone.
Do I hate gays? Of course not! Do I routinely discriminate against them OR anyone else in the course of everyday life? Of course not!
I think this is true of most everyone. So why are some in the gay community – or probably better said, the radical liberal community – so intent on forcing this issue?
The bottom line is that they can’t tolerate dissent. They want to enforce an orthodoxy of thought in much the same way the Taliban mullahs do. For them, their positions are the only logical ones and the only ones that are worthy of being expressed. To them the Constitution is a quaint old document and the Bible something to be laughed at, to be made fun of and to be discarded in the light of human “progress.”
So tell me, who is violating whose rights?
The Mind's Eye 