One of the homosexual movement’s greatest successes was making it
illegal for straight folks, primarily Christians, to adhere to anti-gay
convictions.
Now, a federal court is taking away that success by permitting businesses to deny service to gay couples.
From The Daily Caller:
The U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th circuit struck down a district
court’s injunction against the law, which now allows business owners to
refuse to serve gay, lesbian, or transgender couples on grounds of
religious objection and also permits clerks to refuse to issue marriage
licenses to LGBT couples.
Foster care and adoption agencies can also choose to reject potential LGBT parents under this law, according to an AP report.
The court’s decision is a big win for the protection of religious
liberties, according to Kevin Theriot, attorney with Alliance Defending
Freedom, which helped write the bill.
Some argue that turning away homosexuals makes it more difficult to be a positive witness to them.
But most would agree that the law must not force Americans to participate in a movement or lifestyle with which they disagree.
(via: Conservative Post)
6 comments:
Good news! A persons sexual lifestyle should not be more important than a person's religious lifestyle.Christians were selectively targeted. Muslims never had to abide by these laws.
The valid question now being posed is that if selling a cake to a gay couple is "participating" in their wedding, is selling a gun to a murder participating in the killings? This is legal discrimination and there is nothing "Christian" about it.
Seems the fundamental question is whether people should be forced into relationships, business or personal, that they otherwise would not want to be in. Does avoiding the inconvenience of buying your cake at a different store trump the bakers right of free association?
Can they then refuse service to people with skin color that is different from their own, or whose religious or political beliefs differ? If you're open to the public, that includes all of the public.
Why "all the public?" Certainly " no shoes, no shirt, no service" allows discrimination against a subset of the public based upon a chosen behavior. The judiciary's zealotry for homosexuals whether it's striking down Florida's and other states' sodomy statutes, striking down marriage as between a man and a woman in 40 states, etc. has resulted in a "most favored behavioral status" for homosexuals and the other sexually confused such as "transgenders." The state has weighed in against religious principle on behalf of behavior that might still be criminal but for judicial favoritism. Since the "content of their character" borrowing from Dr. King doesn't matter then those who don't embrace the victim class du jour favored by the courts but rely on religiously-founded sense of right and wrong will face this over and over depending upon the latest judicial fancy and largess. Diversity as an end unto itself doesn't lead to strength it leads to confusion and oppression. Finally a judicial decree that takes this into account.
being open to the public is what its about.most places have a sign in the window that says we have the right to refuse service.being a white straight American they can refuse service to me if I do out of norm things
Post a Comment