---------------------------
This is another installment in the continuing saga of the NDO (non-discrimination ordinance) being considered by the City of Bozeman.
Mr. Martens is a frequent contributor to the opinion pages, and he is invariably Left. He asks if it is "fair" to decline to serve Christians, so at least he's philosophically consistent. He apparently is opposed to discrimination against Christians just as much as gays. Or so it would seem.
The problem, of course, is when two opposing opinions butt heads. Selecting in favor of one discriminates against the other, by definition. So it is impossible to be against discrimination because as soon as the choice is made, discrimination against the non-chosen has occurred.
So let's answer the questions Mr. Martens poses. The answer to every one of them is "yes." A free people have the right to peaceably assemble, which means they and only they should get to choose with whom they assemble. They can decline to assemble based on any reason or no reason, so long as it is for a lawful purpose.
Therefore, non-discrimination laws, though well-intended, impinge on private choices. I'm not arguing for the ability to oppress people, far from it, but the role of government in guiding peoples' choices ought to be extremely limited. Or does anyone really think that discrimination can simply be eliminated by passing a law?
Mr. Martens notes that there is a variety of expressions in Christianity, in other words, a diversity of choices and and understandings. From that he concludes that those who oppose homosexuality are "entitled to that view," but apparently not entitled to exercise that view with all the attendant ramifications.
This is why I wonder if Leftists really actually think about their opinions before committing them to paper. Rather than conclude that because there is a variety of understandings, there will be a variety of expressions, he concludes that the expression he agrees with is the proper one.
One last point. Mr. Martens suggests "we cannot take every Bible verse literally," yet he's happy to provide us with a verse. On what basis did he conclude that this verse should be taken literally? Why should we allow him to impose his religious perspective on others? Why is his version of Christianity worthy of being enforced by law?
-----------------------------------------
Suppose I object to the Christian "lifestyle." Should I, as a small business owner, then be allowed to refuse to serve Christians in my establishment? Should I be allowed to fire employees as soon as they show the symptoms of the Christian lifestyle? Should I be allowed to refuse to print T-shirts with Christian symbols? Should I be allowed to refuse to sell "Christian" wedding cakes (whatever those may be), or refuse to take pictures at a Christian wedding?
I definitely don't think so, and we have broadly supported laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion. So what is different about our love preference? Some argue that it is a choice, unlike skin color or gender. There is plenty of evidence that that is actually not the case, but even if it were, how is that different from being Christian? Certainly that is a choice, otherwise it would be meaningless. So "choice" versus "being born that way" is clearly not the issue. Many conservative Christians would argue that in their biblical view, living gay is a sin. They are entitled to that view but there are also plenty of Christians that see it very differently, with many protestant denominations happily performing gay weddings, and the Catholic pope recently stating "Who am I to judge?" One can quote verses from the Bible that appear to condemn homosexuality, but I prefer John 13:34: "A new command I give you: Love one another." If you call that picking and choosing, my response is that we cannot take every Bible verse literally, otherwise we'd have to believe that the Earth is flat and slavery acceptable. So let us love our gay brothers and sisters and pass the NDO to protect them.
Piet Martens
Bozeman
No comments:
Post a Comment