Previous Post
This is hardly satisfying for Christians who would be right to assume they were misled by the church, and that God allowed for believers to unjustly believe (for 2,000 years) through the church and translated Bibles that they were required to hold views against homosexuals.
But that's not what I'm arguing. I'm merely arguing that the Bible, in English, is pretty clear on its stance regarding homosexuality, and to force a Christian school to employ gay teachers violates the 1st amendment. And to attack Pence's wife for being a devout follower of the world's largest religion is a disgusting tactic employed by the Left. It is this type of rhetoric that eventually leads to a constitutional right taken away, which almost happened here:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html
"At the same time the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," Kennedy wrote, adding that the "neutral consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here."
"The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy said, adding to say that the case was narrow.
|
I doubt Christians care much. Just like most people, most pick and choose what they like. The fact of the matter is that the book they are using as justification is not so iron clad as they would like to think that it is on the matter.
Unless they want to start supporting some contradictory things or things that would be considered odd in a modern context. One can easily pick on any person with a harsh anti-LGBT from within the Bible itself. Let alone outside of it. So it is not like their grounds are rock solid.
The second part is more important, although it is variable what religious expression allows one to get away with. In the example you initially gave about Pence, she is allowed to work at such a place. She is allowed to believe whatever she wants too.
But others would be expressing a First Amendment right condemning it too. Either from just a speech angle or from a religious freedom angle as well.
I just am of the mind that folks that try to use religion to defend their bigoted views should actually take the whole book into context, not just the very few passages they like. The book on the whole rarely mentions it.
Hell, Jesus said ""it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God". We hardly hear any of these people talk smack about the wealthy.
