Christians Opposing Homosexuality Must Be Fired. Muslims Not So Much.

Posted on April 25, 2014 in Religious Freedom by

freedom of religionWe learned from Brendan Eich that if you support traditional marriage and people at your job find out, you could be fired. But for anyone that thinks this is an isolated incident and nothing to worry about; think again.

The Telegraph is reporting that a Christian nursery worker has been fired for refusing to read books about homosexuals to children. Citing her religious beliefs, Sarah Mbuyi said it would violate her convictions to read such stories to children. She was fired for those convictions and is now suing her former employer.

This is only the latest in a string of incidents where Christians have been fired or forced to resign for their religious convictions. In some cases, people were fired for exercising their constitutional rights as private citizens outside their place of employment. The case of Crystal Dixon at the University of Toledo comes to mind.

To make a long story short, Dixon was an executive at the University of Toledo. She wrote an op-ed for a local paper expressing her support for traditional marriage. Dixon was fired for exercising her right to free speech as a private citizen. Her firing was upheld by a federal appeals court and Dixon is now suing the University for infringing on her constitutional rights.

These two cases are similar and are not the least bit isolated. The charges against homosexuals and those seeking “rights” for the LGBT community of being bullies and trampling the rights of others are beginning to stick. Twenty years ago gays kept telling us that giving homosexuals rights wouldn’t hurt anyone. Even Christians bought into that lie and allied themselves with the LGBT community to “show them Jesus.” Now everyone know the lies about people not being hurt are just that, lies.

The likes of Crystal Dixon, Sarah Mbuyi, and Brendan Eich are living proof that people will be hurt when one group is elevated above all others. Furthermore, when people are forced or compelled to not just tolerate a particular lifestyle but to confirm and celebrate it, it is most certain that people will be hurt.

In a move that can only be classified as infringement on rights the California Supreme Court Advisory Committee is seeking to ban Boy Scouts from being judges! The Committee believes that the Boy Scouts are a discriminatory group since it doesn’t allow homosexual leaders and wants to ban Boy Scouts from being judges in the state in an effort to ensure an objective legal system.

The committee went so far as to say that banning Boy Scouts from being judges would “enhance public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.”

If we carefully read between the lines of this absurd notion we will see that not only are people being fired for having a religious conviction against homosexuality, some groups are now seeking to penalize people for simple association. I am pretty sure the Constitution guarantees us the right of association. In fact, I am positive the Constitution says that not only can we associate freely, but penalizing us for associating with any particular group is illegal.

Consider the implications of such a move. If the California Supreme Court Committee can successfully ban Boy Scouts from being judges in the state simply for association, who’s next?

Without a doubt we know that groups holding to a biblical view of marriage will be targeted, and perhaps even groups believing in the sanctity of human life will be targeted. On that note Catherine Short of the Life Legal Defense Foundation said banning Boy Scouts for association would not “enhance public confidence” but have the opposite effect:

“On the contrary, by promoting a hierarchy of politically-favored ‘victim’ status through pointlessly impugning the integrity of members of a venerable American institution, the proposed Amendment will communicate to the public that judges are being told by the California Supreme Court what to think, whom they may associate with, and what are permissible opinions to hold, and that only those who toe the line will be allowed to sit on the bench. The public can hardly expect impartiality from the judiciary in such a climate of intolerance.”

Bingo! There’s the point. This is less about discrimination and enhancing public opinion than it is about finding a way to control opinions held by the public. Free thought is dangerous to the LGBT movement so they must find a way to control the thoughts others have and what better way to do it than by punishing association.

How long before people are sued for simply verbalizing their opposition to homosexuality?

Apparently, in the case of Pastor Scott Lively, the time is now.

Lively is being sued by a Ugandan group known as SMUG (Sexual Minorities Uganda) for simply preaching against homosexuality while in their country. The group alleges that Lively’s message produced violence against gays, claims that have not been substantiated, nevertheless a federal judge has allowed the case against Lively to proceed.

The plaintiffs in this case are using a little know law called the Alien Tort Statute to sue Lively here in America. Using this law for this case is controversial at best, an egregious miscarriage of justice is a better description.

Lively says this case is of greatest importance for American Christians as it could open the door for lawsuits from foreign people against Americans for simply speaking their mind about the issue of homosexuality. Lively’s attorney with Liberty Counsel, Mr. Mihet, says this case could allow the Constitution to be trumped by an international law and treaty the U.S. has rejected:

“The case against Lively claims that by speaking his opinion in opposition to homosexuality, he was conspiring to deprive the plaintiffs of their fundamental rights. Mihet explained that although SMUG would allow people to express an opinion against homosexuality, if expressing that opinion causes anyone else to take any action, a crime might be committed. Under that precedent, he said, someone petitioning in opposition to special designations for homosexuals would become an international human rights criminal. Likewise, those who worked to support Proposition 8 in California, the proposed state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman, would be subject to prosecution, he said. It also would target those who are working to defeat the ENDA plan in Congress, which creates certain special protections for homosexuals in the workplace.”

The implications for free speech and religious freedom in this case are astounding. Could it be possible that the Constitution would be trumped by some international law? Would our own free speech and religious freedom take a back seat to popular political and social ideas of law and justice? Those are precisely the ideas held in mind by those pushing this case.

But if you think this is purely about LGBT rights or opposing the “discriminatory” Christian view, you are sorely mistaken. One story can lay any such claim to rest.

A group of Muslim cab drivers are refusing to drive their cabs for the upcoming Gay Games in Cleveland, Ohio. The drivers are citing their religious convictions as the reason they are refusing to drive the cabs. A spokesman for the Gay Games said of the incident:

“What we’ve been seeing for the last couple of years is a lot of positive support and a welcome atmosphere within the community. This was a decision by those individual cab drivers. It was a personal decision.”

Whoa, hold the phone. A Muslim taxi driver can refuse to do his job because of his opposition to homosexuality and everyone smiles and says it was a “personal decision.” But Brenden Eich, Crystal Dixon, and Sarah Myubi share their religious convictions and get fired. Is anyone else seeing the hypocritical irony in this?

Why does the world suddenly learn the definition of tolerance when it comes to Muslims sharing their religious convictions, but when Christians share those very same convictions on the very same topic we are intolerant, discriminatory bigots? Could it be that there is a separate set of rules for Christians?

The bottom line is that the idea that silence, neutrality, or that you won’t be harmed or affected by the advancing LGBT agenda is patently false. It is a lie composed by those seeking to advance a gender neutral, flexi-sexuality in our culture. These are just a few examples of people whose lives have been impacted by this “harmless” movement.

You may not know Brenden Eich, Crystal Dixon, or Sarah Mbuyi. But do you really want to wait until someone you know and love is fired for their religious convictions before you stand and speak?

Please give us your valuable comment

Archives

%d bloggers like this: