My Twitter Conversation About Transgender Rights Being More Important than Christian Rights.

Posted on July 3, 2014 in Religious Freedom by

Time Magazine

Image Credit: Time Magazine

I had a friendly conversation with a LGBT rights group on Twitter that said the religious convictions of Christian should be protected. As you can imagine, I was a little shocked. Seldom have I encountered any LGBT activist that believes religious convictions are important, much less that they should be protected.

The person I was communicating with said as long as people have sincerely held religious convictions and not just personal opinions, those convictions should be protected. I had a little trouble understanding the difference, but, okay, we were basically on the same page.

Or so I thought.

Wanting to dig a little deeper I asked a very simple question: “You would then condemn the court’s decision against the photographer in New Mexico who refused to render services to a homosexual couple for the fact that it would violate her religious convictions, right?”

That’s where things went south.

The reply was “No. New Mexico forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

I was confused because this is a clear cut case in which a woman’s religious convictions were violated and yet this person who says convictions should be protected is now saying such violation is acceptable. The reply continued with:

“Religious convictions don’t trump civil rights.”

Now I’m really confused because I could have sworn that religious convictions ARE civil rights? In the long line of rights guaranteed by our Constitution to all people of the United States, religious freedom is among the first. Doesn’t that make it a civil right? Doesn’t that make it one of the most important civil rights?

The issue we were discussing was that of transgender “rights.” At issue was whether or not a Christian has the right to refuse service to people in order to not violate their deeply held religious convictions. Such cases as the photographer in New Mexico, baker in Colorado, and florist in Washington are starting points for these discussions. Unfortunately they are also examples of how the discussions should NOT proceed.

All three of these people refused to render services to gay weddings believing that doing so would be an artistic expression of speech supporting and affirming same-sex “marriage.” Standing on their right to free speech and refusing to violate their religious convictions they refused. They were charged and found guilty of discrimination. This is acceptable and good in the eyes of LGBT activists that believe their rights trump all others.

But in the context of tolerance and freedom the outcome of these cases is troubling. For starters they set a dangerous precedent that elevates the “rights” of one group above another. If LGBT persons are allowed to exert their rights over those of Christians and people of faith, then one person’s rights have now become subservient to another. That’s not equality.

But, to be honest, I don’t believe the LGBT movement is actually seeking equality. From their actions and words they are seeking the total destruction of sexuality, gender roles, and marriage. No, that’s not an alarmist statement; it’s an easily verifiable statement if one pays attention to the news headlines being printed daily.

Part 2 of this article will be posted tomorrow. 

Please give us your valuable comment

Archives

%d bloggers like this: