Tag Archives: gay
Should a Christian school be allowed to expel a student or refuse the application of a prospective student simply because that person has a gay relative? That is the position one school in Kansas is taking; and they are receiving a lot of political and social heat for it.
Trinity Academy, a small Christian school in Kansas says it is “a Christ-centered, college-preparatory education for students committed to spiritual growth and academic excellence.” The school claims test scores are far above average and most kids are involved in the music program.
Trinity also says that it reserves the right to expel any student or prospective student with a gay family member. The school’s policy states:
Those words come from Daniel McArthur, general manager of Ashers Baking Company, as he describes what it is like to have the government demand he and his family of Christians make a cake with a message that violates their religious beliefs.
It all started when a man asked for a cake with the words “support gay marriage” on it. McArthur and the people at Ashers refused to make it citing their religious beliefs. A legal battle ensued and the government sided with the customer saying that Ashers had violated the Equality Act and “discriminated” against the man. Ashers was fined $765 for “injury to feelings” and told to make the cake.
By the way, this all happened in Norther Ireland where gay marriage is illegal.
The major identifier of any Christian should be our identity in Christ. It’s not about our “conversion story,” or where we are in our “walk of faith.” Creating an identity out of something with no inherent worth or value will always lead to frustration when others don’t place as high a value on that thing as we do.
Take for example the story of Michael Sam, the former NFL draft pick that was also the first openly gay player to be drafted by an NFL team.
Before the combine, before the draft, Michael Sam was a decent football player barely hitting the radar of NFL scouts. Most scouting reports had him listed as a little too small and a bit too slow for his defensive position. But he was nonetheless headed for the NFL combine and would try to make an NFL roster. Then, the relatively unknown player from the mid-west decided to have a press conference to announce that he was gay.
In the world of sports this was only news because there was no openly gay players and Sam would be the first if he could make a roster. For the most part though, NFL scouts, coaches, and owners sort of…yawned. They weren’t looking for a poster-child for social causes or to break new sporting ground. They were looking for talented football players that would help them win championships. Because, at the end of the day, wins is all that matters.
When a Christian person refuses service to a gay person it is all over the news. Every news outlet in the country carries the story and wags their head at the “shameful” treatment of the poor gay people. By the end of the day everyone has seen the story and knows the basic details of how this innocent gay person (or couple) has been terribly mistreated by the awful Christian person (or couple).
Instances of overblown media attention include the case of the baker in Colorado that refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding; the florist in Washington that refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding; and the printer that refused to print t-shirts for a gay-pride parade. (Just for good measure let’s throw in the pizza shop that refused to provide pizza for a gay wedding.)
In each of these accounts a Christian business owner is exercising his or her right to live and do business according to their faith. They are refusing to provide service – not because they hate the gay people – but because they do not want to show support for gay marriage, something their faith will not allow.
But, have you ever heard the mainstream media (MSM) report on the large amount of support these Christians received from the gay community for doing business according to their faith?
I don’t want to focus on the chips so much as I want to focus on the partnership Doritos has entered in to with the It Gets Better Foundation. But before I do, let’s talk about the chips for a second.
Every company has the right to support whatever they want. But they also must know that by doing so they bear the responsibility of the consequences. For example, I stopped supporting the United Way and Susan G Komen for the Cure years ago. Why? Because they are partners with Planned Parenthood and, as much as possible, I want to make sure not a single dollar of my money goes to that criminal, vile organization that takes pleasure in profiting from the murder of innocent babies. By the way, that’s the reason I don’t support the Girls Scouts as well.
When I learned that PepsiCo was using the cells of aborted babies in their flavor testing process for various sodas, I immediately stopped buying any Pepsi products. In fact, that was nearly 8 years ago. So while Doritos has every right to support homosexuality, I have every right to show my disapproval of their decision by not buying their products. Just as I show my support for Chick-Fil-A’s position on marriage by eating there as often as possible.
Now, having said that, let’s talk about the real irony and near stupidity of this decision by Doritos.
One of the biggest challenges in defending traditional marriage in our current culture doesn’t come from the Supreme Court, LGBT activists, or political agendas. Instead, this challenge comes from self-described “gay-affirming Christians.”
This group believes the Bible has been misinterpreted for hundreds of years and now wants to “set the record straight” on the biblical teaching regarding sexuality. For gay-affirming Christians the issue is understanding the cultural context of passages like Romans 1 in order to properly translate them for our current culture.
One standard talking point for gay-affirming Christians is that Romans chapter 1 is not a prohibition of homosexuality or same-sex “marriage,” but only a prohibition of homosexual fornication and abuse. In other words, Paul is simply saying that as long as homosexuals are given the opportunity to marry, as are heterosexuals, their lifestyle as homosexuals will be as pleasing before God as anyone else.
Not only is this “interpretation” of Romans 1 dangerous, it violates any sensible hermeneutic in studying Scripture. First, it goes against the plain text understanding of the Scripture. There is absolutely no way for any reasonable person to read Romans 1 and walk away with that understanding. The only logical conclusion after reading Romans 1 is that homosexuality is a sin. But even if we study the passage’s meaning from a cultural perspective, or look at the original Greek to get the meaning, we see a consistent message.
We’ve all heard and read about the recent marriage ruling by the Supreme Court. The number of articles, blog posts, and interviews commenting on this landmark ruling is astounding. That being true, there is no reason for me to comment on the ruling at this time.
Instead, I’ve constructed a detailed list of the articles posted by top voices on the issue. From research analysts, political analysts, pastors, theologians, and cultural commenters, these articles look at the decision from every viewpoint and angle.
I urge you to read some of these articles and have a well-constructed response to the inevitable conversation that you will be involved in soon. Don’t be unprepared. Be informed and able to clearly articulate your position.
What The Supreme Court Said:
Christianity Today: Here’s What Supreme Court Says about Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom
“So the question becomes: How will gay rights and religious rights be balanced? Below is what the justices said in today’s majority opinion and four dissents, as well as a summary of related survey data. Essentially, the majority believe the First Amendment gives religious groups and people “proper protection” to “continue to advocate” their beliefs on traditional marriage. But the dissenters are more skeptical, and concerned that “people of faith can take no comfort” in the ruling.”
Anyone who has sought to support traditional marriage over the last few years has no doubt heard of Ryan T. Anderson. Perhaps no other voice in the debate over what marriage is (and is not) has carried more weight in recent history.
Though he is only 33 years old, Anderson has achieved a level of fame (and notoriety) that most his age don’t even know exist. As a professing Christian, PhD. Holder, editor of a highly successful online publication, and senior fellow at the highly respected Heritage Foundation, Anderson has risen to credible levels in a short time.
With the notoriety and influential voice comes a price.
For Anderson the price is the target on his back each and every day simply because he opposed same-sex “marriage” and argued for traditional marriage with inexhaustible vigilance. And though Anderson has established a reputation for being civil and respectful in his discussions and debates with his opponents (no matter how vile they treat him) he is attacked relentlessly for his views.
But it’s not his position that concerns me, after all, as a Christian I hold to the biblical complimentarian view of marriage and sexuality the same as Anderson. Rather, it’s the position of those that oppose him that concerns me most.
A very significant court ruling was handed down not long ago and I bet you didn’t know anything about it.
The Fayette Circuit Court in Kentucky ruled that a printer did not discriminate by refusing to print a t-shirt for a gay pride parade.
Blaine Adamson owns Hands On Originals. This printing company prints many items, including t-shirts. Not long ago an LGBT pride group came to HOO asking them to print a t-shirt for the upcoming pride rally in Lexington. Adamson refused their request based on his religious convictions and offered to set them up with another local printer for the same price.
The group went elsewhere to get their shirt printed.
But, I’m sure you can guess where this is going, a discrimination suit was filed against HOO and Adamson.
I reported on this incident a while back because of some of the unique aspects to the case. For starters, this is one of a few cases that does not involve someone in the wedding services industry. Most of the cases of “discrimination” we are seeing take place involve photographers, bakers, and florists refusing services for gay weddings. Btu this is a printer being asked to print something for a gay pride parade.
If ever there was a need for protection surely it would be for someone printing actual words. Right? No one would try to force another person to print words that violate his religious and moral convictions, right? Wrong.
Why is one baker allowed to discriminate but another is not? That’s the question being asked after two separate – but related incidents involving cake and convictions.
In one incident Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, declined to bake a cake for a gay wedding because he said doing so would violate his religious convictions. Phillips sees his business as an extension of his faith, which means participating in a gay wedding by creating a work of art would violate that faith.
Unfortunately, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission disagreed with Phillips and charged him with discrimination under Colorado’s Human Rights Act. He was found guilty and threatened with fines and imprisonment if he continued such practices at his bakery.
In fact, Phillips was ordered to go “reeducation” along with his entire staff and will be monitored to ensure such an incident doesn’t happen again. Does this sound like America – the home of the free – or more like a communist country?
In light of this disturbing account, Bill Jack, just a guy wanting to make a point, asked three different bakeries to make him two separate cakes. Todd Starnes explains the cakes Jack wanted: