There is a disclaimer at the end of many movies where woodland creatures appear to be ravaged: ‘No animals were harmed in the making of this movie.’ The illusion there might be such harm was at the whim of the storytellers, and it is their final intention to let you know that they were fibbing for the sake of drama.
There should be a similar disclaimer at the end of same-sex wedding events: ‘No Christian principles were violated in the union of these people.’ Those are the facts.
The people in this case who would have you believe otherwise are not storytelling filmmakers, they are some of the bakers, dressmakers, florists, and venue managers in the wedding industry. They want you to believe somehow supporting two people making a lifetime commitment is a violation of their own ‘religious freedom’. This is one of the biggest illusionary shell games in public discourse today.
Almost to the case, these offending vendors have demonstrated a complete lack of scruples in any other way toward the very principles they claim to uphold. While they deny service to LGBT couples wishing to marry, they appear to have no problem in ignoring anything else that would fly in the face of biblical standards.
Oregon’s Sweet Cakes by Melissa, which shut its doors last week, showed they would marry pretty much anyone and anything, including even animals, but absolutely no LGBT couples.
Aaron Klein claims those speaking out against his discrimination used ‘militant, mean-spirited Mafia-style tactics’ to shut them down. ‘I just did not want to be part of her marriage,’ he stated, referring to one of the brides he to whom he declined service.
What are the standards at play in his statement? Dishonesty – there is no evidence of ‘Mafia’ or any other illegal tactics being used. Hypocrisy – the Kleins want freedom of speech, but do not want those who react to their behavior to enjoy the same freedoms (or to have a choice as to where they spend their money)...
Let’s look at that Washington florist. She also lacked moral standards. She had no problem flowering the romance and intimacy of two gay men, which should have been the core of her misguided religious complaint, but then pulled back when the two were ready to declare lifelong allegiance to each other (that is, marry), which actually is supported by the Bible.
Standing up for Christian principles in general is obviously not the motivator for any of these people; taking a stance against LGBT people is. Even with the most outlandishly anti-gay interpretation of the Bible, not one Bible verse implies it is wrong to provide services for two people standing up to articulate their love and promises toward each other. Not one.
In fact, there are many references that support doing so: the commandment to love one’s neighbor as one’s self; the commitment and love declared by David and Jonathan; the golden rule...
keyboard shortcuts: V vote up article J next comment K previous comment