Laws Conflicting with People's Faith

[John317]

I'm just posting this to stimulate reflection and responses about these issues. I don't necessarily share all aspects of the viewpoint of the writer.

------------------------------------------

Bathroom Wars - Colorado lets trannies into opposite sex rest rooms

It seems that Colorado has passed a law allowing transvestites to use the bathroom of their choice. What a victory! Now men who think they are women can join women in the women's rest room! How egalitarian. How comforting. I can just picture my 8 year old daughter in the bathroom while some guy in a dress delicately adjusts his johnson at the sink.

Even worse, I can see butch women trying to make a go of the men's room without being harassed, and then trying to press harassment charges when men rightly ridicule them, asking them how big their own johnson might be. As I suggested (humorously) in Transgender Rights override women's rights:

We can either separate men and women by their God-given biology, or we need to create new spaces for the now FOUR possible genders.

Chuck Colson has written a nice piece on this debacle, and so has the Constructive Curmudgeon in Transvestite Invasion: Truth Evasion:

What is now stopping a sexual predator from going into the women's room to stalk (or worse) a young girl? How would a defecating male in the women's make women--real women--feel in there?

Even worse, this law might apply to churches and businesses who don't comply with this asinine law. As I wrote in The coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty, the GLBT agenda claims to be egalitarian, but what is happening in reality is that those who oppose the mental illnesses of GLBT identities are now subject to lawsuits, fines, and imprisonment, not to mention loss of tax-exempt status. See how this Colorado law will apply:

Colorado tops them all on the potential outrage meter, however, because in addition to civil fines and penalties, small-business owners can be prosecuted under the criminal laws of Colorado and spend up to one year in jail for trying to live according to their faith.

To add insult to injury, your tax dollars will be used to prosecute these people of faith, and the legislature is expecting 30 complaints and three legal cases per year.

Colorado will now experiment with the liberty-destroying GLBT laws that are beginning to ravage Canada. Want to see what's coming if we pursue this path? Here's what happened to a Canadian pastor recently:

In a decision dated May 30 in the penalty phase of the quasi-judicial proceedings run by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson was banned from expressing his biblical perspective of homosexuality and ordered to pay $5,000 for "damages for pain and suffering" as well as apologize to the activist who complained of being hurt.

It's already happening IN THE USA:

In Albuquerque, which has a similar law, a Christian husband and wife who own and operate their own photography studio were recently hauled before that state's human rights commission and fined more than $6,600 for politely refusing, on religious grounds, to photograph a lesbian "commitment ceremony." We've seen similar charges brought by homosexuals against a video reproduction business in Virginia, a medical clinic in California, an adoption service in Arizona and a church in New Jersey.

Amazing, tragic, enraging, and idiotic.

Original article: http://www.twoorthree.net/2008/06/bathroom-wars-.html

[Bravus]

I think you may have mistyped the header: should have been "Laws Conflicting with People's Prejudices"

[Dr. Shane]

The case of the Canadian evangelist is clearly a violation of religious liberty. In the US it would violate both the free exercise clause and freedom of speech granted by the First Amendment.

The photo studio is a bit more complex. If homosexuals were a protected class like racial minorities they would have a case. If they were a protected class, they would have to prove the reason they were being discriminated against is because they were gay (which in this case the photo studio freely admits). Businesses turn down work everyday, all day long for a variety of reasons. A photo studio may want to only photograph attractive people so to maintain a very attractive portfolio. Ugliness is not a protected class so being turned away be the studio for being too ugly would not be illegal.

A law making homosexuals a protected class would violate many people's religious beliefs. It wasn't too long ago that many hotels wouldn't rent a room to a couple that wasn't married because of the hotel owner's religious beliefs. While national chains have pretty much taken over the hotel industry so that is no longer an issue, the principle remains the same. Should a business man or woman have the right not to enable others to practice sin? The hotel owner may believe that by renting a room to an unmarried or gay couple he is taking part in their sin.

I think most Adventists wouldn't approach it that way but that is not to say that others shouldn't have the right to. Adventists practice open communion because Jesus, knowing what was about to happen, allowed Judas to take part in the Lord's supper. That is the ultimate example of religious liberty. Judas drank to his own condemnation. I think most Adventists would view the photography studio refusing to take pictures at the lesbian commitment ceremony as an act of discrimination although those same Adventists wouldn't want the civil government to pass a law stating Baptists, Catholics, Muslims or other religious people must do such things against their own personal religious beliefs. Adventists think differently because of our view on religious liberty. Other religious people that do not share our view shouldn't be forced to do what they feel is enabling sinners in their sin.

[John317]

I think you may have mistyped the header: should have been "Laws Conflicting with People's Prejudices"

It can be interpreted to be a person's prejudices, but the truth is that we are talking about what people believe their faith in Christ requires them to do or not do. So maybe I should have titled it,"religious faith." Some day the time will come when people will say Sabbath-keepers are stubborn, prejudiced, ignorant, and yes, even criminal, because they speak against Sunday-keeping and refuse to work on the Sabbath.

If someone says they feel it would be wrong or immoral to do certain things, I have no right to try to compel them to do what they believe is against their conscience. That is one of the reasons it's important to have a separation between church and state. In Europe the governments were forcing people to do what the church wanted and to go against what many did not believe. We don't want to do the same thing here, although prophecy shows that it will eventually happen.

[Tallmark]

In 2004 in California, people voted 61% in favor of traditional marriage. Just recently the CA supreme court overturned the peoples decision. Whatever happened to 'we the people'? It's gonna get worse folks. Barak is in favor of same sex unions, and used the Sermon on the Mount to justify it. The scriptural illiterates, which are most Christians, went right along with it. They're getting crazier every day. Even so, Lord Jesus, come!

[jasd]

>>...or we need to create new spaces for the now FOUR possible genders.<<

Not disregarding, ummm..., gender-types, we might soon also have to consider the peculiar needs of foot-bathers... We may, one day, fondly recall – the days when we had only to deal with the idiocy of gender types.

One hopes there are those of our good ladies who have an acquired, or more to be desired – well-bred sense of decorum – who would strenuously object to sharing a restroom with an obviously disturbed cross-dresser. It should, moreover, be hoped that

any cross-dresser invading the ladies room – should promptly be conveyed to the nearest sanatorium for evaluation by its attendant psychiatrists.

Prejudices:

Of course, the suggested “prejudices” in the above are those sort of “prejudices” denoted desirable, yes? such as, a righteous incense (prejudice?) against indecent affronts to modesty and propriety – where it concerns the sensibilities of our good ladies, yes? Or, do I err in my definitions?

>>Some day the time will come when people will say Sabbath-keepers are stubborn, prejudiced, ignorant, and yes, even criminal,<<

If Sabbath-keeping is Biblically derived, then yes, it is already criminal – re Genocide Treaty, UN, ca 1980 (though law of the land, its implementation is not presently being – broadly enforced). Whoa! Isn’t that

the one Reagan ratified!?