Where do human rights and religious freedom conflict? Many Christians are against gay marriage and rightly so, for it is not biblical (Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:9) nor sanctioned as God's plan for man. But all humans have rights bestowed by God, such as the right to survive which includes the right to look for work or to eat. We are all sinners and it would be like saying you don't want to serve an alcoholic or a felon.
One cannot deny basic rights conferred by God because said person is a sinner who offends you (this is not promoting or approving their lifestyle). It would only be prejudice to refuse some service at a restaurant because everyone has a right to eat and this doesn't conflict with any doctrine or teaching of Scripture--all humans are to be treated with respect and dignity as they are all in the image of God, even though marred and tarnished. Now if the government told a preacher he had to perform a gay marriage, he has the right to refuse--but he may do at his peril and lose his privilege to marry! He must be willing to pay the price for standing up for right and wrong (we believe in absolute right and wrong--some things are always right, some always wrong).
No one should be forced to participate in gay marriage in any way that makes him an accessory such as making the wedding cake or taking pictures either (if this is interpreted as their endorsing it like having his name on it or getting publicity). Why? This clearly goes against sound doctrine and is evil (male and female He created them ... and said that it was very good). The freedom of religion is not absolute--one cannot say that he has the right of polygamy in America or that he is cannibalistic, for instance. But all rights have limits (one's rights end where another person's begin): one cannot yell "fire" in a theater either. One must be very careful in legislating that could cause discrimination because that is morally wrong.
But the constitution guarantees the free practice of religion and it cannot restrict its free exercise or force someone into a creed or practice. Forcing someone to be an accomplice in evil is clearly going over the line morally; I am not a homophobe and do not even object to gays in the military as long as logistical problems are resolved, no one is forced to get "intimate" with them, and no one's privacy is invaded. But the government crosses the line in forcing the military to "celebrate" or even associate with gay pride in the service which I interpret as "endorsing" it. They have a right to pride, but not in making me an accessory or accomplice.
In conclusion, the example of a caterer supplying cake to the wedding being interpreted as "endorsing" it (i.e., putting our name to it or making the news or getting publicity--note the example that Paul brings up about the meat sacrificed to idols--for conscience's sake don't ask) would be wrong, but just supplying food or cake to any sinner is not a sin because that is not "endorsing" it. Let each act according to their own conscience, but if they act in civil disobedience, they must suffer the consequences. You have to draw the line somewhere: everyone could be considered an indirect accessory, even the truck driver that brought the dough, but when they "endorse" it in a legal sense we draw the line--we cannot be forced to give our approbation or imprimatur to evil. Soli Deo Gloria!
One cannot deny basic rights conferred by God because said person is a sinner who offends you (this is not promoting or approving their lifestyle). It would only be prejudice to refuse some service at a restaurant because everyone has a right to eat and this doesn't conflict with any doctrine or teaching of Scripture--all humans are to be treated with respect and dignity as they are all in the image of God, even though marred and tarnished. Now if the government told a preacher he had to perform a gay marriage, he has the right to refuse--but he may do at his peril and lose his privilege to marry! He must be willing to pay the price for standing up for right and wrong (we believe in absolute right and wrong--some things are always right, some always wrong).
No one should be forced to participate in gay marriage in any way that makes him an accessory such as making the wedding cake or taking pictures either (if this is interpreted as their endorsing it like having his name on it or getting publicity). Why? This clearly goes against sound doctrine and is evil (male and female He created them ... and said that it was very good). The freedom of religion is not absolute--one cannot say that he has the right of polygamy in America or that he is cannibalistic, for instance. But all rights have limits (one's rights end where another person's begin): one cannot yell "fire" in a theater either. One must be very careful in legislating that could cause discrimination because that is morally wrong.
But the constitution guarantees the free practice of religion and it cannot restrict its free exercise or force someone into a creed or practice. Forcing someone to be an accomplice in evil is clearly going over the line morally; I am not a homophobe and do not even object to gays in the military as long as logistical problems are resolved, no one is forced to get "intimate" with them, and no one's privacy is invaded. But the government crosses the line in forcing the military to "celebrate" or even associate with gay pride in the service which I interpret as "endorsing" it. They have a right to pride, but not in making me an accessory or accomplice.
In conclusion, the example of a caterer supplying cake to the wedding being interpreted as "endorsing" it (i.e., putting our name to it or making the news or getting publicity--note the example that Paul brings up about the meat sacrificed to idols--for conscience's sake don't ask) would be wrong, but just supplying food or cake to any sinner is not a sin because that is not "endorsing" it. Let each act according to their own conscience, but if they act in civil disobedience, they must suffer the consequences. You have to draw the line somewhere: everyone could be considered an indirect accessory, even the truck driver that brought the dough, but when they "endorse" it in a legal sense we draw the line--we cannot be forced to give our approbation or imprimatur to evil. Soli Deo Gloria!
I believe in the concept of guilt by association in the sense of contributing to a crime or sin knowingly.
ReplyDelete