In Canada, the courts ruled that protecting the wishes of LGBT
people is more important than protecting the inalienable God-given right to
religious freedom.
 |
| Trinity Western University image from here |
It was about accreditation of a Christian university, Trinity
Western University, which has students sign an honor code that they will not
have sex outside of marriage. (The Christian university I attended, BYU, here
in the US has that in its honor code.) And
they define marriage as between a man and a woman. So, homosexuals who aren’t
married are treated the same as heterosexuals who aren’t married. It’s unclear whether
any “married” same-sex couples wanted to attend the Christian school but felt
excluded by that honor code.
Lower courts supported the school’s right to set its
behavior code according to the religious beliefs of the institution. But the
high court disagreed. Here’s how the high court stated its reasoning:
"The [law society of British Columbia, which denied the
accreditation] has an overarching interest in protecting the values of equality
and human rights in carrying out its functions. Approving or facilitating
inequitable barriers to the profession could undermine public confidence in the
(law society's) ability to regulate in the public interest."
Meanwhile, remember Jack Phillips, the cake baker who refused
to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, whose case went to the Supreme Court? Even
though SCOTUS ruled in his favor, the state of Colorado is after him again.
This time it’s for refusing to make a cake celebrating a person’s “transition”
from male to female.
 |
| Jack Phillips screen shot from here |
The first ruling was narrow—about the state’s stated
prejudice against him for his religion, quite specifically. So, they’re at it
again, and this time claiming it’s about him discriminating against a person.
Granted, that’s what they said the last time. He didn’t actually discriminate
against anyone; all comers could buy what he was willing to sell. But he was
unwilling to make and sell a product that celebrated something against his
religious beliefs. This was in character for him; he also refused to make Halloween-themed
products and a variety of other messages he found offensive.
So, the Supreme Court spent an inordinate amount of time
talking about what was a cake and what was a message. It was twisting what he
was doing to be about the people—whom he served in every other way—instead of
about the message. A cake that celebrates a same-sex “wedding” is not the same
thing as a cake that celebrates a traditional, real wedding. It was always
about the event.
So how are things different this time? The Court says he’s
discriminating against people. As First Assistant Attorney General LeeAnn
Morrill said in court: "If you make product 1 for customer 1, you must
make product 1 for customer 2."
But Jack Phillips didn’t refuse to serve the customer, who
was transgendered; he would have sold any product on hand, or products for
other purposes. He only refused the particular request for a cake that celebrated
changing genders. Again, a cake celebrating a birthday or a graduation is not
the same as a cake celebrating what can be seen, quite literally, as body mutilation.
In other words, the state is attacking Jack Phillips again
for his religious beliefs. The only difference might be if they refrain more
carefully from saying so.
In both of these cases, there’s an assumption being pushed
on society, using the courts as well as media, to insist that religious freedom
is a “license to discriminate.”
But when you get the emotional hand-wringing out of the way,
the discrimination is decidedly against religious people. And activists for the
LGBT etc. group are not looking for equality; they are looking for special
prominence, promotion, and power.
A few months back, Tucker Carlson interviewed a woman who
was pressing for parents to stop having boy or girl babies, and just have “theybies,”
non-gendered until the child is four years old or so when the child then
decides what it is. Carlson says, “We acknowledge biology and nature as real.
Right?” The woman doesn’t actually respond to reality; she just keeps insisting
it’s irrelevant: “It’s just a little human.”
 |
| Tucker Carlson (left) screenshot from here |
Yes, it is a little human. But humans, as other species of
mammals, come in two sexes, biologically determined. Maybe the reason (and let’s
use that word in its full sense) the woman looks foolish is because she denies
reality and claims that will make society better.
In all these cases, someone is denying science and nature.
And the side recognizing the common sense of science and nature is being vilified
as bigoted. Those claiming to ask for “fairness for all,” through SOGI (sexual
orientation and gender identity) laws penalize people who believe in biology—and
common sense.
And, let's be clear, religious believers are on the side of science and reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment