Monday, June 30, 2008

Freedom of sexuality

Should Christians who voice opposition to homosexual behavior be in danger of arrest?
Should a man be allowed to use a woman’s locker if he perceives himself to be female? Should a private business owner, let’s say, a photographer, be fined or run out of business if it would violate his religious convictions to photograph a gay wedding?

In testimony before the Colorado House Judiciary Committee regarding the rights of homosexuals, bisexuals, transgendered and transsexual individuals, the executive director of the ACLU said,

"One may practice one's religion in private; however, once a religious person
comes into the public arena, there are limitations in how the expression of
their religion impacts others," (WorldNetDaily).

I wonder why Ms. ACLU didn’t say, “One may practice their sexuality in private; however, there are limitations of how people can express their sexuality in public.”

After all, we have a constitutional right to freedom of religion (religion that can only be practiced in private is not freedom of religion). There is no constitutional right to the public display of one’s sexuality or perceived gender.

In true Orwellian fashion, the Left is systematically undermining freedom of religion, and out of thin air they are creating an even higher right, a right that trumps both freedom of speech and freedom of religion: The freedom of sexuality.

And Barack Obama supports it.

2 comments:

Robert said...

I’ve heard it said that “rights are those things which place no obligation on the part of another.”

When you think about it, this makes a lot of sense. The right of “free speech” does not imply that someone must supply you a microphone or a medium to express yourself. The second amendment or the right to bear arms doesn’t mean that you get a free gun. In fact, when you look at the original Amendments, they were designed to limit the powers of the government, not the people.

Today’s meaning of rights has been very twisted. We pretend that people have a “right to healthcare” or a “right to affordable housing.” Pick your favorite topic and suddenly it has become a right. However, these rights all seem to rely on someone else providing a necessary component of it. Nothing represents this hypocrisy more vividly than the ACLU’s tepid protection of freedom of religion from government interference while simultaneously advancing the gay agenda.

I have no problem with the ACLU defending a gay person from being harassed or mistreated. However, a gay person shouldn’t be able to turn around and do that to someone else. Yet the ACLU is prepared to advance the notion that a protected class or person should have the ability to force another into some form of servitude.

That all said, let’s say a photographer refuses to do pictures for a “gay wedding.” I have no problem with him receiving bad publicity from that action. I just don’t want to see the government or the law somehow get in on the act.

Dennis said...

Well said, Robert!