Many religious people believe that homosexuality is contrary to the will of their God. Whether or not homosexuals, gay rights activists, and the liberal left in general agree with this basic tenet is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that in this nation citizens have the right to hold religious beliefs and to be free from coercion by judicial and legislative decrees that require them to engage in actions that are opposed to the teachings of their religion.
The idea that people of faith are protected from requirements to act against their religious beliefs when rulings and laws dictate otherwise is not without precedent. In 1967 Muhammad Ali refused induction into the U.S. Army on the basis that taking part in a “Christian war” as he put it, was against the teachings of the Koran. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor. In 1972 the Amish of Wyoming were granted an exemption from sending their children to public schools as state law required. They argued that doing so was against their religious teachings, and the Supreme Court agreed. A religious exemption in the Affordable Care Act allows Muslims who don’t receive or pay into Social Security to be free from Obamacare requirements.
The New Mexico Supreme Court seemed totally ignorant of all this when it ruled that Elane Huguenin, a Christian photographer, could not refuse to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony even though homosexuality is against her Christian religious beliefs. Huguenin argued that participating in the ceremony would have forced her to tacitly endorse both homosexuality and same-sex unions and thus violate the teachings of her religion. Dismissing her arguments as utter nonsense and ignoring the fact that same-sex marriages are not allowed in New Mexico, Justice Richard Bosson wrote, “…At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others.” Typical of liberal reasoning, the lesbian couple didn’t have to compromise but the Christian photographer did. Apparently, the “all of us” in Bosson’s opinion doesn’t include lesbians when it comes to accommodating the values of others. When dealing with the liberal left, tolerance and acceptance are always a one-way street.
It is this case and the probability of other similar cases that prompted Rep. Bill Dunn and Sen. Mike Bell to recently sponsor the now-withdrawn Religious Freedom Act. Contrary to typical liberal spin, the bill was not about refusing service to gays and lesbians by people who hate homosexuals; it was about protecting Tennessee business owners from being sued over refusing to be a party to same-sex unions which are not even legally recognized in this state.
Sen. Bell has since withdrawn the bill and stated that it is not necessary as Tennessee law already provides such legal protections. Bell is overly optimistic because at some point it is inevitable that a gay or lesbian couple will sue a religious person who is a baker, photographer, or whatever for refusing to make a wedding cake, take photos, or provide some other service or product for a same-sex union. It will happen.
People of faith who provide goods and services that could possibly be used in weddings need either legislative or constitutional protections against being required to act contrary to their religion for the benefit of individuals who (a) simply wish to strike back at Christianity for being, as they see it, historically oppressive to people of their sexual orientation; (b) seek to force the public in general to not only tolerate but actually accept homosexuality as normal and to be expected; or (c) wish to maintain a personal, subjective sense of dignity by not being discriminated against as they perceive it.
Revenge, a flawed social agenda, and personal ego issues are not sufficient justifications for forcing people to violate their religious principles. Tolerance has its limits.

Leave a comment