Posted on 04/12/2019 9:03:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
Jack Phillips may be able to bake cakes as his conscience dictates, but the conflict between religious conscience rights and the expanding rights of LGBT Americans is ongoing. Exhibit A: the Equality Act pending before Congress, which would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected classes, forcing tens of millions of Americans who hold traditional views of marriage and sexuality to conform to a new sexual worldview or face consequences. As Congress considers the Equality Act in the coming days, it’s instructive to consider the similarities between LGBT ideologues of today and the equally dogmatic 17th century Puritans; it’s possible past lessons may provide a roadmap to peaceful resolution to today’s impasse between America’s conservative religious citizens and LGBT activists.
Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America told us the Puritans left England due to severe persecution for their beliefs, and they searched for a new land where they could live “…as they wished and pray to God in liberty.” Unfortunately, once the Puritans established their lives in New England, they eventually began persecuting citizens in the very ways they had escaped. Puritans in Connecticut passed the Code of 1650 that imposed fines and punishment which, per Tocqueville, “repeatedly intruded upon the realm of conscience.”
The First Amendment was, in part, a response to the Puritans’ harsh penal codes. The Library of Congress displays the notes of James Madison, Father of the Constitution, from when he introduced the Bill of Rights in 1789. Madison moved that “the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.”
And in his other writings, Madison wrote, “The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.”
So, what does all of this have to do with LGBT activists? Like the Puritans, LGBT activists have transitioned from persecuted minority to persecuting authority. As evidenced from recent testimony on the Equality Act, one LGBT activist, speaking on behalf of many, believes giving transgender Americans special status under the law should not even be questioned or debated. This extreme position aside, thankfully, the First Amendment provides us a possible model for coexistence.
LGBT activists suggest some are born with particular sexual orientations, or a gender identity that might not match one’s biological sex. Whether they’re correct or not, given science’s inability to definitively prove these assertions, they are largely matters of belief and choice, not entirely dissimilar in some respects to religious belief, which also involves choice and requires faith.
If the LGBT movement is viewed through the lens of religion—instead of comparing it to race, a legally and historically faulty analogy—we might be able to find a peaceable way forward where orthodox Christians, Muslims, Jews and others will not be forced to affirm LGBT ways of life, and, conversely, where religious people would not be able to force LGBT citizens back into the closet.
To see how this could work in practice, let’s look at a recent dispute in California. Over the past year, parents have been protesting at school boards statewide because the California legislature passed laws (the FAIR Education Act and the California Healthy Youth Act) that are now being used as justification to force school children, as early as five years old, to hear that gender is on a spectrum or that you can be born with a girl brain in a boy body. Parents are rightly outraged.
Despite parental protests, California governments are picking LGBT views over traditional views and forcing the LGBT movement’s views on children. However, if LGBT views were treated the same as religious views, schools would not be allowed to proselytize children in regard to LGBT issues, as that would violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause by endorsing and sponsoring a religious viewpoint. LGBT proponents would still be free to proselytize in their homes, but they could not rely on the state to indoctrinate children over their dissenting parents’ objections.
Unless a meaningful accommodation is reached, and if laws like the puritanical Equality Act are passed, we will likely see history repeat itself as orthodox Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc., will be forced to confess with their word and deed that they affirm an ideology that goes against their conscience and millennia of practice, and they will be forced out of their jobs and ultimately, the public square. The Obergefell majority that imposed same-sex marriage on America assured conscience protections to those who opposed same-sex marriage, but the post-Obergefell reality affirms what Justice Alito predicted when he wrote in dissent that “…those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”
Under the First Amendment, Americans need not abide forced indoctrination, whether by Puritans or progressives. And hopefully, today’s progressive agenda on sexuality goes the way of the Puritans’ harsh penal codes. Until then, the question is whether we will reach an accommodation before our social fabric becomes too torn to repair. Nothing less than the fate of our ordered liberty hangs in the balance.
“...California governments are picking LGBT views over traditional views and forcing the LGBT movement’s views on children....”
Continuing to force the queer agenda down the throats of American citizens.
I could co-exist quite well if they’d hush and leave me alone, but they’re like window washers in a city loaded with red lights.
Absurd.
There is no conflict between the free exercise of religion and any act of pretended legislation, since the Congress cannot amend the Constitution by legislation.
The first words of Amendment I are "Congress shall make no law". That's really the end of the discussion.
Here’s what a “peaceful coexistence” deal with homos looks like:
- We leave them alone to do their thing on their own
- They do not get to pretend their relationships are marriages nor compel anyone else to recognize them as such
- They do not get any sort of anti-discrimination protection whatsoever and cannot force unwilling others to do business with them in any way
- They are barred from all professions that have contact with children.
- They are barred from contact with unrelated children, period.
- No sodomite parades in the street.
- No more imposing demands of any sort from that quarter, ever.
That’s the deal. Keep to yourselves, get left alone.
The alternative is we go back to making homosexuality illegal again, which was probably the right solution all along.
How Americans of Conscience Can Co-Exist with the LGBT Community: A Possible Path Forward
______________________________________________
Great Headline. Too bad the author didn’t answer the question or pose that “Possible Path Forward”.
Yep. When sodomy was illegal in all 50 states - America was a much greater nation.
Nope,sorry...no “coexistence” from me.I draw the line at the delusional and the depraved.
Co-exist with cancer?
Detente with Ebola?
Thanks I am happy in the male female straight heterosexual community.
;)
[[and the expanding rights of LGBT Americans is ongoing.]]
Correction:
and the EXTRA RIGHTS GRANTED BY CONGRESS AND SUPREME COURT IN AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANNER of LGBT Americans is ongoing.
LGBTQ is a political organization. It is a special-interest group seeking benefits from the Government. No different from the American Chamber of Commerce, CAIR or the Democratic Socialists of America.
If you have a political agenda - prepare to be questioned, opposed and attacked.
first , the Democrats need to nominate Buttigieg. And then lose .
We can’t co-exist with them because allowing them their liberty to live their lives as they choose in peace is no longer good enough for them.
You must BOW DOWN, EMBRACE and APPROVE of what they do in the bedroom, otherwise you are EEEEEEEEVIL, you are HITLER, and you DESERVE the worst punishments society can dredge up.
Now tell me, how are we supposed to co-exist with THAT?
Just pay for your own healthcare and keep your hands off the kids.
Otherwise, I don’t care.
It is sickening that a majority of blacks are so pacified by Liberalism that they have no idea how disgusting this is. Women have also been blindsided by this BS. The Leftists hijack everything it can to ultimately crush this country by division.
The author’s solution is premised on the willingness of the LGBTA2Z people to consider their arguments religious. There is no benefit to them in agreeing to that. They argue that it is scientific, just not yet established, and there is precious little one can do to refute that argument.
Two well known media people, are also friends.
Ben Shapiro, observant orthodox Jew.
Dave Rubin, married gay man.
They have apparently arrived at a mutually satisfactory way to remain on the best of terms.
They appear separately and together, on podcasts.
Youtube channels, featuring long-format discussions.
Ben of course is a well known conservative. Dave is a libertarian-classical liberal.
They appear separately and together, on podcasts.
channels, featuring long-format discussions.
I have been listening to them and other members of the Intellectual Dark Web, on their Youtube.
If you have not tried this, you may be very pleasantlly surprised.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.