Be "okay" with gay or else...
Here is the standout line, hyperlink to the article included: This is not marriage equality. It is the setup for a knockdown.
Admittedly the article is written by a Pentecostal and not a Catholic. But we should be concerned, there will be no differentiation made when this law kicks in. Plus the Catholic Church is always a target of opportunity for anyone with an agenda.
If anyone thinks this won't spread from Washington, think back to how gay marriage has gone from one state to being an issue in so many others. It hasn't happened here in Texas yet. But the key word is "yet".
The bottom line is that those of us adhering to traditional values can no longer expect to have a "live and let live" attitude about this topic. It'll soon be a case of choosing a side and standing by for the consequences. I see a lot of hate and discord coming, not the least in my own wife's family. There are a heck of a lot of gay aunts and cousins there, up until now it's just been something not discussed. I doubt that will be allowed to continue.
Gird your loins for battle and pray for all concerned. God's will be done.
4 comments:
Chilling, just like stepping outside when it's well below zero. The cold hits me in the face first, hard, and my first instinct is to recoil.
But if I stay out long enough, just standing there, the cold creeps into me, and if I do nothing long enough, it will paralyze and kill me.
We cannot afford to just stand there and do nothing! This must be fought!
Old Bob, exactly!
Things are going to get awful.
It seems excessive that this could apply to churches just doing a bake sale or selling coffee, so I scanned the bill—the relevant part is a new section that is being added, section 7. I think it would be a stretch to read it like that. It refers to 49.60 RCW: Discrimination (which, to clarify, is already on the books). Note that it only refers to goods, services and facilities actually sold—no one in the clergy is going to be forced to actually marry them, just that you can't just let any member of the public can rent your space unless they're going to use it in some way related to a same-sex wedding.
In other words—and assuming I've read it right, please do read it yourself and come to your own conclusions!—you wouldn't have to suddenly host same-sex weddings if you sold some cakes from a stall, but you couldn't sell cakes to anyone, then suddenly refuse to sell it to someone who was buying it for a gay wedding reception buffet. You wouldn't need to host same-sex weddings in your chapel if it was ordinarily available only to Christian services, but you would if you rented out your chapel to the general public for e.g. civil services.
Services offered to the general public in Washington are already subject to anti-discrimination laws; this just adds same-sex marriages to the existing protections. It may be appropriate to offer more latitude to churches in this respect, but it should be for everyone, not just same-sex couples. It would also be appropriate to require a degree of transparency up front; imagine if you booked and paid for your wedding reception venue when suddenly, after you've sent out all the invitations to your friends and family, they turn round and say, "No, sorry, we didn't realise it was someone like you, we're not going to host you any more!" If that sounds far-fetched, it's exactly what happened to a lesbian couple in Canada.
Can you imagine what a nightmare that would be? So at the very least, if you make it legal that churches can offer commercial services while discriminating against anyone they please for whatever reason, they should at least be prepared to clearly spell out exactly who they discriminate against in advance.
Post a Comment