A CAREFUL VIEW OF SCRIPTURE with Regard to LGBT Questions
Politics - Analysis of Objections (for older version of ENDA)
What follows are some common Christian objections I have found to ENDA along with my response.
It is clear from certain Christian's opposition to ENDA that no form of ENDA is acceptable to them. Per the articles listed, they want ENDA vetoed no matter what it says. So arguments over its content are irrelevant to them as can be seen in this link. Since the objections in the link I shared are typical I used them as a basis for this analysis...
Claim: ENDA and H.R. 3685 would create federally-protected “rights” based on immoral, unhealthy and changeable homosexual / bisexual behavior — masquerading as “orientation”.
We already have federally protected human rights. Satan worshippers, Muslim fundamentalists, witches and warlocks are all protected under freedom of religion. Satan worship is not a civil right but freedom of religion is. Therefore it is protected. Our current civil rights laws validate religions that Christians would call counterfeit, and against God. So this argument that protection of gays validates immorality is irrelevant. Our civil rights and freedom of religion principles already do that.
I might add that if we as Christians want to continue to live peacefully in this country perhaps we had better stop arguing this way. Our freedoms come from these rights. The same rights that we rely on are also extended to those who we might even consider evil or anti-Christ. So when we say thing like this we chip away at our own protection under law
If the people who write these sorts of things truly believed them they would be campaigning against non-Christian religions and complaining about how they have to hire pagans.
Claim: ENDA’s “sexual orientation” includes 30 orientations including bestiality and pedophilia.
This is either political spin at its worst or blatant lying.
· First of all, this business of referring to bestiality and pedophilia in connection with homosexuality is a standard Christian trick designed to stir up other Christians through fear. Gay marriage is abut two mutual consenting adults forming a committed relationship with each other. Pedophilia is about using manipulation and conquest to seduce children. And bestiality is about fulfilling lust with a non-human being. They are not the same.
· Secondly, ENDA is very specific about what it means by sexual orientation. Sexual Orientation per ENDA means homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality. It didi not include 30 different orientations. To even make such a claim is ludicrous. Additionally PFLAG, a leading gay rights organization condemns pedophilia and Nambla (North American Man boy Love Assoc.).
Claim: ENDA / H.R. 3685 would be used to defend the placement of openly homosexual and bisexual teachers in our nation’s public schools
As in my response to the first objection, under freedom of religion, all kinds of people are protected now. The Muslim extremist who believes America is the great Satan is currently given the right to be hired as a teacher by our civil laws. Note to the many Muslims out there who are peaceful: Please do not be offended by this. I am not grouping you all together as one just as I am not grouping all Christians together as one.
As a side note...
I have yet to see Christians who supposedly love Christ and thus love all people offer any sort of protection to gay and lesbian youth who have suffered and are suffering from the cruelty of their peers. Just recently I saw in the news where a gay teenage boy was shot to death by a fellow student. What are we doing about this? If we had offered a different solution to the schools early on in this mess then we world not have other so called gay activists filling the void. As loving Christians we have done NOTHING in this area except protest anti-gay bullying efforts and reject and even boycott events such as the Day of Silence (whose purpose is to raise awareness of bullying)
Claim: ENDA / H.R. 3685 would punish Christians and religious traditionalists by leading directly to the loss of freedom for tradition-minded business owners with 15 or more employees.
Jewish and Christian secular business owners are prohibited from discriminating against anyone due to their religious beliefs under the current legislation. In other words the Jewish book store owner cannot refuse to hire an Islamic fundamentalist. The Christian book store owner is not permitted to discriminate by refusing to hire someone who worships the devil. If the religious liberties of Jews and Christians are of such a big concern to you why not work to eliminate laws that prohibit discrimination due to a person’s religion?
Claim: ENDA is unnecessary: there is no outbreak of homosexuals getting fired.
Many states do not have protection for people who are gay from being fired because of their orientation.
Claim: ENDA / H.R. 3685 would dramatically expand the power of the federal government and would put it behind ONE SIDE of the homosexuality debate:
As mentioned earlier, federal protections exist for hate groups, white supremacy groups, devil worshippers, and people who practice witchcraft. While the federal got protects all those I have just mentioned it does not put the federal government on the side of hate groups, devil worshippers etc. It simply says that they have a right to work...
Claim: ENDA would trample on the rights of the 30 states without homosexuality-based “sexual orientation” laws.
Since when is it a right to fire someone else because of their beliefs or moral practices. We don’t do that now. I could put up an endless list of moral violations that people are not fired for; adultery, sleeping around, multiple sex partners, anti-Christian religions, failing to tithe (scripture calls this robbing God), adultery, getting divorced etc.. People are not fired for these things. And many of these have to do with the sexual practices of heterosexuals.
Claim: ENDA’s “religious exemption” is extremely limited and narrowly tailored.
Neither version of ENDA was extremely limited for religious institutions. The fact is that ONLY religious groups are given the right to discriminate by the federal govt. No other groups, with the exception of private clubs, are given these rights.
Claim: H.R. 3685 is going to open the door for transgender anti discrimination laws.
So what? Transgender people have a right to work too. Unless you would rather provide for their daily needs because you won't allow them to work
Claim: H.R. 3685’s exemption for “religious organizations” would divide society further by effectively creating a two-tiered system of rights.
We have that now. As mentioned earlier only religious groups can discriminate because of person beliefs or because of a person’s sex. What’s the problem? The only way to resolve this two tiered system would be to dissolve the right of religious groups to discriminate based on religious beliefs and sex, or to allow all businesses to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs and sex. I seriously doubt that churches would be eager to pursue either of these options.
Claim: ENDA / H.R. 3685 will lead to further compromise in the Church: its religious exemption would mollify pastors and make them LESS likely to stand on principle and fight the aggressive homosexual agenda,
Churches have enjoyed special rights for decades in choosing their clergy and leaders based on moral qualification and even gender qualifications. Efforts to usurp these rights have failed. Its called first amendment right of freedom of religion. If that right was not there you would not even see this special right given to the church to discriminate against people because of their sex or beliefs. Additionally ... if the church needs the government to shore up its belief systems then it has much bigger problems to worry about.
Additionally, abortion being legalized did not impede the church from its pro-life stance. So why would simple non-discrimination laws which the church is immune from make them less likely to stand on issues? Is the church so weak that it needs the support of government to maintain its stance? If so, then it does not sound like the glorious church that Christ is the head of.
Claim: ENDA confuses the issue of civil rights in America and trivializes African Americans’ struggle against discrimination.
Much of this argument is based on choice and the idea that homosexuals can change their orientation. Rather than argue about that lets just realize that making an argument on 'born with' versus 'choice' is a dangerous argument to make. Religion is a choice. Being a Christian is a choice. What if Christianity were outlawed on the basis that people can change their religion? I doubt we would like it.
As for the race question.... While I would not necessarily assign the idea of race to homosexuals I would most certainly assign the idea of identity to homosexuals. The cause of this identity is unknown. Some say it is biological and others say it is nurture and some say it is both.
Additionally, Martin Luther Kings’ wife, Correta Scott King, endorsed equality for homosexuals, so I find it difficult to go against her. See this website and this website for further information on her position.
Claim: ENDA would grant special employment rights and protected minority status to individuals who define themselves based upon chosen sexual behaviors.
As covered earlier, the right not to be discriminated against because of your religious beliefs is based on something you choose... Additionally these are not “special rights”. They are rights granted to every human being except lgbt individuals. If people were fair in employment practices there would be no need for minority status protection for lgbt individuals.
Claim: Only churches and mainly pastors are exempt from ENDA and that is not even guaranteed. One article stated (before they rewrote it) that pastors barely escape ENDA’s provisions
As has been clearly documented, both versions of the bill provided for more than adequate exemption for churches and Christian schools that teach a belief. The only complaints you are really seeing now are that secular businesses are not exempt