The ground in the middle

            Let’s see where to begin. First, I could let this whole thing go and not make any opinion but if this blog has any merit, I can’t.

            If one holds to a personal opinion, that by definition is anti or against another person’s opinion. That doesn’t mean, by definition again, that one person’s personal opinion is filled with hate. It simply doesn’t. But one side of this important cultural if not significant religious argument always says it is hateful to have that opinion.

            Simple, right? But this gets complicated quickly.

            The question that pops up immediately, in light of the recent events and legislation proposed, is does any legislation that doesn’t, by definition, protect LBGT rights automatically be classified as hate-filled.? Or, on the other side, is any action by LBGT is automatically anti-Christian or anti-religion?

            I have to believe that’s not true, and there must be a middle ground, though I understand no one wants to even talk about that. As a moderate Christian, a centrist Evangelical Methodist, let me propose this: Government can’t tell me what to preach, but churches can’t make anyone believe, well, anything. And perhaps most importantly to remember is the fact that the Bible teaches clearly that all fall short, all sin, all are in need of a savior.

            That’s the greatness (and at times our weakness) of this country and of our faith. God doesn’t make us believe anything. We are free to find faith or to leave Him alone, no matter our religion.

            If God allows that freedom, can we be any different?

            So, how did this make becomes such an issue?

            Before we can answer that question, I think we need to explore what has been passed recently in (my home state) Mississippi’s state senate.

            Here goes (and it’s long, long, long)

            HB 1523 in Mississippi would bar the state from taking action against anyone who discriminates based on their belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman, that sexual relations should be reserved to such a union, or that "male" and "female" refer to someone's "immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth."

            Let me say clearly there was a time when I had trouble with a single person adopting a child, till it became clear to me that if I was to be against abortion, I must be in favor of adoption, and by that I must mean any adoption by anyone is preferable.

            This bill would amend that thought.

            Tax-payer funded faith-based organizations could: refuse to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples for provision of critical services including emergency shelter; deny children in need of loving homes placement with LGBT families including the child’s own family member; and refuse to sell or rent a for-profit home to an LGBT person -- even if the organization receives government funding.

            As introduced, H.B. 1523 would also give foster families the freedom to subject an LGBTQ child to the dangerous practice of “conversion therapy,” and subject a pregnant unwed girl to abuse, without fear of government intervention or license suspension. It would even allow individuals to refuse to carry out the terms of a state contract for the provision of counseling services to all eligible individuals, including veterans, based on the counselor's beliefs about LGBT people or single mothers.

            Furthermore, schools, employers and service providers could implement sex-specific dress and grooming standards, as well as refuse transgender people access to the appropriate sex-segregated facilities, consistent with their gender identity -- all in conflict with the United States Department of Justice’s enforcement of federal law. H.B. 1523 even legalizes Kim Davis-style discrimination by allowing government employees to abdicate their duties and refuse to license or solemnize marriages for LGBT people. 

            Finally, Such "sincerely held" beliefs include the conviction that: 

(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;

(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and

(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.

            Assessing what kind of discriminatory situations this would enable is easy, because the bill spells those out as well. So long as individuals are motivated by “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction,” any of the following behaviors would have the endorsement of the government:

•              Religious organizations can decline to solemnize any marriage or provide any services related to recognizing that marriage.

•              Religious organizations can refuse to hire, fire, and discipline employees for violating the organization’s religious beliefs.

•              Religious organizations can choose not to sell, rent, or otherwise provide shelter.

•              Religious organizations that provide foster or adoptive services can decline service without risking their state subsidies.

•              Any foster or adoptive parent can impose their religious beliefs on their children.

•              Any person can choose not to provide treatment, counseling, or surgery related to gender transition or same-sex parenting.

•              Any person (including any business) can choose not to provide services for any marriage ceremony or occasion that involves recognizing a marriage, including:

                                    Photography

                                    Poetry

                                    Videography

                                    Disc-Jockey Services

                                    Wedding Planning

                                    Printing

                                    Publishing

                                    Floral Arrangements

                                    Dress Making

                                    Cake or Pastry Artistry

                                    Assembly-Hall or Other Wedding-Venue Rentals

                                    Limousine or Other Car-Service Rentals

                                    Jewelry Sales And Services

•              Any person can establish “sex-specific standards or policies concerning employee or student dress or grooming,” and can manage the access of restrooms and other sex-segregated facilities.

•              Any state employee can openly express their beliefs without consequence.

            Any state employee can choose not to authorize or license legal marriages by recusing themselves from those duties.           

            Oh, my. And oh, my.

            Look, there is no doubt whatsoever that this goes much farther than simply protecting the rights of those whose religious beliefs might be affected. It wants to completely shun persons in our society who believe very differently than Christians on the right side of the political aisle. All peoples in our society should be protected from discrimination. All.

            This, without question, discriminates on a part of our society, even if the bill was legitimately drafted to protect another part of the same society. And there is nothing in this story that says to me it was drafted with that in mind.

            Look, here’s my thoughts, and I’m sure the LGBT community and possibly the Christian as well, won’t necessarily like them, just as I’m sure others won’t as well.

            As a pastor, I’ve always had the right (as far as I’ve been taught) to decide after several pre-marital counseling sessions whom I will marry. That shouldn’t be trampled, I think. Does that mean pastors will or won’t decide two persons of the same sex will be married in churches we serve? That’s for the individual pastor to decide, I believe.

            The rest, I think, is none of my business. Or yours.

            What people do at the Justice of the Peace’s office, what they do in their bedrooms, what they do with their children, what they do in business (any business), is simply none of my (or anyone else’s) business.

            I can quote passages of scripture till the cows come home, and I often do, but that doesn’t mean I’m given the right to judge anymore than did the disciples of Jesus Christ.

            In our culture, in our society, to think that government would do more than taking away religious beliefs and (here’s the key) imposing those beliefs on those who don’t share them is wrong. Does, or can, the government make anyone believe in scripture one way or the other? No, it can’t, by the constitution.

            Mississippi Republicans say the bill protects those whose religious beliefs might go against the Supreme Court's marriage-equality ruling. "I don't think it's discriminatory," said Senator Jenifer Branning in a speech to her colleagues. "It takes no rights away from anyone. It gives protection to those in the state who cannot in a good conscience provide services for a same-sex marriage." 

            That’s simply not true. It does discriminate, by not allowing certain persons to avail themselves of things in the public square.

            However, Democrats say that it does much more than that — they maintain that it's overly broad and protects religious discrimination in too many settings. "They say it’s about same-sex marriage," said Senator John Horhn. "If that’s the case, why does it include adoptions? The[n] why does it allow discrimination in medical services? The reason we are so adamantly opposed to it is because we have already been there. We don’t need to put another stain on Mississippi." 

            I can’t help but reflect to when Mississippi didn’t serve some in businesses simply because they were of a different color. It’s not exactly the same, but it’s closest enough to make the argument.

            Do we really, really want to reach a stage where we’re taking children from loving homes? Do we?

            In Utah recently lawmakers passed a law that protects people of faith and gay and transgender Utahns from discrimination and employment. It is possible to find the center on these things. The law should protect churches and those who work in them, and it should protect all people’s right to fair

Housing, adoption, medical benefits, etc. If we can’t do that, then who are we?