Values addressed: Love people, Seek and share truth
Today we celebrated Martin Luther King Day. Since those days that Dr. King spoke his famous words, “I have a dream…” we have made considerable progress in empowering black Americans to take hold of the “American Dream” and to pursue happiness. We now have black members of Congress and even a black president. Many honor, perhaps worship, various black athletes and other sports and entertainment figures. We have black entrepreneurs and black teachers and professors. We have black doctors and lawyers. Some blacks have become wealthy, as well. The African American has now made his/her way into most spheres of American life.
But though we’ve made some progress, by far, it’s not perfect. We still have some white arrogance manifested in presumed white superiority and antagonism against blacks. We still see racial incidents occur. We also now see the rise of some black arrogance leading to words and actions that seem to imply black superiority.
Since Dr. King’s stand for the equality of people, another group—inspired by the civil rights progress many blacks have enjoyed—has been attempting to use the umbrella of civil rights to advance its own cause. They want us to believe their cause is as worthy as the one Dr. King fought for, and that there is little substantial difference.
It is true this group has often been treated unfairly—even inhumanely, just as blacks have been. Their plight indeed reminds us of Dr. King’s view that we are all children of God and should be treated with decency and civility. As with black Americans, these Americans are in the midst of uncivilized conduct between opposing groups. In fact, it seems now that hostility between orientations is now a prominent feature of the American cultural landscape.
However, while the African American civil rights movement was really about one single issue, the LGBT groups are attempting to push two completely different issues through as a single one. The earlier civil rights movement was about treating people decently and fairly as human beings. That was basically the total sum of what the movement was about—a worthy and long-overdue goal. This newer movement, however, connects behavior and choices with human rights, in effect telling the world, “We are people worthy of decency and respect, so you must accept our behaviors and choices.”
This is a fallacy, an attempt to twist a little truth with a little lie. And people seem to be buying into it. The truth is that we should indeed treat all people with respect, appreciate the good that is in them, and be willing to help them, regardless of their color or race, their gender, or their choices regarding sex. This is a worthy and morally upright thing to strive for. On the other hand, one’s behavior is not automatically acceptable because of this. Many, from a religious perspective, regard sex outside marriage and sex between people of the same sex as morally wrong. The very first right enumerated in the Bill of Rights refers to freedom of religion. If we truly value that right of freedom of religion, then we shouldn’t expect people to support or encourage what they view as morally offensive behavior.
As society seems more accepting of people’s choice to live in same-sex relationships, we have now seen the rise of some gay arrogance. On occasion, we hear news reports of lawsuits by gays against businesses for refusing a service to them. Rather than choose a business that is willing to perform the service, some have chosen instead to use the legal process to attempt to force businesses to cater to their wishes, against the moral or religious views which they hold. To me this seems a form of reverse intolerance. A business should always retain the right to refuse types of actions and services that they find unprofitable, offensive, immoral, or not in good taste. At the same time, they must always be careful to clearly distinguish that they refuse to perform specific actions regardless of who it is for, rather than refusing to serve the individual.
The validity of refusing specific actions is more obvious when we use other types of examples to illustrate the point. So here are some scenarios to compare against the attacks made by gays against businesses.
1. Gays have made legal issues about businesses refusing to make a cake for same-sex weddings.
- Compare: A man goes to a bakery and orders a cake with the image of a package of cigarettes and one cigarette off to the side that is lit and smoking. The person at the counter says, “I’m not going to make a cake with cigarettes on it. I don’t feel it’s right.” Does this guy have a right to sue? I doubt many people would think so. It would probably be classified a frivolous lawsuit.
- What if the man had asked for the image of a machine gun to be on the cake? Should he sue if the cake maker refuses? Not the way I see it!
- For another perspective: Suppose the cake maker refuses to sell a cake to a college student who says it’s for a fraternity party. The cake maker, knowing the nature of these parties, refuses. I’d say he has a right to refuse to support the party, if he genuinely believes the party is likely to be a menace to the neighborhood.
2. Gays have also made an issue about photographers refusing to take photos at same-sex weddings.
- Compare: Suppose a photographer is asked to take seductive photos of someone’s girlfriend (with her consent), but the photographer refuses. He has a right to refuse such a service on moral grounds.
- Suppose a photographer refuses to take pictures of a legally appointed execution because he doesn’t believe executions are morally right or because she just doesn’t want to be exposed to the gore that would be present. Again, the photographer has a right to refuse on moral grounds or just out of plain disgust.
I have a dream that we all will make Martin Luther King, Jr’s dream of people treating each other as equals come true for our nation. So help us, God and bless our nation.
What to teach children:
- Remember that all people have value and worth, no matter how they live, their genetic characteristics, their statuses, their beliefs, and so on.
- Because everyone has value and worth, we should have “charity for all” (Pres. Lincoln’s words)
- Behaviors are not the person and are not above question
- Stand up for what they believe is right, but don’t clothe it in lies to sell it
- Religion was such an important issue that the Founding Fathers included it first in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, and as such we should respect each other’s religious faith.
