Uncategorized

More anti-gay stuff from the supposed libertarians

Don’t you just love how the “libertarians” at the Locke Foundation (a group who’s director claims he’s opposed to the Marriage Discrimination Amendment but who won’t lift a finger to actually help the effort to defeat it) still find little ways to subtly defend the pro-discrimination/pro-hate message in the name of “liberty”?

Check out this morning’s “Carolina Journal Exclusive” in which the Locke people have turned over their morning column to a conservative UNC student so he can complain about a UNC decision to review the action of a  ”Christian” singing group to boot out a gay student because of his beliefs about homosexuality. How dare anyone question the group’s right to kick out someone because of his personal opposition to hate and discrimination? And, of course, we know the decision to kick him out had nothing to do with the fact that he is gay; it’s just his belief that homosexuality is not a sin that has the group up in arms.

As an aside, does this mean that it would be okay for a “Christian” singing group that thought interracial marriage to be a sin to kick out someone who thought otherwise? 

This is not to say that there aren’t some complicated aspects to this debate. It does seems reasonable for, say, a political group to be able to establish some kind of belief litmus tests. But this is pretty easily distinguishable from a publicly sanctioned and subsidized singing group kicking out members because they are opposed to discrimination.    

Of course, as the Huffington Post wryly noted this morning, there are a lot of other Biblical “sins” and beliefs that are grounds for discipline by “Christians.” I’m sure it’ll just be a matter of time before the “Christian” singing group will be booting members who believe it’s okay to get rounded haircuts or to have tattoos.  

Can’t wait for the Lockers to run an op-ed promoting that decision.  

 

11 Comments

  1. javier

    March 8, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    I’m sure it’ll just be a matter of time before the “Christian” singing group will be booting members who believe it’s okay to get rounded haircuts or to have tattoos.”

    No. The New Testament says that believers in Christ are not under the Old Testament Levitical Law; they are under grace through faith in Jesus Christ. ow have a new covenant or contract between Christ and the individual and the believer. The sins are paid for by Christ’s blood, and he takes on the punihsment for the trangression of those who break God’s law and accept his payment. The old covenant and our enmity with it is now abolished (Eph. 2:15).

    However, the prohibition against any sex outside of marriage is repeated in the Christian’s New Testament, including in I Corinthians 6:9. In fact, Jesus went further and said lust is akin to adultery. So, Christians, though not under the Old Testament Law, must obey the moral commandments found in the New Testament, including sexual morality.

  2. Rob Schofield

    March 8, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    I see — thanks Javier. Sounds like we need to set up a new “Ask Javier” page so we can run all of our personal questions about morality by you and your special connection to the Almighty.

  3. jlp75

    March 8, 2012 at 12:41 pm

    Neither Testament is relevant when it comes to making laws. The only thing that matters is the Constitution. Might I remind you of the 1st Amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    In other words you are free to worship how you wish, but you are not free to force your religion on others through the law.

  4. Disinterested observer

    March 8, 2012 at 1:20 pm

    Freedom of association and freedom of religion are fast losing respect from the left. If you aren’t in complete lockstep with the current sexual morals of contemporary society, you will be harassed, sued, and regulated into compliance.
    If this was my group, I would have zero problem with allowing any singer to join, regardless of sexual orientation. If I owned a small business, I would happily provide birth control coverage in my insurance policies. The vast majority of people would do the same. However, I will fight for those who choose otherwise-those whose religious beliefs don’t perfectly mesh with my own.
    Liberals used to respect a diversity of opinion and thought, but they have fallen so deeply in love with the tools of state coercion that those founding principles have little weight compared to the enforcement of their social agenda.

  5. gregflynn

    March 8, 2012 at 3:48 pm

    1 Corinthians 6:9 has been abused by wishful translations of ambiguous words for centuries. I does not mean what you want it to mean.

    As to the premise of lust as grounds for dismissal I daresay that if fully enforced, absent a vow of chastity, the club would have no members. A presumption of celibacy should be extended to all members, regardless of sexual orientation.

  6. M Hooper

    March 8, 2012 at 4:05 pm

    the tools of state coercion? enforcement of their social agenda?
    Personally, I’m tired of the Bible thumpers trying to use the tools of state coercion to force me to comply with THEIR social agenda. Constitutional amendments that will cost the taxpayers a small fortune to defend in front of SCOTUS? Kicking decent people out of groups because they don’t agree with a modern interpretation of a part of the Bible? The Bible, btw, has had so many translations and interpretations in the last 2 thou years that if you get the right copy of any of the multiple dozens of the big book that you can defend any kind of bigotry by slapping folks in the face with your chosen version.
    I agree that personal morals have slid downhill in the last few decades. I surely don’t want to look at the torsos of people who wear rings in their navels, nor at their faces with rings, and I won’t give approval of childbirth by single women by attending their baby showers, and there are plenty of singers whose mouths i’d like to wash out with laundry soap, but I just take care of my patch and wait for the pendulum to swing. Once again, we’ll have women going abroad for abortions. And those who can’t afford that will die from coat hanger induced abortions. We had it that way before Viet Nam and it’ll be that way again, until young people one again have enough of warmongers, haters of all sorts, and riot in the streets to change it all over again. The cycle of history keeps on rolling along.
    Get a life, folks, and leave the rest of us alone. Your religion is your business. Stop trying to make adhering to it my business. As long as folks are not harming others, let them darned well make a joyful noise and take care of your own affairs. Conformity is its own hell on earth.

  7. Disinterested observer

    March 8, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    You want to be left alone? Fine. Then have the decency to let Belmont Abbey write its own insurance policies and have one small choral group at UNC adhere to its vision of a religious text. They aren’t trying to make you comply with their vision-you are trying to force them to cover things they find morally reprehensible or make endorse what they view as “sin” in their groups.
    Homosexuality and birth control are accepted by the vast majority of people. There is no need to force a few remaining pockets of religiously based dissenters into conformity.

  8. HunterC

    March 8, 2012 at 7:29 pm

    As soon as they stop being subsidized by taxpayers, Belmont Abbey and groups at UNC have the right to discriminate as much as they want.

  9. Doug

    March 9, 2012 at 9:41 am

    I think it’s quite funny that the liberal commentator Roland Martin of all people was nabbed by the Gay Police for his rude comments, and ended up losing his CNN job. Those folks can be downright nasty !

  10. Jesse Jordan

    March 21, 2012 at 12:01 am

    What old are you Rob? 13? 14? Talk about intolerance and shallow logic. Obviously it is to your exalted opinion that you expect Javier and everyone who disagrees with you to submit. How blind can you be to your own self-serving hypocrisy?

  11. Jesse Jordan

    March 21, 2012 at 12:04 am

    Hey Rob, ever read this?

    The Progressive Pulse welcomes the contributions of interested people of all points of view provided they are of a reasonable length, have some relevance to issues of North Carolina public policy and abide by the common rules of online etiquette …

    Hypocrite