Pastors and other Christian leaders in San Antonio want their city to reject a controversial new non-discrimination measure.
The proposed ordinance would require individuals, businesses, religious organizations, and places of public accommodation to protect “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression.”
But the San Antonio Human Rights Coalition says while the bill is designed to end discrimination against gays, it would actually create new discrimination against Christians.
The group agrees everyone should be treated with dignity, but they issued a statement saying the measure punishes people of faith by violating their rights of conscience and speech.
For example, Christians could be blocked from working for the city if they have a biblical view on homosexuality or marriage.
Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver points out Twitter already shut down one pastor’s account after he tried to tell people about the upcoming vote.
Read more at http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2013/August/San-Antonio-Pastors-LGBT-Ordinance-Violates-Conscience/
This ordinance is rife with grey areas. It covers churches for the religious exemptions, but not people who wish to live out their faith in the public square, or in conjuction with their small business. For example:
Say a transgender “woman” applies to work for Hooters. *Him* with his bulky, robust physique, adams apple, big hands, narrow hips, sloping forehead – along with his fake breasts and surgically-added female parts.
Hooters, with such a long (and lucrative) reputation for feminine, voluptuous, and virtuous girl dancers, would stand to lose a ton if they tried to hire a manly, counterfeit “woman”, and if they refused, they’d be hit with a lawsuit.
Or take the case of eharmony.com. It’s owner, an avowed Christian, originally designed his company to bring men and women together for marriage. He was successfully sued by gay couples for not offering them matchmaking. The conditions for the judgement (other than the huge financial loss) were that he be forced to make a gay matchmaking service, and he be forced to merge it with his original matchmaking site, not operate it separately. Without meeting these conditions, he would lose the right to do business in that state (N.J.) – who have a statewide nondiscrimination ordinance.
Or lets take a nanny for instance. Everyone who hires a nanny for their home expects them to be female. But what if that “female” shows up with broad shoulders, narrow hips, robust physique and a sloping forehead – complete with long hair and womens clothes, and you deny them the nanny job on that basis? You’re hit with a painful lawsuit.
There are many, many grey areas which parallel these kinds of ordinances, and they are harmful in nature.