I do understand there has been some debate over whether America was once a Christian nation. But whether it was or no — and I believe it was — there should be no debate among Christians over whether it was a normal one. Defenders and revolutionaries alike insist that those norms be defended, or smashed, as it suits them, but everybody agrees that the norms were actually there. Twenty years ago, same sex mirage was unthinkable. Now you are an enemy of all mankind if you call the mirage for what it is — a shimmer in the air over the desert sands — instead of what everyone is demanding you call it, which is something that rhymes with carriage. But it also rhymes with disparage, which brings me to my theme.
Now there is obviously room for discussion among believing Christians (I use this locution to distinguish them from their counterparts, known to the astute as unbelieving Christians) as to how much these erstwhile societal norms came from the explicit influence of Christianity and how much from a mash up of common grace and natural law. I myself think that a great deal more of it came from gospel preaching than is usually recognized, but we should be able to agree that it was some kind of mix.
But whatever the mix was in helping to establish what used to be normal, I want to insist cannot be reattained apart from a reformation and revival, the kind which impels us to call on the name of Jesus Christ. Not only do I believe this must happen, or we are all lost, but I also believe that we will not be lost. This will happen. It is happening now.
In the meantime we have to deal with the secularist overreach. The fact that they must overreach is to be expected because their entire worldview is based on an inability to say no to their lusts — and this libido dominandi is no different on this score than the other kind of lust.
So, for the present, now that we are no longer in the grip of H8, water is commanded to flow uphill, by order of the Supreme Court, and triangles must have four corners, by order of Congress. On top of that, the president has recently signed an executive order determining that ham and cheese sandwiches may no longer contain ham, or cheese for that matter, and that anyone who, from the date of the issuance of this executive order, makes a ham and cheese sandwich with any ham or cheese in it will be fined five thousand dollars, and remanded to sensitivity training, where trained bureaucrats will pull out his toenails as a way to teach him not to be so hurtful.
In other words, ordinary norms of the sort that would get you yawned at in the Eisenhower years are now officially transgressive. This is why I am thought to be such a bad boy. I continue to maintain that the sky is an azure blue, and that grass is emerald green in the springtime, and so it has happened that reading this blog is something of a guilty pleasure among establishment conservatives. They are not in a real position to say that the sky is blue — bad career move — but they do enjoy watching someone else be naughty.
The most outrageous thing someone can do in our Bosch exhibit version of Night at the Museum is part his hair on the left side, comb it carefully, and smile for the camera — with a cute little blonde wife by his side, and four well-scrubbed and well-loved children, also with their hair combed properly. If those children have also had their noses wiped, this is a clear indication that we need to work even harder to teach our people that hate is not a family value, and that the patriarchy could clearly use a little more smashing.
It is now avant garde jazz played with the fists, but America used to play its songs in C Major. And for those of you who think this is some sort of racist dog whistle for referring to the good old days when it was “all white keys,” we might as well get to that issue now.
A wedding chapel in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, The Hitching Post, run by a man and wife team, each of them an ordained minister, has been informed that they could face jail time or fines if they refuse — as they intend to refuse — to perform same sex mirages. Now let’s leave out of this the fact that they are standing for biblical values when she is ordained to the ministry contrary to biblical teaching. That kind of inconsistency was simply placed in this story by an all-loving God to help us keep laughing as we keep our eye on the central point.
Now the argument is that they will be forced by the state to perform same sex mirages in their role as businessmen, and not in their role as ministers. Because this is an “open to the public” thing, like a restaurant, they must serve whoever walks through the door. Simple pimple, right? Well, not exactly. In the first place, I see no reason why they should be forced to perform same sex mirages any more than our local La Casa Lopez should be forced to serve up Chinese, however much an urgent patron wants him some almond chicken. Their defense would run along the lines of “we’re a Mexican restaurant. We don’t serve Chinese food. We don’t know how to make Chinese food.”
So this is where appeal will be made to the great advances accomplished by the Civil Rights movement back in the sixties. Back in the day, whites could refuse to serve blacks in their restaurants, and it wasn’t that long ago. It was that way in the town where I grew up, and who wants to return to those days? The claim is made that “you opponents of same sex mirage want to return us to those days.” This particular point is the central slippery trick in this whole mess.
Before proceeding further, I do want to say that we should be far better masters of the distinction between sins and crimes before we go about trying to outlaw sins. Because we tried to eliminate the sin of racial prejudice in public spaces without grasping that essential distinction, we have ended up by mandating the commission of sin in public spaces. Essaying to stamp out one sin we have made another sin, one that is far worse, mandatory. Let me go over that again. We have outlawed one sin, and the cost of doing it is that we have made another sin compulsory. People who do that shouldn’t be in charge of things.
Run this out. Suppose The Hitching Post was owned by a couple that had sincere religious convictions against miscegenation. This would mean that they would want the right to refuse to perform a ceremony between a black man and a white woman. Now I take it as a given that such a refusal on their part would be sinful. But should it be illegal?
And even if it should be illegal, how does it follow that if the state can make someone quit being sinful that this somehow authorizes the state to make people start being sinful?
So this is the point where our pretended moral arbiters try to retreat into moral relativism — they say that we use terms like “sin” and we quote Bible verses and all, but not everyone has the same understanding of morality. Who is to say what sins are? Who is to tell us the difference between right and wrong? This is a pluralistic society, and we should know that we cannot impose our own moral codes on others who do not share them. Don’t you know anything, rube? Well, okay, but if we can’t impose a particular morality on people who don’t share that morality, then why did you impose your morality on the bigoted restaurant owner? This is not a difficult question to understand, and I am willing to wait for an answer. By what standard are you making your moral decisions, and why should they be obligatory for others who do not share your devotion to those standards?
The anti-miscegenists had a really tenuous case from the Bible. They wanted to maintain set racial boundaries because, said they, God had appointed the boundaries of our habitation (Acts 17:26). That is some thin soup cultural application, right there. And to the extent that the Scriptures speaks of interracial marriage directly, it was on the occasion of Moses having married an Ethiopian woman (Num. 12:1). The only person in that story who was really white was Miriam, who, when she objected to the marriage, was struck with leprosy. The Lord checked her privilege. In short, the opponents of miscegenation had a cluster of petty bigotries covered over with the thin veneer of one Bible verse that did not say what they claimed it did.
Sodomy, on the other hand, is spoken of throughout the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, and always in a way that condemns the practice as vile, the necessary end result of a refusal to honor God as God. God destroyed cities with fire from Heaven over this evil (Gen. 19:24), He says using a man as though he were a woman is an abomination (Lev. 18:22), He excludes unrepentant practitioners from salvation over it (1 Cor. 6:9), and He says that those who live like this receive in their own bodies the due penalty of their sin (Rom. 1:27).
If the Scriptures had prohibited interracial marriage with the same kind of clarity, that particular battle would still be going on. The opponents of interracial marriage only climbed down because they were defending a sinful position and they knew it. They had no real scriptural case, and they knew it.
But it is completely different now. Back then the anti-miscegenists had a bad conscience; the bad conscience now is with the soft-on-sodomy crowd. Those Christians who are climbing down today, in the midst of this current battle, are the ones whose eyes are shifting back and forth, right along with their exegetical core values. The anti-miscegenist Christians were shamed into abandoning a stupid scriptural argument. The evolving Christians, who are not afraid of what the Holy Spirit in our generation calls “lots of cool, new stuff,” are the ones who are being shamed into a stupid scriptural argument. And call me old-fashioned, but I still maintain there is a critical difference between climbing out of stupid and climbing into it.
So let us distinguish our current crop Vichy Christians from the fight-on-the-beaches, fight-in-the-fields-and-streets, fight-on-the-landing-ground Christians. The worst thing about pragmatic accommodations is that they don’t work, and the best thing about principled lost-cause stands is that they do.
The Bible speaks on this subject with such clarity that the only way this current homo-overreach can conclude is by trying to take our Bibles away. As long as we have our Bibles, their contentions will be unable to get the clown face paint off. But we live in an era that has difficulty in understanding when an argument is ad absurdum, and so I apologize for bringing it up. No need to take our Bibles. Really.
No need since they created their own rainbow bible (queenjamesbible.com)
Essaying to stamp out one sin we have made another sin, one that is far worse, mandatory. Far worse?! That has to be one of the whitest things ever written. to be clear, the owners of the Hitching Post aren’t being required to perform the wedding, but rather to hire someone who will. In the past they’ve done interfaith marriages by temp hiring a separate official, so it’s something they’re familiar with. The distinction is between the convictions of the person and the actions of the business, which is not reducible to any one person. And yeah, that’s the legacy… Read more »
Honest question: Does the bible teach that we as Christians should use government power to define and set legal parameters for marriage? I believe what the bible says about marriage and its limitations. But I guess my question is whether the libertarian position about getting government out of the marriage business and leaving it to private individual contracts is biblical or not. Should anything other than biblical marriage be illegal or merely sinful? Again this is not meant to be contrarian, a serious question.
@BJ
The Catholic writer John C. Write obliterates the Libertarian position (along with others) in his post on the topic http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/snap-out-of-it/
Its too long to quote in full in this comment, but his two key points regarding the Libertarian argument are:
1. A restating of Pastor Wilson’s “not whether but which” doctrine and
2. Pointing out that the libertarian argument that Marriage is a contract is false.
Cordially,
t
It didnt take Matt long to distance himself from this statement:
“Fair enough, I should have been more precise. Clergy will not be required to perform gay marriages.”
@david R. It gets worse. From the John C. Wright link above: There are many examples. I will mention but one: the Bible has been outlawed in Canada, and quoting from it is a hate crime, at least in cases where sins are condemned. Or, rather, sexual sins involving unnatural acts: http://christiannews.net/2013/02/28/canadian-supreme-court-rules-biblical-speech-opposing-homosexual-behavior-is-a-hate-crime/ The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Biblical speech opposing homosexual behavior, including in written form, is essentially a hate crime. On Wednesday, the court upheld the conviction of activist William Whatcott, who found himself in hot water after distributing flyers regarding the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexuality… Read more »
Hear, hear!
I’ve posted this before, but I think it bears repeating. Either homosexual activity is wrong according to God – or the Bible is wrong according to some Bewildered Apes.
(Props to CS Lewis’ term “bewildered ape”)
Doug hit another one out of the ballpark. As for this: So this is the point where our pretended moral arbiters try to retreat into moral relativism — they say that we use terms like “sin” and we quote Bible verses and all, but not everyone has the same understanding of morality. Who is to say what sins are? Who is to tell us the difference between right and wrong? This is a pluralistic society, and we should know that we cannot impose our own moral codes on others who do not share them. Don’t you know anything, rube? Well,… Read more »
No distancing necessary; it still holds. It may not forever.
Everything about this post is helpful and constructive except for the picture.
Fundamentally, morality is about power – imposing your view of right and wrong on everyone else. There is no abstract, free-standing “good”. There is only that which comes from the mind and nature of the holy, righteous and merciful creator, and that which comes from the foolish and rebellious hearts of mankind. The choice should be obvious: the one who created all things owns all things, and gets to make the rules. Obvious, except for that foolish and rebellious issue.
Matt wrote: “The distinction is between the convictions of the person and the actions of the business, which is not reducible to any one person.” If this is a valid distinction, why didn’t this argument succeed to require Hobby Lobby to “cost share” for abortifacient contraceptives? Hobby Lobby isn’t even a 501c organization and this kind of argument still failed to meet the “least restrictive means” test. Matt is fond of retreating to pragmatics when it suits him, but perhaps he can explain what is utilitarian about all this litigious harassment coming from the homosexual fascist faction. Fake Herzog is… Read more »
I followed the Whatcott case quite carefully, and this afternoon I read every word of the Canadian Supreme Court’s 2013 decision. I believe the decision has not been correctly characterized in some of the American news reports. The Supreme Court reviewed the four flyers and overturned the lower court’s judgment that two of them contained hate speech. The Court also tightened the burden of proof required for conviction by eliminating the prohibition on exposing target groups to “ridicule” or to an affront of dignity; hate speech amounting to a criminal offense under the law must expose the target group to… Read more »
I see this more as an issue of our (Protestant, and especially Evangelicals) own poor Ecclesiology and less of a religious freedom issue. This is not a church but a business. A church that only married couples with at least one member would not be affected by this legislation as it would be an association and not a business. Rather, this business seeks to administer what is ostensibly a sacramental rite without covenant or commitment. I do not even believe they check/confirm baptismal standing (which may or may not be a necessity for salvation, so I will leave that issue… Read more »
Wright’s books are great, too. Carry on.
Jill Smith wrote: I have lived in the United States long enough to have learned to disapprove of hate speech legislation. But I think we should be accurate and fair about what the law is and how it is applied. Indeed. In the interest of being accurate and fair, let’s review the “hate speech” criteria that Jill references: “hate speech amounting to a criminal offense under the law must expose the target group to vilification and detestation” and also: “He had a legal duty, however, to do all this in a way which did not expose homosexuals to public hatred… Read more »
“By what standard…” Pure pre-suppositional apologetics! It’s like running power-I off-tackle, or field artillery, or the fast-ball & then change-up, steak & potatoes (no veggies). Or, indeed C major. So effective because it’s so simple. No matter how convoluted things get, when one asks the enemy “by what standard” the response is either the truth clearly stated (how refreshing) or the truth from watching them dance around the question. Vichy, indeed. Take the fight to them; make them explain their presuppositions; ask how well those pre-sups really explain things compared to ours; point out the not just their awful logical… Read more »
“Jill’s chosen criteria?” I think I must have been very slipshod in my exposition if I conveyed an impression that I either helped draft Canada’s hate speech legislation or helped the Supreme Court apply its provisions to Mr. Whatcott’s case. When I said that I disapprove of hate speech laws, I suppose I ought to have added that I equally disapprove of the prosecutions, convictions, and sentences that result from them. Why I have been asked to defend the legal reasoning upholding this conviction, when I made it clear I do not support the law under which he was prosecuted,… Read more »
This would be a good spot for pastor Wilson to remind us all what marriage is:
Marriage = man cleaving to woman
No ceremony makes it.
No oath.
No justice of the peace.
No minister.
Well, you almost managed to lay out the problem of using the State to beat up on people you don’t agree with but then managed to pull a reversal. The powers that be have no use for your fine theological distinctions between anti-miscegenation and “homophobia.” They also have no use for religious exemption since to them a religion is just another ideology. (If anything, religion is a less valid ideology since it is seriously old and gauche.) Liberals may not have to be consistent but they can certainly demand that you be. Once you have accepted the premise that the… Read more »
If we see secular and homosexual overreach today, we might want to ask if such overreach is a first strike or a reaction. And if it is a reaction, then it is part of a pendulum swing. And before we shake our fists and wring our hands in anticipation of the pendulum swing, we need to look at what we were supporting when the pendulum was swinging in the other direction. There is no doubt that we are called to preach God’s Word to society. But does that means that we should try to legislate God’s Word for society? Should… Read more »
@matt
“In the past they’ve done interfaith marriages by temp hiring a separate official, so it’s something they’re familiar with. The distinction is between the convictions of the person and the actions of the business, which is not reducible to any one person”
Your attempted logic is flawed. The bible does not prohibit a non-believing man and woman from marrying. Thus, there is nothing inconsistent on its face in their allowing interfaith marriages to occur on their premises but not allowing a same sex mirage ceremonies.
If this is a valid distinction, why didn’t this argument succeed to require Hobby Lobby to “cost share” for abortifacient contraceptives? You mean why didn’t Hobby Lobby lose? Because 5 of the 9 justices didn’t accept the argument. They may not accept it this time either, but nevertheless that is the argument. Matt is fond of retreating to pragmatics when it suits him, but perhaps he can explain what is utilitarian about all this litigious harassment coming from the homosexual fascist faction. If you mean what is utilitarian about businesses being required to serve all comers, it is to promote… Read more »
Your attempted logic is flawed. The bible does not prohibit a non-believing man and woman from marrying. Thus, there is nothing inconsistent on its face in their allowing interfaith marriages to occur on their premises but not allowing a same sex mirage ceremonies. The argument is that if they can hire a Muslim cleric to do a Muslim wedding, then they should be able to hire an official willing to perform gay weddings to do those. Although they’ve since changed their policy to only do Christian weddings, probably in response to precisely this issue. Apparently my logic is good enough… Read more »
Once upon a time in this country, the same vehemence was used to defend slavery as is now being used to defend the right to continue to discriminate against LGBT people. We all know this is true. Bible verses were trotted out in favor of keeping slaves in their chains with the same energy Mr. Wilson is trotting out his verses against “sodomites.” Now people prefer to pretend that chapter of our history never existed, and that they would never have been on that side of the fence. As to those running the Hitching Post, they have a solution. If… Read more »
“If you mean what is utilitarian about businesses being required to serve all comers” But this is simply not true today. There are gyms that only cater to men or women. Hooters only hires female waiters. The hitching post only performs marriages, which is the union of a man and a woman. A gay mirage is no such thing. The hitching post also does not perform group weddings, polygamous weddings, or man/animal weddings. Chinese restaurants do not serve Mexican food. Some businesses wont serve you if you are not wearing a shirt. Some wont serve you if you are not… Read more »
@Delurking, Those pigs don’t fly. Once upon a time in this country, the same vehemence was used to defend slavery as is now being used to defend the right to continue to discriminate against LGBT people. Hello genetic fallacy. As to those running the Hitching Post, they have a solution. If they don’t want to marry people who they believe to be sinners, they don’t have to. They can close shop and find another way of making a living. Looked at another way, we can run that damn judge out of town in tar-n-feathers and a rail. Your judge can… Read more »
Matt, You may not like the analogy of the Mexican restaurant being asked to serve Chinese dishes, but that doesn’t make it broken. It’s perfectly valid for the owner of a restaurant (or wedding chapel, etc.) to be selective in the products and services he wishes to provide — even if his customers may disagree with him about his distinctives. A deli is a deli is a deli in *my* book, but that doesn’t require the Kosher place down the street to serve me the pulled pork sandwich I’m craving if that’s not a product that their deli serves, and… Read more »
delurking says: “Not in America, where one of our tenets is that people are equal under the law.” O.K., what does this have to do with Christian business owners violating their religious beliefs? Or any business owners being forced to violated their beliefs? If I walk into a courtroom, I expect to be treated the same whether I’m black, gay, rich or poor — not if I walk into a church or business. Do you see the distinction? Although liberals prefer there not be a distinction because they want the state and society to form one giant leviathan over our… Read more »
Neither Doug’s initial post, nor any of the comments that follow, touch on what is the reasl bone of contention here. Christians begin with the presupposition that theirs is the one true belief system, entitled to special rights for that reason. However, the First Amendment doesn’t allow the government to decide which belief system, if any, is the one true belief system, and therefore under the First Amendment Christianity is essentially just another belief system that gets treated the same as every other belief system. And that’s really what this fight is about; gay marriage is merely the specific context… Read more »
Eric The Red wrote: Christians begin with the presupposition that theirs is the one true belief system, entitled to special rights for that reason. Jefferson wrote: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these… Read more »
“They are patrons who aren’t being allowed to order Chinese food in a Chinese restaurant because they’re gay. ”
In the analogy, chinese food is a man-woman marriage, and mexican food is a man-man mirage. These are different things. Now the gay man can order chinese food by getting a man-woman marriage. He can marry a woman. He would not be denied. But he does not like Chinese food, which begs the question why is he in the Chinese restaurant in the first place.
Timothy, I’m not moralizing. I’m talking practicalities. Every time I real one of your angry, belligerant posts I hope that if you ever actually achieve the martyrdom you seem to crave, that you will at least have the courtesy to not take too many innocent bystanders with you. And by the way, there is nothing in the Declaration of Independence that states that the Christian God is the Creator to which the founders referred. DavidR, you don’t get to define marriage for everyone else; this is an example of precisely what I was talking about: the notion that yours is… Read more »
By the way, any gay couples wanting to get married at the Hitching Post are not patrons wanting to order Chinese food in a Mexican restaurant. They are patrons who aren’t being allowed to order Chinese food in a Chinese restaurant because they’re gay. The law understands this even if you don’t (or pretend not to). Except that’s not really the case. Maybe a better analogy might be going to a Chinese restaurant and ordering a dish that’s not on the menu (even if it is Chinese). It seems reasonable enough, but the owner is still under no obligation to… Read more »
Steven, because marriage is on the menu, and the owner’s only real objection is who is marrying whom. How is what you’re proposing any different than a racist deli owner saying “serving black people is not a service we offer”? And if a racist deli owner made that argument, would you find it persuasive? Why or why not?
?!?! Some day I’m going to have to decipher the conservative Christian version of American history.
Eric,
Sandwiches are on the menu at the Kosher deli. Does that mean the deli owner has no right to refuse any arbitrary sandwich I might ask for, or is he within his right to define a “menu” that more tightly defines the specific products and services he offers as part of his wares?
Steven, the issue is whether the discrimination is based on the identity of the patrons, or on the nature of the services offered. A Jewish deli owner who runs a kosher deli isn’t going to be required to sell ham and cheese sandwiches because there is no such thing as a race, religion or sexual orientation that requires the eating of ham and cheese sandwiches, and therefore anyone of any race, religion or sexual orientation is likely to find something on the menu to eat. If there were a religion that required its adherents to eat nothing but ham and… Read more »
You lie.
Eric, What I’ve contended from the beginning, though, is that the service provider is within his rights to define the services he offers, even if his patrons (or otherwise potential patrons) don’t necessarily agree with his distinctions. To *you* a same sex marriage ceremony is just another marriage ceremony, just like to *me* a barbeque sandwich is just another sandwich. But the owner of the chapel (or deli) might feel otherwise, and he’s within his rights to do so. Same sex wedding ceremonies may not be a service *he* provides, and I think in just about any other case, that… Read more »
Eric, Since you brought it up: If there were a religion that required its adherents to eat nothing but ham and cheese sandwiches all day, every day, then it would be a closer call as to whether refusing to serve them ham and cheese would amount to discrimination against their religion. In the case above, should a Kosher deli be forced to serve ham and cheese sandwiches (contra the owner’s own religion) in this case in order to properly service adherents of this hypothetical religion? I’m not sure how you determine which religion takes priority there, unless, of course, one… Read more »
Matt – Jim Crow was codified by southern democrats.
“DavidR, you don’t get to define marriage for everyone else” But apparently you do. You see, the problem is somebody is defining marriage for everyone else. Now the best way to do that in our society is for it to be decided by the people. Let the people decide. Right now unelected judges are overturning the will of the people. Now if SSM is inevitable and going to have majority support, then why not let the people decide? We currently have decided that polygamous marriages are illegal, that bigamy is illegal, that it is illegal to marry a close relative.… Read more »
Timothy, I guess if the best you can do is toss an insult, you don’t have a substantive argument to make and I can safely ignore you. Steven, I don’t see how you can avoid wrapping identity into the issue. Otherwise, anyone who doesn’t want to serve any particular race, religion or sexual orientation will simply re-define it as type of services rather than identity of patrons. Is there any real dispute that restricting marriage to heterosexuals is based on antipathy toward the same sex identity of gay couples? Just read this thread and earlier ones on the subject; you’ve… Read more »
Eric the Red, You say, “Steven, the issue is whether the discrimination is based on the identity of the patrons, or on the nature of the services offered. ” But you don’t even understand the debate in the first place. The first issue is what does marriage mean. If we start there are say it necessarily includes sexual complementarity (among other things) then obviously, two men or two women fall outside of the definition. And no discrimination occurs in the sense of invidious discrimination (you are obviously discriminating between who qualifies for a marriage and who doesn’t — sort of… Read more »
hmm.. I guess we never needed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, since voting on such things is absurd and should have never been subject to popular vote. “Is there any real dispute that restricting marriage to heterosexuals is based on antipathy toward the same sex identity of gay couples?” Of course it is in dispute. Marriage is restricted to a man and a woman, regardless of their sexual orientation, because that is the union that can create children. It is what brings together the complementary halves of humanity and what allows a child to be raised by their mother… Read more »
Matt-
I do not accept the premise that you are concerned that gays are left with no recourse to wedded bliss. Certainly, in the absence of a law against it there will be many options for some ceremony. What concerns you is that someone out there may be allowed to act according to his conscience. Dissenters must be flushed out made to affirm and participate in the sin they despise.
Matt – “No distancing necessary; it still holds. It may not forever.”
Darth Vader – “I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it any further.”
Southern Democrats were anything but “progressive”. Jim Crow was an entirely reactionary response to the Civil War and Reconstruction.
Perhaps, but you cannot ignore a Holy God and He will rock your world.
Keep whistling though.
Steven, I don’t see how you can avoid wrapping identity into the issue. Otherwise, anyone who doesn’t want to serve any particular race, religion or sexual orientation will simply re-define it as type of services rather than identity of patrons. Is there any real dispute that restricting marriage to heterosexuals is based on antipathy toward the same sex identity of gay couples? Just read this thread and earlier ones on the subject; you’ve got Timothy, katecho and others essentially admitting as much. Eric, Well, I feel like I’ve demonstrated a distinction between service and identity several times now. It’s really… Read more »