"Pride" participants and
sexual activists wish people of faith to be silenced. The
intolerance with which they insist upon runs directly contrary to
the tolerance which they constantly say they are in need of. Now
enters ENDA, perhaps making the legal and cultural confrontation
even more likely.
There is a clear and coming showdown that will determine the
soul of the republic. Not in fiscal or physical stature per se, but
definitively in the arena of what has held America as unique for
most of her history.
With the erosion of cultural norms to no longer truly recognize
the difference between the moral and the immoral, the idea that
such differences even matter cause college professors to laugh, and
elementary teachers to ask your children "special" questions about
the "teachings" of your family's faith.
Perhaps nowhere is this erosion more prevalent than the fact
that grotesquely offensive public behavior is tolerated and
encouraged to be on display under events labeled as "PRIDE."
(Anyone caught objecting to the nudity, public sex, and debauchery
is immediately labeled hateful.)
This past week at a "pride" event in Seattle, participants in
the events openly assaulted those they perceived to be opposing
them on religious grounds. In the Seattle event -- which is
particularly relevant because it took place under American laws --
two 20-something young men, one holding a banner that had not a
single word referring to "Pride" or "homosexuality" but did utilize
the words "Jesus" and the most offensive of all "repent" -- were
savagely attacked by those attending the "festivities."
In a similarly recent event in Toronto, a mob swarmed similar
youth displaying a similar message. In April a group who labeled
themselves "Angry Queers" attacked Mars Hill Church in Portland
battering windows with baseball-sized rocks, destroying nine of
them. And of course last year, an admitted activist intended to
shoot and kill dozens at the offices of a Washington think-tank
that advocates primarily on behalf of American families. His
intended calling card was to leave a Chic-fil-A sandwich on the
body of each of his victims.
What is clear through this litany of activist-oriented violence
against people of faith is the intention.
Pride participants and sexual activists wish people of faith to be
silenced. The intolerance with which they insist upon runs directly
contrary to the tolerance which they constantly say they are in
But the principles will likely be coming to an even more defined
confrontation legally and culturally soon. As activists have
declared that the
Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 must be passed and
made law, they are also simultaneously begging President Obama to
act by executive fiat and to not wait for the legislative
In a piece authored recently by Liz Abzug and Heather Cronk,
they openly suggest that the president create a law that would
prevent employers from being able to hire someone based on their
personal view of morality -- specifically declining anyone a job
merely because they engage in homosexual sexual behavior.
Let me pose an example ...
Say you're a store operator and you
hire a stockroom professional whose sexuality you don't know about,
nor care about when you hire him. Simply wanting a stockroom
professional who can see to it that inventory is where it is
supposed to be is normally thought to be sufficient. Turns out,
your stockroom professional ends up having a same-sex boyfriend who
frequently stops by, gives him a little "have a great afternoon"
kiss in front of customers at the end of his lunch hour, and now
your customers -- particularly those with kids -- are stuck being
exposed to something they don't wish to be. You ask him to not
engage in the behavior any further -- he challenges you to do
something about it -- so you fire him for damaging the reputation
of the business. But he sues you and, under ENDA, wins because they
perceive your termination of him was based on his state of being.
But it wasn't; you fired him for behavior that was unbecoming to
the welfare of your business.
One more example ...
You're a pastor at a church who is
looking to hire a youth ministry director. In these times, it is
prudent for church staffs and all organizations that work with
youth of any sort to do background checks. At this particular
church you have homosexual activists who have specifically targeted
this hiring process. Knowing the church's doctrinal statement
opposes homosexual behavior, the church communicates that it must
only hire staff persons who agree with the doctrinal and
theological positions of the church. A person who engages in
homosexuality applies for the job, is declined, and sues the church
under the terms of ENDA.
And so the conflict is enjoined: the direct belief that
homosexual behavior must be allowed, codified, and agreed with as
morally straight by everyone vs. the belief that God grants a quite
narrowly defined view of sexuality that should be encouraged.
The courts will have little understanding of how one's sexual
behavior could threaten the sanctity of faith, mostly because there
are so few people of faith on the courts.
Churches will refuse to codify homosexual behavior as moral, and
activists will sue, protest, and -- as we've seen recently -- turn
violent and ugly.
How does it end?
Not terribly sure, but the conflict is coming.
And thanks to the president, the Supreme Court, and a cultural
temperature set at "if it feels good do it," it doesn't look good
for those who fear God.
Though according to Proverbs 9:10, that is the beginning of wisdom
Kevin McCullough (email@example.com) hosts "AFA Today"
every weekday at noon Central time on American Family
Radio. He also is the nationally syndicated host of "The Kevin
McCullough Show" weekdays and "Baldwin/McCullough Radio" Saturdays
(9-11 p.m. EST) on more than 600 radio stations. His newest
best-selling hardcover from Thomas Nelson Publishers --
"No He Can't: How Barack Obama is Dismantling Hope
and Change" -- is in stores now.
This column is printed with permission. Opinions expressed in 'Perspectives' columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates.