Page 29 - Good News Broward March 2014

Basic HTML Version

goodnewsfl.org
29 April 2014
INTHE NEWS
Penni Bulten
Good News
The controversy over Ari-
zona’s religious liberty bill is be-
tween gay rights advocates, who
believe homosexuals should
never be discriminated against,
and faith-based business own-
ers, who insist on their right of
conscience not to participate in
same-sex marriage.
The bill would simply per-
mit businesses like the New
Mexico wedding photographer
or the Oregon bakery, who chal-
lenged related laws, to opt out of
public accommodation laws in
the case of ceremonies involving
same-sex couples. When the
Supreme Court recently de-
clared section three of the De-
fense
of
Marriage
Act
unconstitutional, states scram-
bled to balance these two con-
cerns within constitutional
principles.
The right of conscience
Many colonists originally
came to America to retain their
right to freedom of conscience.
In Britain, the Church of Eng-
land controlled how the Chris-
tian faith was practiced. Puritans
and Separatists both recognized
the problem; Separatists were
the first to discuss and initiate
separation from the Church of
England. They recognized that
freedom of faith and right to
abide by conscience are invio-
late.
Founders
like
Samuel
Adams, Patrick Henry, and
William Penn mistrusted strong
central government as likely to
infringe on religious rights: they
had seen this far too often in
England. Some regarded the un-
amended Constitution itself as
dangerous and potentially tyran-
nical; Adams consented to sup-
port the Constitution only with
the proviso that a Bill of Rights
would be added.
Adams and Henry, though
not signers, had more foresight
than they are often given credit
for. Whether Christians want to
restrict the rights of other Chris-
tians or others want to deny the
right of association or refusal to
associate, an individual’s right to
abide by conscience should be
free from violation.
Accommodationwithout
endorsement
Believers should not hate or
deride those caught in the gay
lifestyle, even as they deal with
them in the world. Broader Okla-
homa and Utah laws attracted un-
necessary
heat
and
were
contested as anti-gay. Paul warns
us against hyper-discrimination
in 1 Corinthians 5:9-10, “When I
wrote to you before, I told you not
to associate with people who in-
dulge in sexual sin.
But I wasn’t
talking about unbelievers
who in-
dulge in sexual sin, or who are
greedy or are swindlers or idol
worshipers.
You would have to
leave this world to avoid people
like that.
Yet, believers should not be
bound to support such lifestyles
either. The Arizona bill would
both protect the rights of con-
science of those who disapprove
of gay marriage, by preventing the
government from forcing a per-
son to lend support to same-sex
marriage, and preserve the mar-
ketplace distinction of 1 Corinthi-
ans 5. A person’s right of
conscience should not end with
the choice to own and maintain a
business. In Paul’s day, one was
free to go to market and purchase
fromwhomever one chose. Then,
as now, there were a variety of
vendors for every type of occa-
sion.
Providing service for a same-
sex wedding cannot be compared
to a simple transaction such as
selling an ordinary meal to a
same-sex couple. For many Chris-
tians, participation in the wed-
ding, even as a caterer or
photographer, endorses the event
itself. Here the Arizona bill pin-
points the correct approach.
Even some gay rights advo-
cates see the differences. Ilya
Shapiro in
Forbes
makes the case
that the Arizona bill greatly im-
proves on Utah and Oklahoma
law. Arizona’s proposal prevents
general discrimination while ac-
knowledging that marriage is a sa-
cred as well as a secular event,
which therefore should be cov-
ered under the First Amendment
rights to freedom of religion and
association. Shapiro adds that, if
gay rights advocates don’t want
their First Amendment rights vi-
olated, they should not be hypo-
critical and push to violate
Christians’ consciences.
Thewisdomof appeal
But Daniel was determined
not to defile himself by eating
the food and wine given to them
by the king. He asked the chief of
staff for permission not to eat
these unacceptable foods…
Daniel spoke with the attendant
who had been appointed by the
chief of staff to look after Daniel,
Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.
‘Please test us for ten days on a
diet of vegetables and water,’
Daniel said. ‘At the end of the ten
days, see how we look compared
to the other young men who are
eating the king’s food. Then
make your decision in light of
what you see.’ The attendant
agreed to Daniel’s suggestion
and tested them for ten days. At
the end of the ten days, Daniel
and his three friends looked
healthier and better nourished
than the young men who had
been eating the food assigned by
the king” (Daniel 1:8, 11-15).
Statists have a nasty habit of
infringing on the inalienable
rights of believers in our day just
as often as in Daniel’s day. Daniel
was expected to eat the king’s
choice meat, but he found a way
to appeal for reasoned exception
that took into account both his
firm conviction concerning eat-
ing that meat and the concerns
of the steward training him.
This approach is the genius
behind the proposed Arizona
law and why even gay rights ad-
vocates support it. Arizona pres-
ents the best solution and
should set a pattern for other
states to follow.
Penni Bulten is a homeschool-
ing mom who is fascinated with
the Founding Fathers and their
faith, both the noted and the no-
table. She can be reached at
Penny_Worth@safe-mail.net.
Can They Have Their Cake and Eat It, Too?