Tuesday, September 02, 2014

The greatest injury

8/30/2013

The New Mexico Supreme Court recently ruled to force Christian photographers to violate their strongly held religious beliefs, saying that if they refuse to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony they will be punished by the state.    

Listen to the reasons the New Mexico Supreme Court used to justify this unconstitutional punishment of Christians for their religious beliefs.

The New Mexico Supreme Court recently ruled to force Christian photographers to violate their strongly held religious beliefs, saying that if they refuse to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony they will be punished by the state.    

Listen to the reasons the New Mexico Supreme Court used to justify this unconstitutional punishment of Christians for their religious beliefs.

Justice Richard C. Bosson, writing in concurrence, states that the case “teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others.” This statement contains amazingly blind hypocrisy. Bosson did not practice what he preached. How he ruled is that these kinds of devout Christians must do all the compromising of their 2,000-year-old beliefs and now be subject to and submit to the beliefs of the gay community and the state.

The judge did not have to choose one side or the other in forcing someone to compromise their beliefs. The gay couple easily found another photographer to do their ceremony, and there were many other photographers who would have. If Judge Bosson truly believed in respecting all beliefs and that we all should compromise, why not equally ask the gays to compromise and accept the beliefs of these Christian photographers? The Christians in no way tried to force their beliefs upon the gays, they just asked not to be forced to go against their own beliefs.

How were the gays really injured? If they truly were injured, then every American is injured every day over someone else’s actions and beliefs that they do not like. Is it the laws’ purpose that if we do not like someone else’s beliefs we are entitled now to have the state force them to submit to us?

The hypocrisy of the court continues when it made this logic as part of its ruling, writing, “The Court made a reasonable distinction between the Huguenins’ [photographers’] conduct as opposed to their beliefs. The law governs conduct in public accommodation. Thus, in the world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different.”

Again, why do the gays not have to make the same, equal accommodation? Why not simply allow both to practice their beliefs, as the gays were not at all hindered in finding another photographer? They simply didn’t like the fact someone had a different belief system and wanted the state to force them to accept their beliefs.      

The hypocrisy of the judges continues with this amazingly ignorant statement, as one justice noted in concurrence, “this is the price of citizenship.”  Why is that not also a two-way street? Why could he not have said to the gay couple: “This is the price of citizenship; to also respect the devoutly held beliefs of these Christians”?

The New Mexico judges and those who think like them have no respect or understanding of Christianity. For a devout Christian, you cannot in any way separate your beliefs and conduct and obey Christ. Your conduct represents your beliefs, and they are one and the same. To practice conduct against your beliefs is serious sin against the God you love, and that is the greatest injury for a devout Christian.

— John Comstock,

Ottawa

comments powered by Disqus