Radical persecution of the Church

It seems that radical homosexuals in America are not satisfied with the victories they have won in recent years.  Homosexual hate for Christians is nothing new and it seems they won’t be satisfied until Christian believers are ground to dust.  The recent ruling against a Christian florist in Washington state is another example of the anti-Christian bias that is growing across the nation.

The story is a tired one.  A homosexual couple targets a Christian establishment, knows they will be denied service for their so-called wedding, then they sue.  Once the suit is filed a complicit liberal judicial system rules in favor of the poor aggrieved couple.  Rinse, repeat, ad nauseam.  The government’s position seems to indicate that the rights of the homosexual supersedes the rights of the Christian.  Apparently if you own a business your liberty and conscience are automatically negated.

By creating special rights for non-deserving groups the government has jeopardized the rights of others.  Prior to the advent of special status homosexuals could hold jobs, attend school, attend worship and participate in any legitimate activity.  Yes, there were laws against sodomy and other sexual activity that was deemed deviant, although most of these laws were routinely ignored.

The Church’s crime was taking the unmistakably biblical position that homosexuality is a sin and will cause the practitioner to lose his soul in hell.  Unfortunately, many were so vociferous in their denouncements that they came across as full of hate.  Such is the frailty of human zeal.  However, such denouncements do not nullify the basic biblical truth.  The Church and Christian believers have every right to not only believe such behavior is sinful, but also to speak and write about that belief.  Christians have the right to conscientiously refuse to be a part of what they believe is immoral regardless of the feelings of those they refuse.

The radical homosexuals goal is to forcefully crush the Christian’s right to conscience and belief.  Criminalizing conscience is a more grievous offense that denying service.  The offended couple can move on to another business for service, thus remedying their inconvenience.  A violated conscience is not so easily healed and will haunt and condemn a person for a long time.  It is the contention of this article that the Christian’s rights are far more damaged than the flower seeking couple.  If the natural (God given) right to worship God according to one’s conscience continues to be criminalized Christians will increasingly be at odds with government.  This seems to be the goal.  This persecution of the Church will continue, there is no relief in sight.

Christians must stand for the truth no matter the consequence.  This is not the time to compromise or quake in the presence of anti-Christian hate.  “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” – Galatians 5:1 ESV

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Radical persecution of the Church

  1. Homosexuals have traditionally been persecuted (even killed) by representatives of Christianity. Even today, in the US, there are many states that offer no protection to homosexuals in matters such as employment or housing. Members of the LBGT community are far more likely to be victims of hate crimes. The vindictive spirit you mentioned may well not be justified, but it is certainly understandable.

    Like

      1. How you choose to have sex shouldn’t be relevant to whether someone can expect fair and impartial treatment from businesses or employers, and it shouldn’t mean living in increased fear of violence.

        Like

      2. But special rights aren’t being granted. A business is not a religious institution. The expectation is for a business to treat all customers equally. If a person’s faith can be used as an excuse to deny service in a public business, at what point is the line drawn? Should a business be allowed to refuse service to people of colour on religious grounds?

        Like

      3. Being homosexual isn’t remotely the same. Unless a homosexual broadcasts their preference no one would know who or what they are. Blacks are the only group that has suffered such indignity.

        Like

      4. They are special rights for a protected vocal group. The issue in the case stated in the article is not remotely connected to the issue for blacks. The Christian business owners in the article have sold to these activists in the past, they only refused to cater their wedding based on their religious beliefs. These folks did not have “gay only” and “Christian only” drinking fountains and restrooms. Nor did they refuse them all service. For the government to force any individual to violate their conscience that is tyranny. The Christians rights in this issue supersedes the need of the homosexual couple.

        Like

      5. The comparison is quite warranted. Just as blacks were historically denied services in and by certain establishments, the LBGT community faces similar issues today. Case in point, your own link, whereby a business owner used her private beliefs to impose a decision that robbed the couple of equal treatment. The fact is, the couple didn’t seek special treatment – they sought to be treated the same as anyone else, and were denied this because of bigotry, masquerading as religious freedom.

        If you start a public-facing business, you don’t get to arbitrarily decide who you do and don’t serve. There are laws which prevent this. If you start a business knowing you have no intention of treating everyone equally, you should rethink whether you should even be in business.

        I’ll leave you with this thought. Should any couple face being assaulted whilst walking down the street?

        Like

      6. You assumption is false. You assume the refusal of services is based on bigotry, etc. There is no irrefutable evidence that homosexuals are routinely discriminated against. I would argue that the opposite is true. I’ll leave you with a thought- does government have the right to force someone to act against their conscience? One more thought these Christians started their business without this issue existing. Their right to conscience still outweighs this newly invented right.

        Like

    1. There is plenty of evidence of discrimination against Christians:
      https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/Rutherford_Institute_Defends_Christian_Teacher_Fired_for_Urging_Public_Scho
      http://www.intoleranceagainstchristians.eu
      https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/09/17/7-examples-of-discrimination-against-christians-in-america-n1701966
      Discrimination in any form is wrong, however, Christians suffer a disproportionate amount of hate. This hatred against Christians is it based on tolerance or hate?

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s