Religious Freedom

New York Op-ed Columnist, Frank Bruni is a self-described gay. He's concerned that some of us see a threat to the First Amendment, specifically our protection from "an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Mr. Bruni believes that people like me think that redefining marriage to mean something it has never meant or their right to have sex with whomever they please is a threat to our religious liberty. Now, I can't speak for anyone else, but I have to say I'm baffled by this.

I am (if it isn't plainly obvious) opposed to redefining marriage. Further, I believe that sexual relations between anyone who is not married (and I'm talking about "married" in the longstanding, traditional definition) are immoral. There should be no question on either point. So I'm opposed to "gay marriage" as an unnecessarily destructive intrusion into genuine marriage and I would urge people not to engage in sexually immoral behavior. Does any of that mean that they cause me concern about my religious liberty? Not that I can tell.

Mr. Bruni applauds the fact that "same-sex marriage" is now legal in 36 states. He doesn't mind that it happened by the sheer force of the judiciary in the vast majority of cases. As long as they can push it through the courts, who cares what's right or wrong? But, hey, I'm still not calling this a threat to my religious freedom. And he bemoaned the fact that 10 states considered legislation to protect religious rights because it might discriminate based on sexual orientation. That, perhaps, comes closer. Then he speaks of the growing numbers who are forced to assist in the celebration of such weddings against their beliefs. Oh, he doesn't use those terms, but those are the people. And now we're getting right up onto the doorstep of religious liberty.

You see, when florists and photographers are forced by law to act against their conscience, now we're looking at the question of religious liberty. When you engage in foolish behavior (like calling the relationship of two males or two females "marriage") or sinful behavior (like sexual immorality of whatever brand you like), my religious freedom is intact. When you make me act against my religious values, now we have another question.

And it's not like we're looking at equality. When the Muslim barber refused to cut the hair of the lesbian customer, he won the case because of his religious freedom. Not so for Christians. We're not looking at equality. When a lesbian law student called a Christian wedding venue with recorder running and asks if she can have her wedding there, you know this wasn't simply a request for information. It wasn't a quest for equality. When businesses owned by homosexuals refuse to provide services that run counter to their beliefs (and they're not religious beliefs) and no one calls them on it, we're not looking at equality. In fact, I'll be really surprised the day a gay baker provides a slogan cake for a Westboro Baptist rally that says, "God hates fags." Not gonna happen. And I wouldn't want it to. But we're not looking at equality here.

Mr. Bruni believes the threat (or rather the lack thereof) is in the business. "Baking a cake, arranging roses, running an inn: These aren’t religious acts." He's right, but he's missing a key point. "Their owners are routinely interacting with customers who behave in ways they deem sinful." He's correct, but he's missing a key point. "I support the right of people to believe what they do and say what they wish — in their pews, homes and hearts." And that's where the key point is ultimately missed.

Christianity is not a function of a church or a prayer closet. It is an entire worldview. A religion that is practiced only in the privacy of your home or your church or your heart is not a valid religion. If we're right, if there is a God, if the Bible is correct, if Christianity is valid, then it doesn't merely affect our "religious acts." It affects everything. There is no On or Off switch here. "I can be religious here, but not there." Can't happen. It affects our viewpoints, our beliefs, our perceptions, our values, our hopes and dreams, our jobs, our families, everything. In fact, every worldview does. It would be like asking an atheist to be atheist outside, but to be a theist when he walks into your church. Or like asking a homosexual to be homosexual at home but heterosexual in your house. It's ludicrous. And it won't happen. At least not to the atheist or the homosexual.