Religious Discrimination

No, not discrimination against religious people. Discrimination by religious people on the basis of their religion. What does that look like? Does it make sense? I'm going to examine these questions, but keep in mind that I'll be doing it strictly from a Christian perspective. You other religions will have to figure this out on your own.

First we need to figure out what we mean by "discrimination"? You see, everyone discriminates and we don't consider it bad. If you can taste spices in food, you have "discriminating taste". If you can tell light blue from dark blue, your eyes are discriminating. Basic "discrimination" is simply the ability to tell differences between things. And we consider that a good thing when we can discriminate between right and wrong, good and evil, and so on. But the discrimination in view here isn't basic discrimination. We're talking about "unequal treatment". But even that isn't clear enough. I will certainly not treat my wife the same way I treat a stranger on the street. I will not treat my children the same way I treat my coworkers. No one treats everyone the same. Everyone discriminates. So what is actually in mind is "unfair unequal treatment", you see, and that's something else. We have a general sense, in fact, that we shouldn't treat anyone unfairly.

But the question is about religious discrimination. Are we, as Christians, commanded to discriminate -- to treat people differently in a way that might potentially be viewed as "unfair"? You see, if we find that we are allowed to, but not required to, then when the government commands we don't, we mustn't (Rom 13:1-5; 1 Peter 2:17). But if we are commanded to treat particular people differently than others, then we would have grounds for religious discrimination. "I don't like that" is not sufficient grounds. "I am required to" is necessary. And, as it turns out, there are specific biblical commands involved. For instance, if the person in question is immoral and unrepentant and claims to be a Christian, we are commanded not to associate with them (1 Cor 5:9-11). But what about those outside the faith or those whose status you don't know? Well, Paul condemned those who "not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them" (Rom 1:32). So we are clearly required to avoid doing "the same" and we are required to avoid giving approval to others who "practice them".

Now we're left with another question. What is "the same"? What is it we are supposed to avoid endorsing? If you think "He's about to say, 'Homosexuals!'", you'd be wrong. Paul lists a bunch of things. "... being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful" (Rom 1:29-31). Okay, that's quite a list, And the truth is that sexual immorality which includes homosexual behavior is on it (just before the place I took up the quote). So if we're going to be obedient believers, we must not engage in these things or give approval to those who do. Think about that for a moment.

But the question remains about homosexuality. Are we required to discriminate against -- treat unequally and unfairly -- those who have a sexual preference for the same gender? That's "homosexuality", you know. The world refers to "homosexuals" not as an action, but as a being, a lifestyle, an entire definition. To that I would say, "No." Because humans by definition are sinners who tend toward that entire list I gave, so if we are going to discriminate on the basis of tendencies, we're all out, aren't we?

So what are we talking about? We are talking about a very narrow thing here. We are talking first about behavior, not propensity. And we are talking about approval, not general relationships. We are not commanded to withdraw from sinful people. Indeed, Paul says the opposite. "I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world" (1 Cor 5:9-10). But we are required to avoid approval of sin. Not propensity, but sin. Beyond that there is a very small set that is a "Christians who are immoral" category. Those we are to avoid.

So, can a Christian engage in some sort of business with a sinner? Absolutely! Are we required to avoid engaging with sinners? Don't be ridiculous! We cannot endorse sin and we must avoid those who claim to be Christians but indulge in unrepentant immorality. Oh, look at that! Again, it's sin we're talking about. So if a person engaged in a particular sin asks me to endorse that particular sin, I would be obligated to refuse. And if I bear consequences for such "religious discrimination", Peter says, "If when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. For you have been called for this purpose ..." (1 Peter 2:20-21). Get that? "You have been called for this purpose." Be ready.

One last note. The claim, the accusation, the protest against a Christian photographer (for instance) who refuses, by means of celebratory participation, to endorse the sin of someone else is that it is "discrimination" and that it is discrimination against a "protected class". The Christian florist that refuses to provide an endorsement for a union of two people God commands not to engage in that activity is indeed discriminating because of his or her religion and, I think I've demonstrated, doing so biblically. However, notice that the argument that this is discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation or gender identity" is false. (Not that the individual florist or photographer wouldn't be; just that it's not necessary.) If I had a business in which I refused to endorse a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex, I would not do so because of their orientation or identity; I would do so because of the behavior -- the sin. Just like "No shirt, no shoes, no service", I would be saying, "I will not provide endorsement to sin." No "orientation" or "identity" required. Like "no shoes", it is the behavior in view. Now, given the large and growing public and legal prejudice against Christians on this topic, I know the courts would throw it out. That doesn't make it not true. Discrimination on the basis of religion? Yes. On the basis of a religious hate for an orientation or identity? Not at all.