Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
What troubles me is the double standard. One party attempts to legislate morality, so once their leaders fall short, they are proclaimed to be hypocrites. The other party claims no morality at all, hence they freely promote the slaughter of the unborn, homosexual unions, adultery, etc. making it all about "job performance," unless, of course, these leaders are in a designated minority, and any job critique is interpreted as bigotry.
|
Oh, I agree with you on the double standard bit. That is very annoying. I think that there is something to the idea that we should rate everyone based on their performance and not on things that have nothing to do with it. On the other hand, there are legitimate issues of character that affect the reputation of businesses and while this should not be carte blanche to be bigoted, things that cause damage to a company's "brand" or public image should be able to be addressed without someone combatting it with "protected status" laws.
Similarly, if someone decides to rent out a room in their house, they should be free to discriminate concerning who is selected without interference. Some will then ask where is the line between an acceptable bigotry and an unacceptable one. My answer is that it probably needs guidelines. But in the case of a very small business, there should not be such extreme requirements of inclusion, especially when it runs against the owner's moral standards. I would probably grant more leeway to larger businesses, but I understand that there become problems, especially if we simply allow it to get to where anyone can simply exclude anyone for any reason (although that is the good Libertarian position — and I am not quite one of those). In all, I have less angst about those double-standard laws because while they are secular in source, they actually legislate on others (including non-Christians) the kind of love for our fellow man that we really ought to have.
But it is the legislating it onto those who would otherwise not choose it that concerns me that the very law's imposition is contrary to the Christian requirement of love for your neighbor. And that is why my position is somewhat vacillating on the subject. But it is also why I am generally opposed to imposition of Christian morality through legislation. It is too often provided as an unloving solution to forcing people to behave as if they were already good Christians.
Funny, if they come in the door of the church, we sing "Just As I Am" and invite them to come to Jesus without changing first. But outside the doors, we are busy making sure they change outwardly even if they don't from the inside. I understand the issue of protection of [fill-in-the-blank — unborn, sanctity of marriage, etc.], but there are two sides to the issue in all cases. There is an aspect in which we fight to protect the unborn and in the process curse those who for a variety of reasons feel that they cannot find a way to go forward with a child. Don't argue about the poor reasons. I agree. But that does not make it any less weighty to the one facing it. We are often totally insensitive to them. And they are alive and here to deal with. (In other words, we have chosen to deal with the issue by cursing at those we can see to protect those we can't. Not saying that is entirely wrong. But at some level it just may be.)
Way more complicated than just saving the unborn. That is important. What about saving those who have already taken that path? What about having a position that does not continually cast them simply as evil-doers and murderers?
And I am probably preaching to the choir.