Christians rip GOP's 'dangerous' compromise on religious and LGBTQ rights

A coalition of Christian organizations is opposing a bill that purports to resolve the conflict between religious rights and new rights established by the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling.

The Fairness for All Act, introduced by Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, promises to "ban discrimination against LGBTQ people" and also "protect religious institutions that uphold traditional beliefs about marriage and sexuality."

John Stonestreet, president of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, said the act "would enshrine into law something that simply is not true, and for Christians that's got to be a non-starter: that sexual orientation and gender identity are equal to race, that they are somehow immutable, something someone is born with."

...it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. [emphasis added]
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

So, what the hell is this nonsense about “ rights established by the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling?” It sounds like that ruling already established the right for people and organizations, religious or not, to opposed homosexuality.

Thank you for referencing that article fwdude. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

”[…] new rights established by the Supreme Court's [??? emphasis added] same-sex marriage ruling."

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Patriot’s are reminded that the only way to establish new constitutional rights in the USA is when the Article V supermajority states ratify proposed rights amendments to the Constitution.

"Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof [emphasis added], as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Constitutionally non-enumerated rights established by judicial fiat are Democratic vote-winning, politically correct garbage.

Remember in November!

MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)

In other news, Southern Baptist Convention president said he would be inclined to address a cross-dresser by its “preferred pronoun.”

I separated any affiliation with the SBC many years ago due to obvious compromise with evil. I have not been proven wrong. (This does not condemn all SBC-affiliated churches in the least - at least not yet.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.