The Convenient Double Standards of ‘Religious Freedom’

Hey, do you guys remember when a bunch of Christian county clerks and magistrates resigned so they wouldn’t be forced to process divorce papers because the Bible forbids it? Or when they resigned rather than issue a marriage license to someone who works on the Sabbath? Or who lies? Or steals? Or who worships other gods? Or who prays in public, something Jesus explicitly tells Christians not to do (unlike homosexuality, about which he said nothing)?

Remember when they demanded the right to refuse to issue marriage licenses to women who couldn’t prove they were still virgins? Or who ate shellfish, which the Bible calls an “abomination,” the same term used for homosexuality? Or who have tattoos, specifically forbidden in Leviticus 19:28? Or to those who would hold their weddings within seven days of the bride’s period, when she’s “unclean” as it declares in Leviticus 15?

And do you remember when those who are now demanding that government officials be allowed to discriminate if necessary to fit their “sincerely held religious beliefs” defended the right of Muslim clerks to refuse to serve Christians? Or to refuse to issue driver’s licenses to women? Or the right of Christian Identity members to refuse to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples? Or to refuse a business license to women because they should be at home where they belong?

Funny, I don’t either. It’s almost like this has nothing to do with their religion demanding that they not issue marriage licenses to people who violate Biblical law, or with the defense of “sincerely held religious beliefs,” but is rather about their deep and personal disapproval and hatred of gay people.

"In the meantime, I see you have replied to most replies to your post.... except ..."

Christian Right Still Oblivious to Their ..."
"Poor bastards just can't get a break, know what I mean?"

Wiles: Christians in America Just Like ..."
"It's not meant to be an argument. Just an observation."

Christian Right Still Oblivious to Their ..."
"Please find any actual liberals calling for the execution of a President."

Christian Right Still Oblivious to Their ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    It’s almost like this has nothing to do with their religion demanding that they not issue marriage licenses to people who violate Biblical law, or with the defense of “sincerely held religious beliefs,” but is rather about their deep and personal disapproval and hatred of gay people.

    Wrong. There’s also fear.

  • footface

    All that stuff in Leviticus is before the New Covenant, so it’s no longer applicable. What’s that? How come the gay stuff is still applicable, then? Um… This is a really bad connection, and something’s burning on the stove!

  • http://www.gregory-gadow.net Gregory in Seattle

    It ain’t gonna happen, but I would really love to see the reaction to a secularist clerk who says, “I cannot issue you this license, because my deeply held beliefs are that marriage is a civil institution and you said you were getting married in a church.”

    Ooh, I bet the panties would twist up with that one.

  • naturalcynic

    It’s really for health reasons. It’s the double dose of gay cooties. They can tolerate the one dose of cooties that they get if someone gay marries someone who is straight.

  • John Hinkle

    Hey, I have a sincerely held religious belief that gays should not marry. I don’t have a sincerely held religious belief about shellfish. Get a brain moran.

  • carpenterman

    I’ve said this before: if you’re not willing to DO your job, you don’t get to KEEP your job. If they’re going to demand that their religion be what determines their professional duties, let them work for a church.

  • Gvlgeologist, FCD

    It’s really because gay sex is icky. I have a FB friend who’s absolutely nuts about gay’s getting married, and all he can talk about on the topic is how unsanitary and disgusting it is. (Note that he doesn’t talk about lesbian sex, which probably turns him on.) I confess that I don’t understand the appeal of gay male sex, but I also don’t understand the appeal of raw shellfish. But I don’t think it should be outlawed, either.

    I even pointed out that SSM isn’t about sex, it’s about love, commitment, and legal rights, but it didn’t do any good, of course.

    I don’t think that the anti-SSM people even really know why they’re against it.

  • http://umlud.blogspot.com umlud

    @Glvgeologist, FCD, I think they don’t know how to objectively define what they are agaisnt, but they definitely know that they’re against it.

  • Crimson Clupeidae

    This meme has been rather amusingly making the rounds on FB lately, and it’s pretty entertaining watching the occasional bigot show up and try to biblesplain the differences.

  • D. C. Sessions

    I don’t think that the anti-SSM people even really know why they’re against it.

    Their tribe is against it, so they are too.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Gvlgeologist, FCD “I confess that I don’t understand the appeal of gay male sex, but I also don’t understand the appeal of raw shellfish.”

    I can’t be the only one to read that second one as a euphemism.

  • whirligig

    The “it’s gross” argument is why I’m crusading against old-people marriage and ugly-people marriage. I expect full Republican party support.

  • busterggi

    If you go shopping for cherries always ask a Christian to pick them out, they have the most practice.

  • Synfandel

    Gvlgeologist, FCD: “I confess that I don’t understand the appeal of gay male sex, but I also don’t understand the appeal of raw shellfish.”

    Where to you stand on asparagus?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Synfandel “Where to you stand on asparagus?”

    Not Safeway. You’ll get banned. So I’ve heard.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    Gvlgeologist, FCD

    I confess that I don’t understand the appeal of gay male sex

    There are a lot of heterosexuals who would disagree with you because there is very little that two men do that isn’t practiced in greater numbers in the straight population (anal and oral, for example). Heck, there are even straight men who receive anal from their female partners through pegging.

  • D. C. Sessions

    I can’t be the only one to read that second one as a euphemism.

    Modus, we can count on you to read it that way so we don’t have to.

  • Friendly

    Or who ate shellfish, which the Bible calls an “abomination,” the same term used for homosexuality?

    I know that Ed doesn’t read his comments, but for those of you who do, this isn’t really accurate. The Hebrew word translated “abomination” in the “shellfish verse,” Lev. 11:12, “sheqets,” is used primarily for dietary taboos; the Hebrew word translated “abomination” in the “homosexuality verse,” Lev. 18:22, “to’eba,” is used primarily for taboos deemed to be moral or universal in nature. Insisting that the Bible uses “the same term” for eating shellfish as it does for homosexuality is problematic; however, alternatives exist. The word “to’eba” is used for cross-dressing (including, in Orthodox Jewish tradition, women wearing trousers) in Deut. 22:5 and for remarriage of a couple after the woman has been married and divorced again since (“cohabitus interruptus”?) in Deut. 24.4

  • tfkreference

    @Friendly – that’s interesting to know, as I’ve heard the argument that the dietary and similar laws no longer apply, but the moral ones do. Do you know of a translation that differentiates them?

  • Nomad

    Of course, Friendly, if you want to start talking about the original context then the prohibition against crossdressing beccomes problematic as well. Because in the time period which that was written, men wore something that looked pretty much like a dress.

    I’ll have to tell the guy I know who has taken to wearing skirts at a group event I go to that he’s wearing biblically appropriate clothing. Heck, since I’ve seen suggestions that that verse is really about the weapons and armor appropriate to a warrior rather then gender specific clothing, the fact that he’s wearing a military style tactical vest on top of it is still appropriate.

  • John Pieret

    Think of these people as Christian kamikazis . A mere decade or so ago, they rampaged through American culture, winning battle after battle against the forces of decadence, the way the Japanese we’re defeating the decadent westerners. Now all their battleships and carriers are at the bottom of the ocean and all they can do is throw themselves to (figurative) death in a futile attempt to hold back the inevitable.

  • thebookofdave

    @John Pieret

    Kinda gives new meaning to the term “Divine Wind”.

  • dingojack

    John Pieret/bookofdave – but I thought blowjobs* were in the category of sodomy?

    😉 Dingo

    ———

    * is there a more divine wind?

  • http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd JT Eberhard

    This was god damn epic.