I’ve read a bit more about SB777 since I commented on it a couple of days ago. And surely, since I received a strong negative comment here (which I sincerely appreciated, btw). And I’ve had more time to mull over the potential consequences or outworkings of the bill/law. I’m not “carried away with the witch hunt,” but I do wonder what led to the necessity to craft a new bill/law? The further protection / endorsement of a class of people is the only reason I can see for the crafting of the bill/law.
Now, I do see some of the problematical views expressed by the writer of the WND article and some of the author’s personal interpretations of what was just signed into law. I see the strong slant – pointing out the potentials of the law. And though the intent of the law *seems* to be non-discrimination, I cannot see it that way. I do not see non-discrimination at all. At all. Non-discrimination bills/laws are already in place. Clearly in place. The wording of this newest piece of legislation is additional protection for classes of people/thoughts/activities that are clearly ambiguous and undefined (for that, I suppose, would be discrimination!).
I am reading attacks against Christians or Conservatives being accused of twisting the words of bill to fit their argument(s). I wonder why the bill was necessary when non-discrimination is already a legal protection. I’d say that crafting a bill to protect people/activities is actually a protection that discriminates against long held truths, ideals and order – thus is a promotion, protection, endorsement of special interest groups with ambiguous attributes. Yes, even though those actual words are not in the bill.
May I say that this ambiguous bill/law is the catch-all protection for special interest groups or of people and/or activities and as such, effectively reverses other laws that are already in place that protect people from discrimination. It is not difficult to imagine the scenarios that will likely take place now with new legal license to cite discrimination when “non-discrimination” clauses or “hate-crimes” clauses have been clearly twisted to fit an agenda or argument in the past – this new law just amplifies or enlarges the special protection for special interest groups. So, then, the writer of the WND article was not making unfounded assumptions or leaps of imagination when stating what appear to be obvious repercussions of the bill/law.
I know it seems offensive when I write against laws such as SB777 signed by
I believe what we must see and stand against are not only the words of the bill, but the intent — the actions those words will be translated to include and mean. When a bill is signed into law, and when the literal words of the law are ambiguous, then, naturally what will occur or be used as leverage in an argument/lawsuit/etc. will be one’s own personal interpretation of the law. And… as far as discrimination goes, what will likely occur in the “public school” will be discrimination against Truth and promotion of what the Bible clearly defines as sin. When sexuality or gender is expanded to mean or include ‘perceived’ then the vagueness of what the discrimination could possibly be is truly subjective interpretation rather than objective truth. A person’s gender is assigned (or known) at birth and though a person may feel another way, the latter does not define the former.
Interesting to me is the oft used argument, hating sin / loving sinner. I understand the intent but it’s flawed at best and at worst, it’s not Biblical. I know we wish that Jesus had said it. Just like we wish that the Word had said, “God helps those who help themselves” when we’re plowing ahead with an exciting agenda. Only God is capable of hating sin and loving sinners. We’re truly incapable of such love. But Jesus in us helps us love when we don’t “feel like it,” or when we cannot find something lovely or when we have nothing… it is Christ in us – the hope of glory – that loves others… the unlovely, the unlovable, the lost and the saved.
So as far as hating the sin… and loving the sinner… I understand the sentiment and have even said the words or didn’t stand against them in some up-against-a-wall situations in the past. But I must ask, is it truly loving to ignore sin? to wink at sin? to excuse or tolerate sin or worse: to not call sin: sin? When sin is taught, tolerated, required, coddled or protected, then really… the argument to “love the sinner and hate the sin” is a moot point. And it’s not love.
Hate the sin – and love the sinner is one of those guilt trippy things that is tossed at Christians to silence the argument and squash arguments (and Christians). Further, I believe that it is erroneous to attempt to apply that argument to discrimination – especially to such an ambiguous or wide-open-for-interpretation law such as SB777. Here’s a prime example of the silencing of Christians whose straight talk message doesn’t line up (no pun intended) with the protected class.
Defending this bill/law demonstrates the deep inroads made by those who have a complex agenda to destroy God’s intentional design and God’s presence and force accommodation to that agenda.
With your 777th reason to homeschool, remember God’s purpose may seem to be thwarted. But it won’t be. In the end, it won’t be.