When LGBT activists said their push for same-sex "marriage" was about "marriage equality," they weren't being entirely honest.Dishonesty about honesty is always refreshing. Apparently the fact that our struggle for equal protection continues past marriage equality makes us dishonest. When did we promise to stop with marriage? How does that work Bob?
Not that evangelical Christians are necessarily surprised, but Wednesday, a group of "gay rights" activists, with help from the liberal Daily Kos website, launched an online petition demanding "full civil rights" for all LGBT people everywhere. They are demanding legislators adopt the Equality Act, which they say is an "update" of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Eschliman's eureka is a group from Daily Kos? The Human Rights Campaign has been rallying support for the Equality Act for almost a year now starting with this video the day that the bill was introduced. Moreover, the Act is not what “they say.” It is HR-3185. The text is readily available as is the Cliff's Notes version on Wikipedia. It only requires the intellectual curiosity to know what one is writing about.
So what else does Biblical Bob get wrong?
What the activists don't tell anyone is that among the many different protections in place as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are protections for Christian employees and business owners. Many of those protections would at the very least be trampled by the Equality Act, if it were adopted and signed into law.Bullshit. First of all, the Civil Rights Act applies to religion, not Christians. Muslims and Jews are the equal of Christians in the Act. Secondly, I don't know what protections Eschliman is referring to because he is not specific.
His absurd hyperbole is probably regarding Title VII of the act which provides a very narrow exception allowing businesses to discriminate against a protected class. For example, a Catholic school may limit some positions to Catholics. Airlines can enforce a mandatory retirement age without being accused of age discrimination because of safety concerns.
Conservative Christians are wed to the belief that the require—indeed, they are entitled to—the right to discriminate against LGBT citizens. They do not want to be forced to hire people that they disapprove of. Nor, for that matter, do they want to serve people they disapprove of in public accommodations where not required to do so by local law. It is Christian privilege and it will come to an end. Not in this session of Congress nor, perhaps, in the next but eventually LGBT citizens will be protected by the Civil Rights Act. Mr. Eschliman's approval is not required.
All of this nonsense makes Eschliman feel good. He finds cause to demonstrate his personal disapproval of gays regardless of the inherent intellectual dishonesty. Our society is changing. Most people accept the medical fact that sexual orientation is an immutable trait. Religion on the other hand…