Guest Editorials

Why anti-discrimination ordinances are wrong

By Pastor Dave Mallinak

Two “either-or” fallacies mark the nondiscrimination debate. The first applies to the Ogden non-discrimination ordinance itself. If I do not support the ordinance, then I must favor discrimination. The second relates to my opposition to homosexuality. If I oppose homosexuality, I must either be hateful or homophobic.

Oversimplification stifles this discussion. In both examples, we find more than two choices. First, I oppose these ordinances, but I do not want real discrimination; and second, I do not oppose homosexuality because of hatred or homophobia.

I denounce homosexuality because God does. I oppose a nondiscrimination ordinance that includes homosexuality because it only establishes another kind of discrimination – one against Christians like me who object to homosexuality.

Hatred and homophobia are wrong reasons to disapprove of homosexuality. Homophobia indicates a sickness or pathology that produces irrational objections. Mine are entirely rational.

I do not hate homosexuals, either. Hatred is immoral. The Bible compels me first to love God, and then to love my neighbor, because he is made in the image of God. Loving my neighbor requires me to love even my enemies.

What God condemns as sin, government should not sanction. And I should at least have an equal opportunity to express my objections to homosexuality.

Assuming you disagree with me, I am grateful for this opportunity. Thanks are in order, first to QSaltLake for publishing my views, and then to those who will give them a fair hearing.

In the Image of God

Consistent Christians do not hate you. Hatred violates God’s law as much as homosexuality does. Our opposition to homosexuality is motivated by the antithesis of hate. Love motivates Christians to voice their objections to your lifestyle. If we loved ourselves most, we would say nothing.

Speaking out against homosexuality is not the same thing as racism. Racists judge people of a particular race as somehow less than human. God’s word teaches that every person is made in the image of God. That includes you. In opposing homosexuality, we do not say that you are sub-human. In fact, we denounce homosexuality because you are made in the image of God. Homosexuality defaces that image.

Racism and Gay Rights

Race and homosexuality differ. A person cannot change his skin color, but some homosexuals have repented and permanently abandoned homosexuality. Paul says of those in Corinth, “and such were some of you,” (I Corinthians 6:11). If homosexuality really is a DNA issue, you might think that you escape responsibility.

For the sake of argument, I will concede the genetic explanation, but I deny that this eliminates your responsibility. I will concede the genetics because I believe in depravity and inborn sin. Every man is born in sin, and his sin defaces God’s image in him.

The Principle Problems with the Ordinance

It Prevents Christians from Witnessing

Because I believe that homosexuality is a sin that God will judge at the last day, I want the Christian’s right to warn homosexuals in the workplace preserved. Ogden’s nondiscrimination ordinance threatens that right.

A Christian employer might object to homosexuality like I do. This ordinance will require him to keep his convictions to himself. If his opinion offends a homosexual, it could bring harassment charges. “Harass” is an ambiguous term. The ordinance nowhere defines it. Witnessing could easily result in an offensive work environment, which could result in harassment charges.

It Establishes the “Diversity Farce”

If a Christian orders his life around the Bible, he will not be popular with those who applaud homosexuality. If a Christian is popular with those who support homosexuality, then he does not order his life around the Bible. Universal tolerance is impossible, since universal tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance.

This conundrum illustrates the absurdity of the modern diversity doctrine. Diversity would insist that my right to declare my convictions be protected on an equal level with the homosexual’s right. Diversity would insist that “evidence of a person’s moral or religious beliefs, opinions or views, or expressions thereof, shall be inadmissible to prove violation” of the nondiscrimination ordinance.

It Establishes Secularist Morality

Every culture condemns sin and embraces holiness on the basis of an accepted standard. Secular culture is no different. Secularism has a very defined moral code, complete with a set of “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots.” Thou shalt not judge. Thou shalt not condemn. Thou shalt not be intolerant. Thou shalt embrace diversity. Thou shalt not discriminate. Thou shalt encourage and promote free “love.”

But where did secularism get its moral code? Lightning striking mud does not produce morality. Yet, secularism insists that existence morphed out of primordial ooze. How did mud manage this?

Science offers no justification for morality. Science deals only with the material world. Throughout history, science has demonstrated an inability to answer questions regarding immaterial things.

Since God created the world and revealed his will for mankind in the Bible, morality is a simple matter of studying the Bible and obeying what it says. God’s existence provides ample justification for morality, and God Himself establishes every moral standard in his word, the Bible. Nothing else does.

 

Related Articles

3 Comments

  1. While I do not want to seem mean-spirited, I have to say that Pastor Mallinak has no idea what he is talking about, and even reinforces the common misconception that morals can be held by a group (explanation later).

    Let’s begin, shall we?

    “What God condemns as sin, government should not sanction.”

    Well this is an easy one. Our nation’s government is a secular government of and by the people and, the First Amendment reinforces that the government of this nation remain secular. Now, why would a secular government concern itself with a religious issue?

    “Speaking out against homosexuality is not the same thing as racism.”

    It most certainly is. As a matter of fact, one can change the color of their skin (I tan all the time, and Michael Jackson had creams to become white). Given that skin color and sexuality are both genetic, we are left to assume that racism and intolerance of homosexuality are equally offensive.

    “Because I believe that homosexuality is a sin that God will judge at the last day, I want the Christian’s right to warn homosexuals in the workplace preserved. ”

    Christians (such as myself) never had any right to publicly defame others, or encroach upon the subject’s right to peace. The First Amendment gives you the right to state your opinion in the public realm, not private, and neither realm grants you the authority to subject others to harassment.

    “A Christian employer might object to homosexuality like I do.”

    The problem with your argument is that, as with any service provided, the employer is subject to the terms and conditions set forth by the provider of the service. Employment, unlike slavery, does not imply ownership by the employer, and as the citizens of this great nation, we have set forth terms of the use of services rendered by workers. This is no different. If you want to employ people to grow your business, you have to play by the rules. You are not God.

    “If a Christian orders his life around the Bible, he will not be popular with those who applaud homosexuality.”

    His problem, not mine.

    “If a Christian is popular with those who support homosexuality, then he does not order his life around the Bible.”

    Ahem…(this time with emphasis) his problem, NOT mine.

    “Universal tolerance is impossible, since universal tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance.”

    What? Where in the doctrine of universal tolerance does it say that we should tolerate intolerance? Tolerance is not about tolerating abuse, it is about respecting each other as humans, disregarding our personal convictions. For that matter, Jesus speaks of love and tolerance above all else, so nobody’s going to hell if they’re decent to a gay coworker, but respectfully disagree with them.

    “Every culture condemns sin and embraces holiness on the basis of an accepted standard. Secular culture is no different. Secularism has a very defined moral code, complete with a set of “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots.””

    Allow me to clarify something for you sir…morals are personal convictions, not public ethical standards. Christians are at fault for this incorrect usage of the word, and have even bent dictionary definitions in order to support it.

    We do not refer to our laws as “morals” or “moral codes” because, we understand that morals are in fact personal convictions. We have ethical standards which serve as the foundation of our laws, and the precedent by which we live.

    Only hard-lining Christians seek to define parameters for acceptable behavior, neglecting to remember that the canon of Christianity is based upon the idea of absolute freedom, with our lives judged solely by the one true God. You conveniently forget, while spouting about the teachings of Leviticus, that God found humanity incapable of following inflexible law, so teachings such as Leviticus were no longer law when we received the teachings of Jesus Christ.

    Mr. Mallinak, I will not tell you how to live your life, nor judge you… because I believe in the true teachings of Jesus Christ, and I obey my God’s direction to leave judgment up to Him.

Leave a Reply

Back to top button