I’ve got a few questions for the bigoted homophobic "faith based" crowd.
Today’s Washington Post has an article about the "faith groups" losing legal battle after legal battle to teh gayz ajenduh. And it starts with its own frame that, quite honestly, needs to be turned on its head:
Faith organizations and individuals who view homosexuality as sinful and refuse to provide services to gay people are losing a growing number of legal battles that they say are costing them their religious freedom.
The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those laws have created a clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion, religious groups said, with faith losing.
If these people (and yes I say "these people" for very good reason) are so dead set against homosexuality and think it is such an affront to their religious freedom, then let’s test this out when their lives are on the line or when they are the persecuted as opposed to the persecutor. Of course, we know that "these people" would scream like there’s no tomorrow if anyone dared to deny them services based on their religious beliefs. And they probably should, as it is really not a defensible position. But on that same note, nor should their position to deny others services or rights based on their religious beliefs when those beliefs are in conflict with the actual laws of this country. If they don’t like it, they can find a different profession.
But I digress.
Let’s say, for argument sake, that Dobson was walking across the street and he was hit by a bus. He is airlifted to the nearest hospital, and because of timing, proximity and urgency, the only surgeon that could operate was a lesbian. Would he (or his family) refuse the life saving surgery because homosexuality is "a sin"? What if it was emergency CPR and the physician in the ambulance was gay? Would he rather die than have his life saved by "a sinner"?
Or, what if a fire broke out at Bob Jones University, trapping students in a lecture hall, and the local firefighters were black? Would the students rather die (or would their families rather their children die) than be saved by someone who they discriminate against based on their "religious beliefs"? After all, they do discriminate based on this:
Some scholars also point to Bob Jones University, which lost its tax exemption over a ban on interracial dating and marriage among students, even though it claimed that those beliefs were religiously grounded.
What if a gunman broke into the College Republican headquarters at Liberty University and held some of them hostage? If the police negotiator was married to someone of the same sex, would these students stand on principle or would they want their lives saved?
What if one of Rick Santorum’s children needed a life saving organ transplant and the donor was a gay man who was murdered in a hate crime? Would he refuse that organ transplant because of fear that his child may get a case of "teh gay"? Or would he compromise his "values" in order to save the life of his child?
Let’s look these situations a bit differently. What if a black firefighter refused to help the students at Bob Jones University because a few years ago, he was involved in a relationship with one of the students and she was expelled from the University? Or, what if that lesbian physician was on the receiving ends of protests and constant verbal abuse from the local Focus on the Family chapter? Or what if that police negotiator said "screw those homophobes – they made my life more difficult and they can all be shot for all I care"?
I think we know the answer to these last questions. But we need to know the answer to the others, since we want to make sure that the racists and bigots and homophobes are consistent in their religious beliefs. If they don’t want to help others in need, then they should be prepared to turn away that very same assistance when it is to benefit them.