Guess What’s Worse Than “Creepy Uncle Joe.”

It turns out that handsy Ol’ Uncle Joe really is a bit “creepy” after all. We can all say that, now that enough democrats have told us this is the case. At least this is the current take of certain presidential-minded democrats who’ve decided that they no longer want or need Joe Biden. If these democrats were in their right minds, they would realize that loveable Ol’ Joe—with his hair sniffing and back rubbing and face pecking—is among the least of their problems.

Nevertheless, right now many in the democrat party simply want to be done with Biden because of “inappropriate touching.” This is the man who served in their party as Vice President for eight years and as a U.S. Senator for 36 years. By inappropriate touching, they mean things like hand-holding, forehead-to-forehead conversations, holding women “for a beat too long” at receptions, and the like. No one is alleging anything criminal, nor is anyone using the phrase “sexual harassment.”

What’s more, very little we are hearing from Biden’s accusers and their accomplices is new information. It seems clear that these accusations against Biden are little more than a political ploy by some democrats who hope to rid themselves of what they see as an old straight white man who doesn’t seem quite hip or radical enough to be their presidential nominee. As Brent Bozell and Tim Graham recently put it,

The Democrat-media complex has suddenly decided that Joe Biden has a creepiness problem. Why now? Why not when he was vice president for eight years? Does anyone remember the allegedly fierce White House press corps pelting the press secretary with questions, asking when then-President Obama would tell his understudy to stop putting his hands on women -- and little girls -- and putting his face uncomfortably close to theirs?

In spite of the efforts of his fellow democrats who want the “creepy old man” label to force him to just go away, Joe Biden seems to be leaning toward making them beat him the old fashioned way: at the ballot box—or at least Biden hopes to force his opponents to have to work hard in rigging the primaries. Whether Biden runs, or whether he gets the nomination, the efforts against him remind us that democrats remain blind to the real problems within their party.

For example, far worse than space-invading Biden is biology-denying Biden. Recall, more than once, Joe Biden has called “transgender equality” the “civil rights issue of our time.” Because of his efforts and the efforts of those like-minded in the Obama administration, among other perverse—or “creepy”—things, boys started using girls’ restrooms and locker rooms. Soon afterward, boys started—and continue—to take trophies from girls.

In addition, because of their lust to promote liberal dogma on sex and sexuality, again ignoring sound science, morality, and common sense, the Obama-Biden administration lifted the long-held Combat Exclusion Policy, and U.S. women became eligible for front-line combat operations. In other words, time and again Joe Biden and his like-minded ilk—which includes pretty much every democrat running for president—continue to ignore the truth about something as fundamental as the difference between males and females. They turned their wicked ignorance into disastrous policy for the nation. Quite a bit worse than serial hair sniffing, don’t you think?

Also recall that biblically-ignorant Biden preceded Barack Obama and the Supreme Court in voicing his support for legally redefining marriage. To prove his apostasy, Biden has even officiated a same-sex “wedding.” As if a legal redefinition of the oldest and most foundational institution in the history of humanity wasn’t enough of a blow to Christianity, in 2012 the Obama-Biden administration issued its notorious contraception and abortifacient mandate.

Through these other nefarious efforts, Biden, Obama, et al have regularly waged war on Christianity and religious liberty. Ignoring the centuries-old beliefs of those who don’t share his perverse modern views on marriage and sexuality, as Vice President, Biden strongly supported passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). As Ryan Anderson put it,

[ENDA] tramples First Amendment rights and unnecessarily impinges on citizens’ right to run their businesses the way they choose. The proposed legislation does not protect equality before the law; instead it would create special privileges that are enforceable against private actors.

Again, virtually every democrat—including those running for president—share such oppressive views on Christianity and religious liberty. Instead of making life more difficult for us Christians, I would prefer a hug from Joe Biden.

Killing newborn children who happen to escape the deadly instruments of an abortionist and emerge alive from their mothers’ wombs is far worse than anything a moral person would deem “creepy.” Yet modern democrats are actually making the case for what could be described as “post-birth abortions.” Infanticidal democrats are concerned that Joe Biden is not sufficiently devoted to the cause of killing the unborn—or even the newborn, if necessary. It seems Mr. Biden is a bit too “creepy,” but not quite heartless enough for modern democrats.

If you would be “creeped out” by someone coming into your home and stealing your stuff, then socialism is probably not your thing. Nevertheless, democrats’ embrace of all things socialist is only rivaled by their lust to make legal nearly every perversion imaginable in the sexual realm.

Whether the “New Green Deal”—supported by a majority of leading democrats—or Medicare for all—supported by most of the democrats’ 2020 presidential field, along with an “aggressive and expanding” group of over 100 Congressional democrats—in the vain pursuit of utopia, modern democrats continue to promise to spend other people’s money. As I noted recently, for a picture of just how worse than “creepy” socialism can be, take a look at Seattle, San Francisco, or Venezuela.

So we have hair smelling, hand-holding, and hugging vs. socialism, infanticide, and those who can’t—or refuse to—tell the difference between males and females. Given such, I’ll take “creepy” over the democrats’ platform any day.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2019, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Will Liberals Stand for the “Right” to Plantation Weddings?

It seems that Jordan A. Maney is not as committed to “diversity” and “love” as she would have us believe. Recently, Ms. Maney, the black owner of a San Antonio event planning business, “All The Days Event Co.,” got a bit upset when she was asked to plan the wedding for a couple whose chosen venue contained the word “plantation.”

Here’s the exchange as reported by ATTN:

As ATTN also notes, Maney also told the inquiring customer on the receiving end of her discrimination, “You’re having a wedding at a grave-site essentially. How are you going to laugh and celebrate on so many people’s blood, and sweat, and suffering?” Of course, built in 2011, strictly for the purpose of hosting weddings, Kendall Plantation has never had anything to do with slavery. Yet, like many who are so easily offended in these sensitive times, the mere mention of “plantation” was enough to rile Ms. Maney.

Furthermore, after rejecting her plantation client, Maney went to her Facebook page, and in a post that is no longer available, declared (yes, in all caps):

“DON’T CALL MY BLACK-OWNED BUSINESS ASKING ME TO PLAN YOUR PLANTATION WEDDING.”

Now imagine for a moment the tables were turned. At the bottom of the homepage of All The Days Events’ website is a cute little logo:

The logo, which is also a link, is an indication of an “LGBTQ-Friendly Wedding Vendor.” Additionally, the blog on Ms. Maney’s business website has a recent post entitled “Honey, Marry Whoever You Want.” (I guess, just not wherever you want.) What if Kendall Plantation wants nothing to do with planners like Maney and her “progressive” values? What if Kendall Plantation—like so many other small businesses across the U.S.—wants nothing to do with the LGBT agenda? What if they publicly declared, in all caps:

DON’T CALL MY CHRISTIAN-OWNED BUSINESS ASKING US TO HOST YOUR HOMOSEXUAL “WEDDING.”

How quickly do you think the lawsuit would be filed? How long before the media caught wind and sought to make an example out of another “bigoted” Christian?

As most of us well know, many Christians—especially those in the wedding industry—have effectively declared that they refuse to participate in the immoral act of same-sex “weddings.” (My wife and I have encouraged all Christians to take a stand for biblical marriage.) As a result, the list of Christians who have been targeted by the homosexual gestapo and their allies in the Democrat Party, the media, and the judiciary is long and growing longer.

As long as same-sex “marriage” has the force of law, Christians will continue to be targets of those who seek revenge upon the defenders of biblical marriage—what used to be known simply as “marriage.” What if a photographer, a florist, or a baker in the blog of his business website declared that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman? How long would it be before a couple of lesbian or homosexual activists made them a target? As we have well seen, and as we were warned, “live and let live” is not a hallmark of the homosexual agenda. Yet, no doubt that is exactly how Ms. Maney expects to be treated.

In fact, she probably imagines her position to be the morally superior one. Someone should ask her, upon what moral code she bases her unwavering business stance. However lacking I find Ms. Maney’s moral position to be, I also think she has a clear right to make such a business decision. What is most interesting in this scenario is how liberals—ignoring the necessary hypocrisy and duplicity, which is often very easy for most of them—will defend her, if it even comes to that.

This episode has received little media attention, and I’ll be surprised if it goes much beyond that. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC)—the largest newspaper in Georgia—on Thursday, April 6, did have a sympathetic article on Ms. Maney and her decision prominently placed on the homepage of their website. The piece began, “A black San Antonio-based event planner is speaking out against the racial undertones connected with plantation weddings.” Almost certainly the aim of the piece was to cast “plantation weddings” in a bad light and Ms. Maney as the gallant crusader standing against such wickedness.

The similarities between Ms. Maney’s decision and those of Christians who’ve declined wedding services to same-sex couples seemed lost on the AJC author. Unless they are forced to see the similarities, virtually every liberal in the media, the courts, and the Democrat Party will be just as blind. The hypotheticals that wise defenders of Christian small-business owners have presented—a black baker refusing to cater for the KKK or a Jewish florist refusing to decorate for Nazis—are no longer mere hypotheticals. What say you, liberals?

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

UW-Madison Students Display Stunning Duplicity Towards Christians

Alliance Defending Freedom was recently on the campus of the University of Wisconsin. It wasn't pretty. The corruption of liberalism was on clear display. Watch:

Remember, the duplicity and illogic witnessed above is rampant across U.S. campuses. In addition, this sort-of thinking--or rather, lack of thinking--has infected, not only our classrooms, but our state houses, court houses--even churches! In other words, as I've pointed out often, the corruption of liberalism is wide and deep. Liberals on campuses, in the media, in elected office, et al, must be made to answer these sort of questions.

However, remember, Christians shouldn't even need the protection of "religious liberty" when it comes to marriage. The Supreme Court of the United States must reverse its perverse, immoral, and unconstitutional ruling on marriage.

Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the brand new book The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The “Bigger Problems” of Georgia’s Governor Nathan Deal

The Governor of my home state of Georgia, Nathan Deal, has been soundly, and frequently, taken to task for his recent “Craven Capitulation” on religious liberty. I don’t wish to rehash the merits of the very weak bill Deal rejected (it only protected churches, religious schools, and “integrated auxiliaries”), nor do I wish to highlight again the rampant ignorance and hypocrisy of those who lobbied Deal to veto religious liberty in Georgia. What I would like to do here is give some explanation as to why I believe Deal caved on the defining moral issue of his governorship.

Chelsen Vicari at The Institute of Religion and Democracy hinted at the problem when she wrote of Governor Deal’s veto, “When corporate bullies dangling dollar bills is enough to cause a Baptist governor to veto a bill protecting freedom of conscience and speech, a bigger problem exits.”

Vicari goes on to conclude, “Gov. Nathan Deal’s veto of Georgia’s religious freedom bill represents a wider movement among America’s Christians to compromise Scripture and morality for the sake of votes and popularity. Unfortunately, many Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants, and Catholics are bowing down at altars of sexual liberation and political correctness, erected by cultural Leftists.”

The “wider movement” Vacari references is especially prevalent in the Catholic Church and Mainline Protestantism. This eagerness to compromise Scripture and morality is due to the widespread embrace of what Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, calls “near Christianity.” It seems that Mr. Deal has been steeped in such wishy-washy theology for decades.

A day after Deal’s veto, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert Mohler described in a podcast Deal’s rationale for vetoing the religious liberty bill as a “moral and political evasion.” Dr. Mohler also pointed out that Deal is acting as an agent in the liberal “theological agenda” that is helping to progress the homosexual agenda.

Given the theology of Governor Deal’s church, this should come as little surprise. As Dr. Mohler also noted, Governor Deal is a member of The First Baptist Church of Gainesville, Georgia. Since the early 1990s, First Baptist of Gainesville has been affiliated with the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF), a more liberal association of Baptist churches than is the Southern Baptist Convention.

On homosexuality, CBF declares, “CBF does not issue ‘official’ positions on homosexuality or other social issues because it violates the Fellowship’s mission as a network of individuals and churches. CBF values and respects the autonomy of each individual and local church to evaluate and make their own decision regarding social issues like homosexuality.” In other words, CBF chooses to ignore Scripture and remain silent on one of the most pressing moral (not merely “social”) issues of our time.

After the infamous Obergefell ruling last year in which the U.S. Supreme Court abandoned the eternal truth on marriage, the pastor of First Baptist of Gainesville, Bill Coates wrote,

“People of deep faith and convictions exist on both sides of the LGBT and gay marriage question. Ultimately, it comes down to how an individual interprets Scripture and how churches interpret Scripture. If read with strict literalism, one can always point to passages that appear to condemn many kinds of behavior…Reading the Bible literally can lead us to the embracing of attitudes that in fact move us from Christlikeness.”

Of course, when the Bible speaks literally, as it does on homosexuality, we are to take it literally. Dr. Coates, who has pastored First Baptist for the last 18 years, went on to write,

“Each church will have to decide how to walk through this marriage equality debate. I think we should respect those who choose to allow their ministers not to perform same-sex weddings out of their own deep convictions, and I think we should respect churches that choose to allow their ministers that right, for they make their choice out of deep convictions, too…I say this: I do not always know what the truth is, but I can always tell what love is. I believe love is the greatest of all, and to do the loving thing will always be the right thing. Most congregations will eventually find their way there.”

Dr. Mohler concluded that Coates could only have meant “that most congregations will eventually get to an affirmation of same-sex marriage in one way or another.”

Jim Galloway, a long-time political reporter for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC), recently reported on the “Baptist-on-Baptist fight” that resulted from Georgia’s religious liberty debate. Galloway asked Dr. Coates “whether the governor’s veto reflected the values of the First Baptist Church of Gainesville.”

Coates replied, “My perception is that the great majority of our congregants are very supportive of Governor Deal’s veto of this bill — primarily for two reasons. First, we hold to the strong historical Baptist principle of separation of church and state.”

I suppose the only thing surprising here is that it took Dr. Coates this long to play the “separation of church and state” card. How tragically ironic that the pastor of a Baptist church in Georgia would resort to using eight words of Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1801 in order to justify denying his fellow pastors protection of their religious liberties.

Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists was a reply to a letter the Baptists wrote on October 7, 1801 congratulating him on his election as U.S. President. Along with their congratulations, the Danbury Baptists expressed grave concern over the First Amendment’s guarantee of the “free exercise of religion.” These Baptists felt that inclusion of such in the U.S. Constitution implied that the right of religious freedom was government-given and not God-given.

Hence, they wrote, “Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific… [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights.” (Emphasis mine.)

Oh the irony of ironies! The Danbury Baptists, it turns out, wrote Jefferson in the name of “religious liberty!” Does it sound as if these Baptists would support the government forcing individual Christians, or Christian-owned businesses, or Christian-led institutions to accommodate the homosexual agenda?

And neither would Thomas Jefferson. Each of the original 13 colonies treated homosexuality as a serious criminal offense. Jefferson himself authored such a law for the state of Virginia, prescribing that the punishment for sodomy was to be castration. Why have modern courts ignored this?

Further demonstrating his lack of knowledge of the truth, three years ago, the Bill Coates-led First Baptist of Gainesville, along with three other liberal-leaning denominations in Gainesville, GA sponsored the appearance of the (late) infamous heretic Marcus Borg at a two-day lecture series on the campus of a Gainesville university. Borg was a fellow of the Jesus Seminar and a major figure in the heretical “historical Jesus” movement.

According to apologist Greg Koukl, the so-called “scholars” of the Jesus Seminar “have rejected as myth the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the virgin birth, all Gospel miracles, and a full 82% of the teachings normally attributed to Jesus—all dismissed as legendary accretions with no historical foundation. For example, only two words of the Lord’s Prayer survive as authentic: ‘Our Father.’” In other words, they are “Christians” who reject virtually every tenet of Christianity, and Nathan Deal’s pastor saw fit to promote such false teaching.

At the time, in the local paper, Dr. Coates flatteringly described Borg as someone who “speaks of an emerging paradigm to see faith and practice faith in an age of science and technology.” Coates added that, “So many people don’t believe today because they don’t believe the basic doctrines or have trouble understanding the stories of the Bible. For people like that, Borg has a new approach, a new lens through which they can see those stories.” Borg’s “new lens” gives new meaning to the Apostle Paul’s “dim mirror.”

Perhaps the most troubling news concerning Governor Deal’s church—where he has served as both a deacon and a Sunday school teacher—was revealed recently in a 2,800-word exposé by the AJC. The First Baptist Church of Gainesville, GA, along with a former pastor (who served just prior to Dr. Coates), are being sued for their supposed role in hiding the sexual abuse committed by a former deacon, Fleming Weaver. While a Scout Leader for a Boy Scout troop sponsored by First Baptist of Gainesville, Weaver sexually abused multiple young boys.

In 1981, when some of his victims brought information to First Baptist, Weaver admitted to church leadership that he had indeed sexually abused several young boys. Reportedly, the church chose not to reveal Weaver's abuse to the Boy Scouts or to law enforcement and allowed Weaver to remain in church leadership. The alleged victim bringing the lawsuit accuses Weaver of raping him in 1985, when the boy was 15. According to the AJC, Dr. Coates “acknowledged he had heard the rumors about Weaver, ‘but there was never any kind of proof.’” Weaver, now 82-years-old, remained a deacon at First Baptist until just a few weeks ago when this story hit the news.

It should come as little surprise that a church that would allow an abuser of children to avoid the law and remain in leadership, that would sponsor the speeches of a heretic, that shrugged its shoulders at the legal redefinition of the oldest institution in the history of humanity, and that cites Jefferson’s wall in order to justify not protecting the religious liberties of pastors, would also give us a Governor who would “compromise Scripture and morality for the sake of votes and popularity.”

Sadly, as is so often the case with those who are steeped in “near Christianity,” as another Baptist pastor in Gainesville, Dr. Tom Smiley, put it, with his veto of religious liberty, Governor Deal “missed his moment.” (In other words, he missed his “Esther moment.”) However, if the Georgia legislature has its way—like Peter, Jonah, Samson, King David, and other trophies of God’s grace and mercy—Governor Deal may get another shot at doing what is right.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2016, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Georgia's Governor Nathan Deal Caves on Religious Liberty

In the light of Georgia Governor Nathan Deal's veto of a very weak religious liberty bill, I have a few questions for the governor and those who support this veto. As has often been the case in the modern debate over marriage, in his remarks today defending his veto of the watered down religious liberty bill, Governor Deal mentioned "language that could give rise to state-sanctioned discrimination."

Tell us, Governor, was it "discrimination" when, in 2004, 76% of Georgia voters made it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex "marriages" or civil unions? Was it "discrimination" when, by an average margin of nearly 68%, voters in over 30 other states did the same (or similar)? If not for a narrow 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that ignored the eternal truth on marriage, all of these laws would still stand. What happens if a more conservative court reverses last year's infamous decision? Is it only "discrimination" when the courts tell us that is the case?

In a seeming swipe at the Christian community, Governor Deal added, "I find it ironic that today some in the religious community feel it necessary to ask the government to confer upon them certain rights and protections. If indeed our religious liberty is conferred by God and not by man-made government, we should heed the 'hands-off' admonition of the First Amendment to our Constitution." I wonder if then Congressman Nathan Deal found it "ironic" when, in 1993 he was voting in support of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Christian conservatives know well where our rights originate, and we're certainly not asking for new ones from the government. This is exactly what liberals do. This is exactly what happened when the U.S. Supreme Court decided it could redefine the oldest institution in the history of humanity. Christians only need government to protect us in situations like this, when liberals have conferred new-found "rights" upon a group--in this case, "rights" that went unnoticed and unrecognized for nearly two centuries in the U.S.

As I've pointed out before, it is noteworthy that the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (the Fourteenth Amendment being ratified in 1868) did nothing to prevent all 50 U.S. states, including each state that entered the union after 1868, from enacting laws against homosexual behavior. As recently as 1961, sodomy was a felony in every state in the U.S.

In other words, for nearly 200 years and without any Constitutional conflictions or any "hands-off" approach, or any serious debate, homosexual behavior in America was seen as immoral and therefore illegal. Thus, we see that the Founders--the authors of the First Amendment to which Governor Deal refers--do nothing but support the traditional (biblical) view of marriage.

Again, those behind the homosexual agenda are not looking for compromise. As they have targeted Christians and Christian-owned businesses in other states, they will eventually target para-church organizations and the church. We must have politicians with the moral conviction to stand against the perverse homosexual agenda. Of course, this means an electorate with the moral conviction to choose such politicians. And this means revival.

Again, after our relationship with our Creator, the most important relationship in the universe is the relationship between a husband and his wife. Marriage is the oldest institution in the history of humanity—older than God's covenant with the nation of Israel, older than The Law, older than the church. Marriage is one of the earliest truths revealed by God. If ANYTHING is true, marriage as the union of one man and one woman is true. On this, there can NEVER be compromise.

Copyright 2016, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Ignorance and Hypocrisy Abound over Georgia’s Religious Liberty Bill

I suppose none of us should be surprised that the apologists for homosexuality are also capable of rampant and unrepentant hypocrisy. Nevertheless, the duplicity recently on display in Georgia belongs in the hypocrisy hall of fame.

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Obergefell decision, and after previous efforts at a religious liberty bill failed, and in order to protect its citizens from the militant homosexual agenda, legislators in Georgia felt renewed urgency to join over 30 other U.S. states which have similar religious liberty legislation or provisions.

The debate raged for months. Throughout this period, the media in Georgia was saturated with articles and commentary on how bad such legislation would be for the state. Corporations across Georgia and the U.S., along with local sports teams were not shy about letting their voices be heard. With unsurprising unanimity, they came down on the side of the perverse homosexual agenda. And of course, the word “discrimination” was hurled around indiscriminately.

Virgin CEO Richard Branson tweeted out, “Georgia must stop discrimination in the name of religious freedom.” Yet, Virgin Group is a worldwide conglomerate and does business in places like The United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, and Oman. LGBT “rights” are non-existent in these Islamic nations. Both The UAE and Saudi Arabia allow for the death penalty as punishment for homosexual behavior.

Michael Dell, founder and CEO of Dell Inc., tweeted, “I agree and proud @SecureWorks joined against Georgia Bill that Shields Discrimination Against Gays.” Dell has offices in Communist China (enough said) and Singapore. Male-on-male sexual activity is illegal in Singapore. Additionally, Singapore has no recognition whatsoever of same-sex couples.

With a tweet that included the headline, “A Georgia Bill Shields Discrimination Against Gays,” Microsoft President Brad Smith said, “We agree with the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce on keeping Georgia a great place to do business.” It seems that for Microsoft a “great place to do business” also includes places like Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Additionally, of Newsweek’s “Top Twelve Most Homophobic Nations,” Microsoft does business in nine of them.

Other companies such as Coca-Cola, Google, Intel, and so on, are guilty of the same kind of hypocrisy. In late February of this year, after the Georgia Senate passed what Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson called “a good bill that protects religious freedom,” he noted the “cultural cronyism” engaged in by corporate giants such as Hilton Worldwide, Marriott and InterContinental Hotels Group. As Anderson puts it, “Businesses in Georgia were always free to embrace gay marriage—to bake wedding cakes for gay marriages and make floral arrangements for same-sex nuptials—and many do, but now they want the government to force everyone in Georgia to do the same.”

Anderson also notes, “But if every Hilton, Marriott, and InterContinental hotel in Georgia already hosts receptions for newlywed same-sex couples—why can’t Georgia protect the mom-and-pop bed-and-breakfast or local Knights of Columbus hall that has a different set of beliefs about marriage? This law doesn’t harm minority rights; it protects them in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage.

“The hypocrisy of big business lobbying against the law is astounding. They want to be free to operate in Georgia according to their values, but they don’t want small-business competitors to be free to operate according to theirs. If all of the major corporations are already in favor of gay marriage, then this religious freedom law poses no threat. It merely protects the rights of those who disagree.”

The hypocrisy is even more astounding when we see that Hilton Worldwide has hotels in China, Egypt, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and the like. Marriott has hotels or resorts in Algeria, China, Egypt, and India. You get the idea.

With the aid of Georgia taxpayers (most of whom are against same-sex marriage), the NFL’s Atlanta Falcons are building a fancy new stadium. This state-of-the-art stadium has helped place Georgia in the running to host a Super Bowl in the near future. Multiple stories have run in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution warning that, “If Georgia chooses to turn the ‘religious liberty’ bill into law, be prepared: Atlanta may not get a Super Bowl.”

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy is quoted as saying, “NFL policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard. Whether the laws and regulations of a state and local community are consistent with these policies would be one of many factors NFL owners may use to evaluate potential Super Bowl host sites.”

Along with Atlanta, other cities in the running for the next several Super Bowls are New Orleans, Tampa Bay, and Miami. With its warm, sunny climate, Florida has long been a favorite Super Bowl destination for the NFL. Never mind that Florida has a Religious Freedom law, and has since 1998. What’s more, there have been five Super Bowls in Florida (in 3 different cities) since 1998. Will the NFL now hold the Sunshine State to the same standard as Georgia? Texas also has a RFRA law, and it was in place when the new Cowboys Stadium housed the Super Bowl in 2011. Will Texas (a more conservative state than GA) now hold no more Super Bowls? (Next year’s Super Bowl is in Houston.)

Additionally, as Kyle Wingfield of the AJC points out, "In fact, the history of the Super Bowl since 1997 — when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the federal RFRA did not apply to state and local governments — shows the vast majority of the games have been played in (or awarded to, in the case of the 2017 and 2018 games) states with similar laws on the questions of religious liberty and LGBT rights:

• Fourteen out of the 21 were, or will be, played in states that by statute or court precedent use the “strict scrutiny” legal standard set by RFRA. The seven exceptions include the 2002 game in New Orleans, before Louisiana passed its RFRA, and the 2012 game in Indianapolis, before Indiana passed its RFRA.
• Twelve of the 21 have no LGBT non-discrimination laws regarding employment; another four have laws affecting only public employees.
• Sixteen of the 21 have no LGBT non-discrimination laws regarding housing.
• Sixteen of the 21 have no LGBT non-discrimination laws regarding public accommodations."

Following passage of the legislation, all of the major professional teams in Georgia—the Atlanta Braves, Falcons, and Hawks—issued statements that sided with the homosexual agenda. The statements decried the so-called “discrimination” of the legislation and spoke of “inclusion.” It evidently escapes these organizations that professional sports teams are some of the most “discriminating” organizations in America.

In the combined 276-year history of MLB, the NFL, and the NBA, no woman has ever been a regular member of any of those leagues. For decades U.S. women have been excluded from the glory and the riches enjoyed by male professional athletes in America. Thanks to Obama and his minions, even the U.S. military has “seen the light” when it comes to women in combat. How dare these sports organizations continue to “discriminate” when it comes to women!

Of course, we all “discriminate” regularly. In fact, as I’ve pointed out before, “U.S. law itself is an instrument of comprehensive discrimination.” Though liberals never admit such, EVERY position in the marriage debate—including that of the Supreme Court—“discriminates.” You almost never hear homosexual apologists clamoring for the “rights” of the polygamous, incestuous, “throuples” (which is now promoted in a new TV show), and the like.

Nevertheless, the left’s cries of “discrimination” have been effective. Both the Georgia Speaker of the House, David Ralston, and Georgia Governor, Nathan Deal, capitulated to the point of using the language of the left when describing the noble efforts of Georgia legislators who wanted to protect Georgians from the tyranny of modern liberalism. Deal threatened a veto, and in a lame attempt to make his case, went so far as to use Scripture.

Thus, the “good bill” described by Ryan Anderson was gutted. Although the previous bill was already lacking, the language of the new legislation, “significantly waters down a religious freedom bill that had real force.” Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council declared that “timid lawmakers caved to misinformation campaigns from the Left and threats from big business. The bill, which was never as strong as it should have been, is now a tattered fig leaf now that House Speaker David Ralston has gutted the real protections for Georgia’s men and women of faith.”

Of course, the very premise of this debate is absurd. The idea that we need to protect citizens, small businesses, or whomever, who wish to hold to the definition of marriage that has prevailed for millennia the world over is further sign of the decline (if not the death) of our culture. As modern liberalism frequently demonstrates, when one abandons eternal truth, there is virtually no limit to the extremeness, hypocrisy, and folly that will follow.

After our relationship with our Creator, the most important relationship in the universe is the relationship between a husband and his wife. Marriage is the oldest institution in the history of humanity—older than God's covenant with the nation of Israel, older than The Law, older than the church. Marriage is one of the earliest truths revealed by God. If ANYTHING is true, marriage as the union of one man and one woman is true. On this, there can NEVER be compromise.

(See a version of this column at American Thinker.)

(See also: Governor Deal Sides with the Sodomites.)

Copyright 2016, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Georgia's Governor Nathan Deal Sides with the Sodomites

According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC) today, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal has decided that the current religious liberty bill--which has already passed the Georgia Senate--before the Georgia legislature is an exercise in "discrimination."

In strong language that most any modern liberal would be proud of, Mr. Deal went to great lengths today to warn Georgia legislators away from the current version of Georgia's religious liberty bill. As modern liberals so often do (especially in debates over the moral issues) Mr. Deal made regular use of the word "discrimination." As the AJC notes,

In stark terms, the Republican said he would reject any measure that "allows discrimination in our state in order to protect people of faith," and urged religious conservatives not to feel threatened by the ruling. He also called on his fellow Republicans pushing for the measure to take a deep breath and "recognize that the world is changing around us."

 As I have noted many times, every position in the marriage debate requires a measure of "discrimination." In fact, American law is replete with acts that "discriminate." Do Mr. Deal and his fellow homosexual apologists have the same sympathies towards the polygamous, incestuous, or "throuples?" Is Mr. Deal willing to "discriminate" when it comes to their "right" to "marry?"

With his "the world is changing around us" nonsense, it sounds as if Mr. Deal has fallen prey to one of the supreme virtues of modern liberalism: "tolerance." Of course today’s "tolerance" is little more than a self-refuting system of thought that attempts to impose liberal values onto any culture unable or unwilling to recognize the fallacy. On "tolerance," G.K. Chesterton declared: "Tolerance is a virtue of a man without convictions." What better describes a modern liberal than "a man without convictions." It's sad to see Mr. Deal align himself with such nonsense. Some things Mr. Deal have been settled for all time.

Declaring that he's a Southern Baptist who took religion courses at Mercer University, Mr. Deal even resorted to using Scripture to make his case. He declared,

"What the New Testament teaches us is that Jesus reached out to those who were considered the outcasts, the ones that did not conform to the religious societies' view of the world … We do not have a belief in my way of looking at religion that says we have to discriminate against anybody. If you were to apply those standards to the teaching of Jesus, I don’t think they fit."

He later added:

"What that says is we have a belief in forgiveness and that we do not have to discriminate unduly against anyone on the basis of our own religious beliefs. We are not jeopardized, in my opinion, by those who believe differently from us. We are not, in my opinion, put in jeopardy by virtue of those who might hold different beliefs or who may not even agree with what our Supreme Court said the law of the land is on the issue of same-sex marriage. I do not feel threatened by the fact that people who might choose same-sex marriages pursue that route."

Liberals typically only quote Scripture when they think it might help them further their Big Government social agenda. It seems that, as he skimmed his way through the New Testament on his way to the Gospel of John and the account of the Samaritan woman at the well, Mr. Deal ignored Jesus' words on marriage and sexuality.

When heralding what Jesus had to say about forgiveness, Mr. Deal forgot to mention anything about sin and repentance. He would also do well to note what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. taught us: "A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."

Of course, any redefinition of marriage is "unjust." We should not even have to debate the idea of "religious liberty" when it comes to the issue of marriage. And I refuse to tolerate the notion that we've lost the battle when it comes to marriage because "the world is changing around us." The laws of men are often based on the foolish "wisdom" of those who are politically powerful, or the most popular. However, good government should never allow for the laws of men to run contrary to the laws of God.

After our relationship with out Creator, the most important relationship in the universe is the relationship between a husband and his wife. And again, marriage is the oldest institution in the history of humanity--older than God's covenant with the nation of Israel, older than The Law, older than the church. Marriage is one of the earliest truths revealed by God. If ANYTHING is true, marriage as the union of one man and one woman is true. On this, there can NEVER be compromise.

Copyright 2016, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com