Christian faith-based organizations couldn't wait to denounce President Barack Obama's new executive orders that ban discrimination of LGBT people by federal contractors.
It wasn't just the usual anti-gay organizations and hate groups who lined up to attack President Barack Obama for signing two executive orders that merely add the words "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to five-century old executive orders, it was Christian groups of all kinds.
Of course, the National Organization For Marriage, the Family Research Council, and the American Family Association all had their hate-filled extremist messages to peddle, that's how they stay in business. (It literally is their business model.)
There were plenty of others, but they all focused on this strange concept that it is not only their God-given right to harass and fired LGBT people because they are LGBT, but their duty to Christ to do so.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the official organization that represents the Roman Catholic Church in America, had strong words against Obama's new executive orders.
The USCCB called it "unprecedented and extreme," claimed it "implements discrimination," an "lends the economic power of the federal government to a deeply flawed understanding of human sexuality, to which faithful Catholics and many other people of faith will not assent."
Fully exhibiting their anti-gay bias -- and thus, the need for these orders -- USCCB Bishops added the Catholic Church "strongly opposes both unjust discrimination against those who experience a homosexual inclination and sexual conduct outside of marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman."
Note they said they oppose "unjust" discrimination, suggesting they fully embrace "just" discrimination -- which they do.
"But the executive order," the Bishops note, "as it regards federal government contractors, ignores the inclination/conduct distinction in the undefined term 'sexual orientation.' As a result, even contractors that disregard sexual inclination in employment face the possibility of exclusion from federal contracting if their employment policies or practices reflect religious or moral objections to extramarital sexual conduct."
Bloviating Bill Donohue of the Catholic League -- a somewhat one-man-band of anti-gay hate and hysteria -- quickly issued one of his many poor press releases.
"Most reasonable persons distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, but not this gay-friendly, religion-unfriendly, administration," Donohue said -- wrongly. Most reasonable persons actually do not distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, assuming that if one if heterosexual they will have sex with members of a different sex, and if one is homosexual they will have sex with members of the same-sex. "What does this mean?," Donohue asked, attempting to analyze the new laws. "Look for cross-dressers and other lovely types to spring forward demanding their rights. Look for homosexuals to sue Catholic institutions that do business with the federal government insisting on pension benefits for their 'spouse.'"
"The heart of the problem," Donohue insisted, "is (a) the mad idea that sexuality is a social construction, when, in fact, it is rooted in nature, and (b) an unyielding hostility to religious liberty."
Actually, he may have a point. Being LGBT is "rooted in nature," and thus, should not be a reason for legal discrimination, whereas religion is not "rooted in nature," it is a construct of man, it is chosen belief, and thus, should not be allowed priority.
Meanwhile, the Heritage Foundation's Ryan T. Anderson -- also a somewhat one-man-band of anti-gay hate and hysteria -- had many strong words to share, but never proved his point, a sign of just how deep in the Christian conservative bubble these activists live.
"Today’s order disregards the consciences and liberties of people of goodwill who happen not to share the government’s opinions about issues of sexuality," Anderson wrote, ignoring the fact that heritage and other groups for years -- up until President Obama's administration -- strongly supported "the government’s opinions about issues of sexuality" and never defended those who did not. "All Americans should be free to contract with the government without penalty because of their reasonable beliefs about morally contentious issues."
What do Bible-believing purists think is "reasonable"? Stoning? Rape and forced marriages? Slavery? Those are all "reasonable beliefs about morally contentious issues" if you happen to be a Bible-believing purist, which a large number of Christians claim to be.
"Federal policy on government contracts should not seek to enforce monolithic liberal secularism."
That very statement could have been written before African Americans were allowed to marry whites, before women were allowed to vote, before slavery was illegal. The fact is that while there is no "monolithic liberal secularism," there is an American ideology that says all people are equal and religion cannot be used as a basis for discrimination.
"All citizens and the groups they form should be free to exist and participate in relevant government programs according to their reasonable beliefs."
What America has been saying, for years now, is that it is no longer "reasonable" to oppose same-sex marriage, or to discriminate against LGBT people. These groups who are outraged, figuratively waving their arms in the air are really fighting the march of history -- and their own demise.
And again, let's remember, what these grouse are all fighting for is the "right" to not hire, to fire, and to harass LGBT people merely for being LGBT.
Not very "Christian," is it?