INTERESTING: Liberals wouldn't make a Muslim eat pork, but they can't 'tolerate' Christians?

The United States was founded on a principle of equality, within the framework of natural law. Central to this national experiment was the radical idea that people should enjoy freedom of conscience. So important was this freedom that we codified it in the Constitution as the First Amendment, and strictly forbade the government from reducing this right. Despite this solemn declaration, Christians find themselves engaged in a fierce battle to protect the First Amendment.

LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - Among the freedoms protected by the First Amendment is the God-given natural right to freedom of conscience. Any citizen may freely practice their religion without interference from the government. The only limits on religious expression are those which protect the fundamental liberties of others. For example, a person may not practice a religious belief that causes bodily harm to others, or mandates some other egregiously unlawful behavior.

Unfortunately, the moral fabric of America is changing as more and more buy into moral relativism and the notion of "acceptance" which stems from such relativism. "Acceptance," whatever the term really means, is becoming more sacred than religious freedom.

Nobody can truly define "acceptance" except to say that it requires people abide the "lifestyle choices" other people make. And this acceptance outweighs everything, even the codified fundamental right to freedom of conscience.

This is why today, it is apparently okay to live a "gay lifestyle" or practice polyamory, or even polygamy, and everyone must accept this as a matter of fact and say nothing on the matter. Such forced silence makes everyone complicit in the deed and erodes our collective morality by rendering everything permissible under the tyranny of "acceptance."

The tragic irony of "acceptance" however is that it favors sexual choices, which are not mentioned in any form in the Bill of Rights, and holds these paramount to freedom of conscience. In other words, under a new spate of liberal legislation, your First Amendment right must yield to "acceptance."

Certainly, you may object to the public spectacle people make of their sexual choices, but you had better remain silent about it. Furthermore, if you are engaged for business by such individuals, you are legally required to condone their choices by virtue of your silent obedience.

Recently, Christians have objected to being compelled to participate in "gay marriages," and other similarly offensive behaviors. Some Christians, although not all, hold the sincere religious belief that such "marriages" are inherently sinful. They believe their participation is tantamount to publicly endorsing, or at least condoning, such choices. This places upon them an unbearable psychological and emotional burden because they sincerely believe that are violating a sacred law upon which their salvation rests.

Naturally, it is ridiculous to reasonably expect someone to commit a mortal sin against their professed creator and savior. What person would demand a Muslim dine on pork or that an Orthodox Jew labor on a Saturday? Who would force an atheist to get baptized?

Give the Gift of Free Catholic Education This Christmas

Yet, this is precisely the insistence of politically active homosexuals and those people and businesses that sympathize with them. If a sincerely religious Christian refuses to sacrifice their faith on the altar of "acceptance," then they are to be branded, tarred-and-feathered, and shamed in the public forum. Never mind the fact that all of these demanded goods and services are still available from friendly, "pro-acceptance" sources, it is still forbidden that a single business place religious belief over acceptance.

This is hypocrisy because my sexual choices demand your acceptance, but your sincere religious belief receives no consideration. This, in spite of the fact the Bill of Rights specifically mentions religion, and is silent on "sexual preference." In not one single founding document did the Founding Fathers even mention sexuality.

Recently, several states have adopted legislation to safeguard freedom of conscience for Christians and other religious citizens. These laws merely permit Christians to recuse themselves if they are asked to participate in something that in their sincere religious belief would jeopardize their salvation or the salvation of others.

Liberals decry such legislation as discrimination, but what about the rights of the Christians?

Every citizen is entitled to equal rights. Every person may marry one other person of the opposite sex, and the state is compelled to recognize this as a marriage. However, this is not enough for many within the gay lobby. They want the extra right to marry a person of the same sex.

What goal is served by shaking down Christian clergy and businesses anyway? Why is tolerance and acceptance a one-way street? Why does the homosexual lobby ask for the right to discriminate against Christians and to persecute them and call it equality?

These are the questions the media and the courts should be asking.

Granted that, they want the excessive right to compel others to participate in their same-sex ceremony and to participate in it. They wish to compel, under the threat of shame and the law, that others conform to their single view that marriage is not marriage, but something else with a rapidly evolving definition.  Even though it's not.

This is Orwellian Newspeak. 2+2=5 in this new language; the past is irrelevant. Agree, or face reeducation.

Laws that defend people, such as clergy, religious organizations, and those with sincerely held religious beliefs are merely intended to defend these people from the trauma and harm that would come about by literally forcing them to commit mortal sins.

Announcing NEW Catholic Online News - Visit Today!

This is not discrimination in any form, for people are entitled to their religious belief. And when the same services are available elsewhere, and from the vast majority of vendors, this isn't even within the realm of "separate, but equal." Under separate but equal (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896), the case which initially upheld racial segregation in America, minorities were left with substandard goods and services that were often fewer in number. However, the opposite is true in this case, as the number of people with sincerely held religious belief is much smaller, and the exceptions must meet a test.

Finally, this isn't the government we are dealing with, but private citizens. And if two citizens have the right to engage in sexual perversion within the public sphere, despite the fact that such a right is not found in the Constitution, then an entire class of sincerely religious people should have the right to engage in their faith in the public sphere too. In fact, the First Amendment clearly states they may. What a tragedy that equal rights for Christians is even an issue.