An article at McClatchy (repeated at the Stars and Stripes) linked the previously-discussed Russell Amendment with the more-headline worthy issue of troop pay:

A pay raise for U.S. military troops could face a long wait as Congress steps up a feud over gay rights in trying to wrap up a long-stalled 2017 defense authorization bill.

The borderline-sensationalist headline tops an article that almost exclusively presents the issue as one of the “right to discriminate”: 

Democratic opponents want…to strip a religious-liberties amendment from the final version of the bill, saying the amendment would allow federal defense contractors to discriminate against gays and lesbians by not doing business with them.

That’s an incredibly tone deaf statement. “Democratic opponents” say the policy will “allow” discrimination. But the US government’s policy currently discriminates against businesses whose practices comport with their religious beliefs — practices protected from government discrimination by the US Constitution, by the way.

If you’re going to insist on that dichotomy, then the law is going to discriminate against someone, one way or the other. So who wins? The person whose exercise is protected by the US Constitution, or the person who’s behavior is the product of popular modern sexuality?

David Stacy, government affairs director for the Human Rights Campaign, said the GOP-led House had “followed in the footsteps of North Carolina, Mississippi, Indiana and other states that are targeting LGBT Americans.”

Who ever thought the US would need a law saying the government can’t force you to violate your religious beliefs?  Legislators are not targeting LGBT Americans.  They’re defending all Americans, because all Americans have the right to exercise their religious beliefs.  The LGBT movement, on the other hand, wants special rights that prevent such religious “bigots” from doing business with the government — because of their beliefs.

Religious liberty should absolutely be protected — and US troops ‘waiting for their pay raise’ are serving to do that very thing. It’s a sensationalist framing of what should be a principled concept.

The desire to protect religious liberty, rather than sacrifice it at the altar of the LGBT agenda, is alive and well. Unsurprisingly, it’s also statistically more significant than the population that wants to advance “gay rights” over religious freedom. Yet, those who want to protect a basic human right — one specifically mentioned in our country’s founding document — are decried as the bigots.

Regrettably, the fact that some US legislators would promote sexual behavior as superior to religious freedom is no longer surprising.

ADVERTISEMENT