Sodomy rights trump religious freedom...

Peter and Rosemary Bull, the Christian couple fined in 2008 for not allowing sexual immorality in their bed and breakfast, have lost their appeal to the UK's Supreme Court. In a unanimous ruling, the court ruled the Bulls have no religious freedom to decline one of their bedrooms to the sodomite couple who filed a complaint against them.

After 25 years, the Bulls business has been ruined and they are now forced to sell their home.

From the court's decision, this from Deputy President... Lady Hale: is difficult to see how discriminating in this way against a same sex couple in a civil partnership could ever be justified. But it goes further than that. Parliament has created the institution of civil partnership in order that same sex partners can enjoy the same legal rights as partners of the opposite sex. They are also worthy of the same respect and esteem...

Mr and Mrs Bull are, of course, free to manifest their religion in many other ways. They do this by the symbolism of their stationery and various decorative items in the hotel...

Sexual orientation is a core component of a person’s identity which requires fulfilment through relationships with others of the same orientation.

So that's what religious freedom has decayed to in our day: "symbolism on stationery and various decorative items." Too, R2K's Sunday morning liturgies in the privacy of a building designated as a house of worship.






Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.


This has massive significance. 

Sexual orientation is a core component of a person’s identity which requires fulfilment through relationships with others of the same orientation

Why is the Christian not permitted to say that:

Christian faith is a core component of a person's identity which requires fulfillment through obedience to God and conscience, including declining to offer a shared bed to those who practice sodomy.

And even in a culture that accepts homosexuality, why can't it be said that:

Mr and Mr Gay are, of course, free to manifest their desire for accommodation in many other ways.

Why does their desire to share the same bed necessitate that it must be a bed in the home of Christians?

It's stunning how blind the Tolerant Ones have become to their own intolerance.

The church has nothing to say about this case at all.

When we see this agenda being pushed because of a distorted ethical conduct, driven by a distorted understanding of true metaphysical reality, interacting with and undergirded by an understanding that there is no higher epistemological authority than natural man, all presupposed by these antagonists' hatred of God and his specifically ordered creation, it seems pretty obvious that the church has nothing to say.

I am hoping that people see the sarcasm.  

If we do not have any sufficient ethical authority (as through the Scriptures), then it logically follows that we have no sufficient authority from a metaphysical or epistemological basis to say anything at all.

Any cursory student of apologetics should see the absurdity of this disconnect between ethics and metaphysics and epistemology.  

This ultimately should then prevent us from presenting the Gospel through the scriptures to any individual related to this case. Clearly we know that there is no reason to restrict the presentation of the Gospel, yet this is exactly what happens when we somehow divorce ethical considerations from its sources of metaphysics and epistemology. 

Add new comment