How fervently can Christians challenge the promotion of sinful sex and gender distortion? And how deeply offensive it is to them? And that normalizing “LGBTQ” behaviors is an unfolding public health disaster?
Our howls of protest are often dismissed or worse, absent. But we know whose voices are reliably strong and usually get results.
The knee bows too often for the “pride” contingent in companies, schools and the public square, insisting that all celebrate these chosen, God-dishonoring behaviors.
So where’s the DEI? When will Christians and conservatives actually experience “diversity, equity and inclusion” in these viewpoint differences?
A bolder voice is what it will take before the tide permanently turns toward true First Amendment respect for faithful believers and away from honoring every rainbow-clad heckler’s veto.
As it stands in the courts, we are seeing a mixed bag of successes and failures. A few recent cases:
A Christian photographer in western New York received a favorable judgment in her long battle to be exempt from promoting same sex “marriage” under the state’s public accommodations law. Emilee Carpenter received the good news from Judge Frank Geraci of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, who blocked New York from enforcing its law and compelling Carpenter to serve two men or two women as legitimate wedding customers.
Yet Liam Morrison, a student in Middleborough, Massachusetts, won’t receive the justice he deserves for standing up for biology and morality. After having to endure many rounds of gender ideology school promotion, Liam wore a T-shirt to his middle school in 2023 stating, “There are only two genders,” but the school told him he couldn’t wear it. His offense? The T-shirt supposedly violated the school’s “hate speech” rule.
What’s hateful about that statement? Nothing. It states the truth to a lot of people who need to hear it today. And Liam and his family knew it, so he wore the shirt again, this time with the word “censored” across the ”only two” phrase. When asked to remove it again, he refused and his family sued school officials as well as the town. Two lower courts found in favor of the school and the U.S. Supreme Court, sadly, will let this injustice stand.
And in another slam on free speech, a TV station employee in Youngstown, Ohio lost her job last June over a marriage-supporting social media post.
Yet there have been a few victories. SCOTUS unanimously supported another Ohio employee, Marlean Ames, in her suit against the state of Ohio Department of Youth Services for discrimination based on her heterosexuality. Despite excellent reviews, Ames was passed over for promotion in favor of far less -qualified homosexuals and ultimately urged to resign or take a much lower-paying job. SCOTUS overturned the 6th Circuit’s ruling against her case during which she demonstrated that those promoted ahead of her were selected because of their “gay” identities.
An employee of Eaton Corporation in Iowa began wearing Bible-themed T-shirts to work to counterbalance the company’s encouragement of “pride,” including rainbow apparel. Cosby “Corey” Cunningham sued the company when he was sent home for refusing to remove the shirt and ultimately, he was fired. Yet the good news is that he and Eaton have reached an undisclosed monetary settlement to end the dispute.
And some lawsuits are still being decided. In South Colonie Central School District in New York, a lawsuit has been filed against the school for failing to prevent a boy who intermittently identifies as a female from entering the girls’ locker room. The boy competes as a male on the track and field team. Girls have complained that he hangs around to ogle them as they undress. This school should lose federal funding under Trump’s executive orders if they fail to protect girls.
And we are awaiting a SCOTUS decision on the Mahmoud v. Taylor case, where Montgomery County, MD parents want the right to opt their small children out of classroom reading sessions featuring homosexual and transgender stories. The objectionable books came from a “Pride Storybook” collection and the school refused to allow parents to opt out.
I have a personal interest in the outcome as a board member of Protect Ohio Children, which has signed an amicus brief in the case. We will update this article when the decision is released.
These people stand courageously against the raging “tide of pride.” Is it waning? There are indicators pointing in a positive direction. We can only wait, hope, and pray for God’s deliverance from this evil and injustice.
