“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well” – President Obama
Obama made headlines in January for his inaugural remarks in support of the LGBT movement. There was another decision surrounding the inauguration that involved beliefs on homosexuality, a decision that got much less press time.
Louie Giglio was one of two Atlanta pastors to be invited to be a part of the inaugural events. Giglio is the founder of a Christian organization Passion Conferences, a large Christian religious group that aims to minister to Christian youth. One of his religious clips has been viewed over 3 million times on YouTube. He also is a strong activist against human trafficking.
This seemed all good and well, until somebody found out something from Giglo’s past. 20 years ago, Giglio gave a sermon in which he stated that homosexuality was a sin, gay marriage is detrimental to society, and asked his listeners to “lovingly but firmly respond to the aggressive agenda” of gay activists.
You can agree or disagree with that, but obviously the Obama administration disagreed. He was removed from giving the benediction, and the administration looked for someone whose ”beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.”
I’m taking philosophy, and we’re learning the art of critical thinking. One of the difficulties of critical thinking is how it can be unpopular. People don’t always like what you have to say, even if you’re speaking clearly and logically.
Giglio never said “Gay people are evil.” He never said they should be denied human rights or that they should be hated. He said in a clear, calm matter his views.
People should be able to have their own opinions. Giglio has a personal belief that homosexuality is wrong. He wasn’t rude, he didn’t demean, in fact, he said that his listeners should respond “lovingly” to an agenda he doesn’t support. He’s entitled to be able to speak his mind and have his own views.
There has been shameful homosexual discrimination in our country for far too long. But this shouldn’t mean that we have to over-compensate by discriminating against those who don’t agree with your views.
Giglio was treated wrongly. If people want to disagree with the gay lifestyle in a respectful manner, like Giglio did, they should not be penalized They have morals, just like you. If they can be respectful, so should you.
Note that there is considerable slippage between your title and your actual argument. Discriminating against someone for their views on homosexuality and discriminating against them because they are heterosexual are not the same, not even close. It doesn’t appear that this is an accident either. You speak of the decision to remove Giglio from the event as an act of discrimination, but this confounds questions about general treatment of a class of people with questions about the specific endorsement of people whose views the President does not share. Whether or not Giglio was rude about his statement 20 years ago is beside the point. The President doesn’t owe Giglio or anyone else a role in his inauguration, and the choice to remove him is not an act of discrimination. It is most certainly not an act of discrimination against heterosexuals, and your attempt to suggest otherwise if disingenuous at best.
I’m not so arrogant to think that the president can’t make decisions in his own inauguration. It was his call.
I don’t think that the decision was ‘discrimination,’ per say. That was why I put the ‘?’ in the title. I’m not sure what word can be used to describe the situation other than ‘unfair.’
I do feel that the criticism Giglio received was undue. He has a right to disagree with homosexuality. He disagreed in a calm and rational way, 20 years ago. That he would receive such criticism for disagreeing with the LGBT movement is unfair.
Is it heterosexual discrimination? Not quite. It does discriminate against those who disagree with homosexuality. They have rights to respectfully disagree. That isn’t a popular thing to say, but sometimes truth is unpopular.
I know I’m not likely to change your mind. It’s a rather sensitive topic, thanks for sharing your views. I just feel like Giglio should have the right to free speech and the right to disagree with the mainstream without being reviled.
Reblogged this on WhatIFuckingThinkToldByShaylin and commented:
its good to be recognized
Depends on how much they disagree, and in what way.
Also, this was OBAMA’s inauguration. He publicly supports full LGBTQ equality. If he truly supports it, how could he support a pastor who does not? How could he give the speech he did that day, and then have that pastor give the benediction? No discrimination occurred here.