While the big Chick-fil-a hullabaloo was going on, I had an internet debate with an acquaintance concerning same-sex marriage. I made the obvious point that at the heart of the Chick-fil-a debate was discrimination and civil rights. “It is not a matter of religious belief, it is a matter of equal rights. It it not an attack on religious beliefs or conservatism, it is equal rights. If you happen to stand on the side of discrimination, no matter what it is, then expect to be criticized.”

He said it was unfair of me to paint a slanted view of his religious beliefs as being discriminatory and accused me of saying that all religious people discriminate (which I never said and gave an example of Steve Young standing against Prop 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California, and calling it discrimination). He said he doesn’t stand for discrimination and that he respects other people’s views, but does not have to accept the liberal agenda that goes against his religious views.

I have a hard time imaging what people are thinking while they are typing such things. Is there a disconnect from logic, while typing? Here we have an example of an attempt to turn the tables around and make it sound as if his rights are being compromised. There are things that are equal and there are things that are not equal. Religious belief does not change that.

On both sides of the slavery issue, they used religious belief and scripture as justification for their stance. Were they right then to state religious belief as justification for not ending slavery? Clearly, slavery is wrong whether your religious belief accepts slavery or not. Civil rights sits outside of religious belief. There are rights that we are born with that cannot be given or taken away. This is what is meant in the Declaration of Independence by man being endowed “with certain unalienable Rights.”

What would happen to him if same-sex marriages were allowed? Would his rights be diminished? Would he still be able to marry who wants?

Of course, he would lose nothing. Nothing would change for him; not one iota. His freedom of action and thought would not be diminished in any way. He would still be able to do what he did before, and he would still be able to worship and believe as he did before. For him, things would remain the same. But for those who seek a same-sex marriage, they would now be able to exercise the same right that other consenting adults have.

But he is the victim here. Or that is what he and other Christians that hold the same views would have us believe.

Aren’t the true victims the people who have to live in a world, where they are treated as deviant and not worthy of having the same rights as other adults? Aren’t they the victims of discrimination, by having an unalienable right withheld from them?

I hate to be very blunt here, but no matter what your beliefs are — religious or otherwise, if they withhold the same rights that others enjoy, then those beliefs are discriminatory beliefs and you are not the victim, but the perpetrator of victimizing others.