It's Time To Pay Attention, Folks

Yesterday, I read an news article that made me sit up a little bit straighter in my chair. It descibed a case in the U.S. in which two lesbians, intent on having a civil ceremony to wed, sued a Christian organization which woudl not allow them to use its private property for the event. The judge ruled in favour of the couple,citing their rights having been impinged upon.
Wow! What was he thinking about, this judge, was my first response.
So I dug a little bit deeper, assuming perhaps there might have been some important details ommitted that would explain such a ruling. But what I dug up was just more of the same. The organization was simply asked if it would allow the couple to use its property in a beachfront area for a private wedding and it refused, basing its refusal on its religious beliefs. Property that, apparently, is used for weddings and other activities by the organization on a fairly regular basis. It might even be a beautiful spot, who knows? Whatever the case may be, the couple wanted to use it and were prevented from doing so. What's more, the those in the organization had the courage to be honest about why, too. I mean, they could have fudged about it and said it was booked already, or some other such thing. They could even have said it was only available to members, which woudl have dissuaded any heterosexual couple.  But they did not. They actually cited the real reason for their refusal to comply with the request and that is what started all the trouble.
And I can only assume, based on his judgement, this judge assumes anyone can do whatever they want, wherever they want, as long as they are riding the coattails of a political football - like gay rights, for example.
Now, don't get me wrong. Unlike most serious Christians, I honestly don't have a problem with gays wanting equal rights, mostly because I try to leave judging up to the one Who will one day, judge us all. Goodness knows, I will have tons to account for. Additionally, I understand why so many in the gay movement choose to litigate when employment rights and other issues are at stake. I get it. It's got to be a horribly difficult and challenging tightwire to walk and my heart goes out to them. This post is NOT about my own personal, religious beliefs. There wouldn't be room for that here, anyway. It's a really complicated topic that requires much more space than a simple blog entry can provide.
No, rather, my issue is with what the judgement implies. It speaks to our right to do on our own property as we wish, provided it does not hurt anyone else directly. Humour me for a moment; I mean, we can get drunk on our property, we can smoke on our property (even though, arguably, we are eventually polluting the airspace of others, when the physics of the thing is taken in to consideration), we can run around buck naked as long as we are out of the public's eyes on our own property and we can practice religious beliefs and rites on our own property.
Up until now, that is. At least, not according to this judge, who is setting an incredibly dangerous precedent with his ruling. I mean, will I have to allow anyone of any practice or religious belief to do what they want on my property in the future? Bear in mind, this was a religious organization, not a business or state ordained wedding chapel.
Also, does this mean that private, religious schools will no longer be able to use curriculum materials of their choice? Will opinion pieces, like those published in many blogs like these, be policed for anything that might be offensive to gay rights? Where will the line be drawn, I wonder?
The spiraling reverberations are mind boggling, when you really stop to think about it. So much for having religious freedom, which is slated as one of the most important tenants of both the American and Canadian constitutions, up there with freedom of speech.
It also begs the question, had the property been owned by an Islamic organization would the couple even have tried to book it for the wedding? You can bet your bottom dollar they would never even have thought of it, because they know any judge in the land would have ruled in favour of the organization, not the gay couple.
Taking into account the rights that other religions other than Christianity have gained, overruling other laws of the land, it just seems rather strange to me that somehow, a Christian organization suddenly has no dominant property rights.
To back this up, I cite a case years back where an RCMP officer, a new graduate, who happened to also be a practicing Sikh, was given the legal right to wear his turban on the job, rather than the standard uniform cap or no cap at all. I'm pretty sure, if we all did our homework, we could come up with similar events. So,why is it that other religions get these special considerations, even in the face of overruling circumstances and laws, but Christian ones are seemingly below that?
Food for thought.
Once again, the Emperor is without clothing...and it's getting colder out there, too.