There’d Be No Anti-Gay, If Gays Were Anti-Social

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

Only in 2014 America could a “religious restoration” act be pegged as “anti-gay”, to be used only by “bigots”. You see, a group of MS based chefs plan to take their condemnation of the law with them to New York City this July for a protest dinner. The “Big Gay Mississippi Welcome Table” as it is billed will feature “polite southern activism with food” according to organizer, chef John Currence. But what is polite about calling Christians who oppose same-sex-marriage the equal of deadly bigots from the Jim Crowe era?

Referring to the Religious Liberty Act, Currence told the New York Times “We are not going to sit idly by and watch Jim Crow get revived in our state.” Comparing the violence and lynching of blacks during Jim Crow to some Christians refusal to bake cakes or take photographs of homosexual themed events devalues the memory of that sad epoch. There’s another point to be made here though. Chef Currence can be forgiven for not knowing what the Catholic Church says and teaches about this issue but Catholics that repeat him have no excuse for the damage they needlessly cause the Faithful.

You see, the Church says the gay person is to conduct their lives, sexually speaking, in the same way unmarried heterosexuals do: abstain from sex and sex inspired acts of any kind and practice the rest of the doctrine faithfully. The big difference is the Church will never confer the sacrament of marriage on the homosexual so his celibacy is for life. There’s no calls to blast anyone with water-cannons or beat them with stones. If homosexuals practice humility as we all are commanded to, their sex preference is probably never made known in the first place. The worst that could be said of him them is he’s “anti-social” and we don’t need any fancy diners or legislative Acts to protect that.