First Baptist Poetry Experience

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender

The controversy between marriage equality and the exercise of religious freedom is a confliction between nondiscrimination laws and religious freedom laws. Religious freedom seemed to be an important aspect of an American citizen, after all it is the very first amendment to the constitution. With each American citizen being granted equality by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination made against an individual based on his/her sexual preference may seem to violate this act. In history, religious organizations typically been immune from state and local laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, with the cases of Obergefell v. Hodges and Kim Davis this stance is challenged.

The LGBT community in the United States has always had massive difficulty fitting into our society. For many years they put up with constant mistreatment and other forms of abuse coming from the those who do not agree with their lifestyle. They have for long advocated for the acceptance of their existence and punishment for crimes committed against them. One of the hardest battles the community has had to face was the right to marry in a society that still holds the values of a traditional relationship which is between a male and female. The struggle was quite harsh but it all paid off by 2015 when the supreme court granted gay couples the right to marry. This historical decision did not go without outcry and criticisms. Most of the dissatisfaction came from those who hold very religious values and beliefs that claims homosexuality is a sin. Religion has always been a part of the American way of life since the nation's founding and with that homosexuality has been demonized throughout our society. Now that gay couple possess the legal rights to have a marriage license, religious companies and/or stores are now denying service to LGBT couples as they believe it sinful on their behalf to even take part. Many people gay or straight who fought for gay rights believe these is pure discrimination and that stores should not have the right to deny service for any customer for any reason. However, this belief is unconstitutional and goes

In this article, “Kentucky Clerk Ordered to Jail for Refusing to Issue Gay Marriage License” the author James Higdon focuses on the recent topic of gay marriage. Higdon’s story relates to a Kentucky woman named Kim Davis. Davis was arrested September 3, 2015 because she refused to issue marriage license to a gay couple. “Under questioning from her attorney, Davis went on to express her opposition to same-sex marriage, which she said was ‘not of God’ and contrary to natural law and therefore not something that she could condone” (Higdon). This quote shows that Davis refused to issue marriage licenses because of her religious beliefs. Davis’s religious beliefs are so strong that she continued to fight with the law and the court judge

Opposed to contrary beliefs, I “hate the sin, but not the sinner.” I will not condone it. I will not vote for it. I will not hate them, and I will not be a bully. I recognize that we live in a nation full of Christians and not a Christian nation which separates the church from the state, but my Christian faith does not agree with the practices of homosexuallity. On top of that, if gay marriage is not a “big deal” then why did people force the Supreme Court embedded gay marriage in the Constitution? With everyone arguing about the Supreme Court decision and that “Same-sex marriage is [now] a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed under the 14th Amendment”, an easy response is to attack the opponent by arguing that what happens under the roof of someone’s home is not the business of the government. My bigger question, however, is if the marital status of two people is not the business of the national government, then why did the Supreme Court have to hear and review to the court case to please the people? Shouldn’t the judiciary branch of the government focus on imposing more important policies for the betterment of the American nation instead of personal

Mississippi lawmakers on Tuesday called for the repeal of a controversial new law that allows businesses to refuse service to gay people based on religious objection. Ellen DeGeneres called it "the definition of discrimination," while singer Bryan Adams canceled his upcoming show in the state to show his opposition to the law.” (Reilly, 2016). Misguided people are being driven by the nose by tricky "Christian" pioneers and legislators who have a personal stake in the matter of ensuring that their assemblies and their constituents remain profoundly and honestly perplexed of the myth of the "gay person plan." Know this: If the LGBTQ people group has any sort of motivation of all, it is achieving the same essential human rights that other people appreciates. That is all. That is the plan. Try not to fall for some other clarification of it. Gay people are not after your children. They are not attempting to change over you or change you. They are not worried with being comprehended as much as they are worried with being dealt with like some other person has the privilege to be dealt with. On the off chance that you trust that any gathering

Church, temple, sanctuary, or the Lords’s house, these are just a few names that your average person might call the place you come to worship God, I have always called it home. The Church I have been attending, Memorial Baptist Church, which is also where I attend high school, I have been attending since I was the age of three years old. Moving to the area that my family lives in now, I do not believe is any accident. At the age of two years old, my father was stationed in Tennessee for the military. After passing away from brain cancer, my Mother moved my two older sisters and me to Killeen Texas, to be closer to her family. Memorial Baptist Church was the only church we have ever been members of since moving to Texas, it has always felt like

The current context of LGBTQ+ and women’s rights such as abortion with the recent election of President Trump was the inspiration for my research. I feel it is important for everyone to know when there has potentially been a violation of right’s, no matter the side one person and one vote can make a difference in so many lives. My mind has always been overcome with questions that relate to religion and the role it plays in politics. I have found through personal experience that religion plays in integral part in the political decision making of many individuals. These questions led me to formulate a formal question to give direction to my research. This question is, “How has Christianity impacted the passage of LGBTQ+ and women’s rights laws

There have been many cases over the years regarding people objecting to things based on their religious beliefs. By doing so, these people are sometimes in violation of federal or state laws that protect people’s rights and prevent discrimination. An example of this is when Bob Smith refused to rent out his banquet hall to Adam and Steve, a gay couple who wanted to get married there. Bob, a California resident, refused to rent out the banquet hall because Adam and Steve’s gay wedding went against his religious beliefs and he found their lifestyle to be immoral and ungodly. This case brings up several legal, moral and philosophical issues that will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

Since the Supreme Court ruling that gay couples can now marry nationwide reports have surfaced of churches refusing to officiate gay weddings, not surprising. These churches have been put

In today’s society there are items of public interest that will always be debated among the political parties. Some of those topics get quite heated in the debates. Gun control, gay marriage, civil rights, and healthcare to mention a few that are hot topics among the political debates. Gay marriage has been a topic that has been talked about in the last several years. Only twenty years ago it was on the law books in every state that it was illegal to marry someone of the same sex. Just twenty years later the rulings have been reversed. The church has spent a lot of time fighting to keep what we believe to be a moral issue and a stronghold for the family unit of having a husband and a wife to care for

The government wants to pass an amendment to the Constitution that would rule gay marriage unconstitutional and therefore illegal. However, is it not true that there is a separation between church and state? How is it that the government can tell the churches, "Look we don't like gay marriage so you can't wed these two."? Is it not up to the church and the ministers to decide this for themselves? Does the government feel that the gays are now the biggest threat to American society? Is that what they have to protect us from? When it comes to protesting the government is even more protective. During the 2005 Presidential Inauguration you had to reserve a spot to protest, and there were many things that were not allowed down the parade route (such as picket signs). Yet isn't it in the US Constitution that it is legal to protest and gather in public. Susan Goering, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland put it best: "Public expression of sincere and deeply felt disagreement with government policies is one of the highest forms of patriotism and the lifeblood of a democracy."

In a hypothetical scenario in which same-sex marriage and religious freedom are brought to a legal confrontation, the constitutional rights of both plaintiffs and defendants bring forth a nationwide debate on civil liberties and rights—yet it is easy to mistake one for the other. In this scenario, after lesbian couples Donna and Theodora married in the state of Massachusetts instead of North Carolina (Theodora’s home state), both decided to move to North Carolina in the city of Clinton where they found jobs to financially support one another. However, when both couples contacted a local bakery shop for a wedding cake, they were denied by the shop’s owner who cited North Carolina’s recently enacted law that allows businesses to refuse the patronage of homosexuals when the business owners themselves have a religious objection to homosexuality and same-sex marriage. When Donna and Theodora tried to hire a photographer for when they planned to recite their wedding vows, the photographer refused—with the issue of religious freedom again been cited in her arguments. Although this initially didn’t come as a surprise to Donna and Theodora, Donna was more concerned about the maid of honor, Bernice, a transgender person being able to use the women’s restroom. Because Bernice was born male, under the rules of House Bill 2—more formally addressed as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act (aka “the bathroom bill”)—that would exclude Bernice from using the bathroom of her choice

I did not come to know Christ until December of 2003 at the age of 25 at First Baptist Church of Gordonsville Tennessee. As a young boy, I had a desire to know GOD, and had even made a profession of faith, but never had anyone

The second type of the pastoral is literature that "describes the country with an implicit or explicit contrast to the urban."[3]