Christianity Today Pees on their Audience and Tells Them It’s Raining Over LGBT Rights Ruling

You know, we really didn’t need any more evidence that Christianity Today has crossed over from Christian publication to left-wing political activism. Yet, here comes an article by Daniel Bennet that argues the Bostock v. Clayton County Supreme Court ruling, in which the word “sex” in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applies to sexuality and therefore applies to LGBTQ+ persons, discusses the new reality that employers cannot fire someone merely for being gay or transgender under federal law, and how this is actually a GOOD thing that in the long run, and will help Christians rather than hurt them.

In what is a less-than-masterful attempt to gaslight us, we see an obviously crude, easily discernable delusion. Bennet argues that this decision is “not the last word on the conflict between LGBT rights and religious freedom rights. In fact, Bostock could be the first step in breaking the impasse.”

Advancing the idea that “this decision should not be read as a decision that dooms religious liberty in America,” he chides those who are fulminating and upset over the decision, those who are decrying it as devastating, awful, and having the consequence of having “eviscerated religious liberty.” Bennet says such reactions are “premature” when in reality, he further informs the reader that we ought to view it with “cautious optimism.”

Like the Pastor telling a beat-up, black-and-blue wife to go back to her abuser, Bennet argues that rather than feeling betrayed by Gorsuch for his part in the disembowelment of Religious liberty, we ought to love and appreciate him. That we ought to thank him and laud him for being committed to “the conservative legal philosophy called textualism,” and that “there is little reason for people who care about religious liberty to doubt Gorsuch is a legal ally.”

Rather than seeing the ruling as the idiotic, ignorant, logically fallacious farce that it is, Bennet says that we ought to be “optimistic” and that “there is no reason to believe the court is poised to roll back protections for religious liberty. If anything, the appetite exists to expand them.”

And there you have it. Can you feel the drops landing on your head? Warm droplets fizzing with that ammonia smell? First a few, then a barely controlled stream wetting your hair and gushing into your ear as you turn away? This man is seriously arguing that this ruling will have no impact on religious liberty whatsoever, and in fact, that it demonstrates the opposite, that it is a catalyst to *expand* your religious liberty when it comes to decisions over issues of LGBTQQIP2SAA. Amazing.

The article finishes with the smug, priggish statement, “While this process isn’t always comfortable, Christians should nevertheless come away from Bostock hopeful for the future.”

Thanks, Christianity Today. We needed that.