To the bishop who wants to insist on broader religious exemptions to ensure LGBTQ people can continue to be discriminated against, because his version of Christianity is opposed to homosexuality, what is his excuse for not focusing his objections to the ordinance with those same exemptions highlighted to cover divorced people, who his version of Christianity also finds sinful?
Cherry-picking who gets most harshly treated from one denomination’s long biblical pick-list certainly does not feel like a justice-for-all approach to an equal rights ordinance.
The ordinance already provides full religious exemption coverage for anti-gay discrimination within the limited confines of the practice of religion. Going beyond that into the secular/civil businesses any church chooses to engage in is not allowed in the ordinance, and should not be.
Thankfully, many religious denominations fully accept and welcome LGBTQ people in all arenas of faith and life. But the bishop’s insistence on treating LGBTQ people as less-than in the civil world is all the proof that’s needed to show why this equal rights ordinance is needed, exactly as it was first crafted.
Sara Boesser,
Juneau