THE THEOLOGICAL ENGINEER

InterVarsity's LGBTQ Policy

Of Threatening Politics and Precautionary Policies

Single Page/Printer Friendly
Continued from Page One

Eich and Turek, by any fair assessment, held no such conflicting views. By both actions and logic, nothing they said or did were at odds with the mission of their employers. From a moral standpoint, then, Eich and Turek were the victims of illegitimate targeting, on the basis of their beliefs. InterVarsity employees who disagree on the subject of homosexuality are in no such predicament: those beliefs are part and parcel of their employer's purpose.

What, then, of legal concerns? I'm not a lawyer, so I can’t expertly contribute on the subject of what is or is not allowed in all circumstances. I can only speak to common sense, and how things ought to be. Let's shortcut that discussion with a pointed question. Does anyone want to live in a society where the government can force you, a private employer, to retain someone who opposes your business's interests? Be careful, now, there's a big difference between living in a culture where unfair people are free to do unfair things, and a culture where the only recourse to unfairness — the government — is the same one foisting the unfair situation on you.

If the law is going to restrict employers from anything, it should be disallowing termination on the basis of religious views when such views are irrelevant to the company's work or the person's job. Not bolstering the power of an employee to be paid when they oppose their own employer, or a customer to force a business to participate in something the owners dislike. In theory, this is what the law does. In practice, however, we're seeing the opposite.

In other words, what's happening at InterVarsity is a direct result of the LGBTQ lobby's social bullying. At least for now, there are still some legal and constitutional protections for organizations who want to uphold certain moral positions. Unfortunately, the LGBTQ alliance has been using every possible means to force such organizations and businesses to betray those convictions. As a result, these groups are being forced to formalize, crystalize, and enforce strict doctrinal points in order to leave no room for a later lawsuit.

In other words, when you use legal maneuvers to force people to agree with you, you compel them to use legal maneuvers to defend their beliefs. Based on current trends, taking a "live and let live" policy, on InterVarsity's part, would probably open the door to a lawsuit if they later told a staffer not to promote or endorse certain behaviors on the job.

See the connection? From the standpoint of an LGBTQ activist, the backfire effect should be obvious. Using the courts to force business to violate their conscience is starting to result in actual consequences for LGBTQ-minded people. Because, in order to protect themselves from bully lawsuits, these organizations now have to draw clear, absolute — dare I say intolerant — lines, lest their own openness be used against them.

Restrictions on a company's right to terminate employees should be very narrow, and carefully considered. At the same time, pushing society to bully organizations into following the crowd is already having some unintended consequences. Whether you think InterVarsity is justified or not — and I do — those concerns should be crystal clear in all of our minds.

Be careful what you wish for has become my standard mantra when dealing with LGBTQ issues. Before long, I'm afraid, I'm going to have to change that to something much less helpful, and far more depressing:

I told you so.

comments powered by Disqus

Published 10-10-16