Mr. David French is an admirable writer, and I learn a lot from him.
But recently he missed an element in his short piece about Christian adoption agencies who refuse to place children with same-sex couples.
He sets up the situation that Christian agencies don’t serve same-sex couples and then adds that eventually the couples found children elsewhere:
The story is written in the classic liberal style, as the favored group recounts its experience with “discrimination,” and the demonized religious conservatives are left explaining why they hurt such good people. But look closely and you’ll notice a key fact: All of the gay families the author spoke to ultimately succeeded in adopting and/or fostering children.
Mr. French is correct to note that society is so open-minded–too open-minded–that the couples found their children at non-Christian agencies.
So society didn’t discriminate. True enough.
However, what he missed is that the Christian agencies did discriminate. That’s why the same-sex couples had to look elsewhere.
Then he points out that religious agencies work with the state. But this compounds the problem. How long will this working relationship last, when the state finds out that the same-sex couples were refused service at the religious agencies?
He finally goes into the motives behind the left’s sexual revolution or nonconformist sexual practices. It’s “born out a deep hostility to traditional religious faith.” Maybe that explains part of it.
Another motive is that in society people of traditional religious faith are the ones most likely to deny these sexual revolutionaries services in their parachurch ministries or private businesses.
I favor opposite-sex couples alone adopting, and I favor opposite-sex marriage. That’s optimal for society in the long run.
But I don’t think we should miss the obvious while we present our case.
In the bigger picture, I eagerly wait to find out what the courts will decide about balancing the religious liberty of private businesses against the right of a customer who doesn’t conform to their religious beliefs to be served anyway, in the commercial sphere by said religious businesses.
Things get even more complicated when the Christian establishments are parachurch ministries. Do they have the right to discriminate (deny services) on a religious basis, per the First Amendment?
And do privately, religiously owned businesses have the right to discriminate (refuse services) on a religious basis only?
We shall see. But since the left dominate the courts, I don’t hold out much hope for religious liberty. The long-range solution is to win the executive branch which will appoint judges who have humility and caution about the Constitution.