We’re pretty sure that NCAA President Mark Emmert’s statement that the new Indiana religious freedom law violates the organization’s core values was only meant to cover the organization’s posterior.
He’s covering his ass, in other words. But, in doing so, he ignores an important constituency.
No recognition of the importance of Christian beliefs to those who hold them. The NCAA is apparently oblivious to the faith of student athletes within its fold. The Fellowship of Christian Athletes has dozens of chapters at schools across the country, including a very strong contingent at the University of Louisville.
There’s also no mention of sexual preference, the driving force behind all the opposition to religious freedom. The issues of “inclusion and diversity” are diversionary, as is the effort to equate the cause to the civil rights movement. Sexual preference, in their world, takes precedence over religious beliefs. They emphasize religious opposition as if only people of faith aren’t comfortable with the lifestyle.
Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, who is gay, has banned government travel to Indiana. Houston Mayor Annis Parker, who is gay and sought to subpoena the sermons of Christian ministers, is opposing efforts for a referendum on a constitutional amendment allowing Texas businesses to deny service based on rights of conscience.
Tim Cook, the gay CEO of Apple, warned in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, “There’s something very dangerous happening in states across the country. These bills rationalize injustice by pretending to defend something many of us hold dear. They go against the very principles our nation was founded on, and they have the potential to undo decades of progress toward greater equality.”
We seriously doubt the founders had sexual preference in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. They were explicit, however, in the first sentence, declaring that government “shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
What the LGBT lobby really wants is social and legal acceptance of a lifestyle, in addition to the financial benefits that accrue from them. Polls indicate that a growing number of Americans are more accepting. They cross the line, however, when they try to force their lifestyle on other citizens, whether it be through political pressure on religious organizations, businesses or individuals.