Buckle up Springfield. The Springfield city council is launching a vicious attack on Christianity in the name of equal rights. At the end of the day the Church will be wide open to litigation, in spite of the so called church exclusion. After much legal counsel it has been determined that the exclusion is graciously giving the church what it already has, and offers no real guarantees. I thought that it would be appropriate to post a Quote from Conservapedia.com by Alveda King during this debate.
Dr. Alveda C. King is the founder of King for America, Inc. which is a faith based organization.
Dr. Alveda C. King stated the following to the Massachusetts General Assembly regarding the existence of ex-homosexuals is an argument that “gay rights” does not achieve civil rights status:
“ Thirty-nine years ago, my great-uncle, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., delivered to mindful citizens of America a prophetic dream which envisaged all of this great nation’s people living in the full exercise of all rights granted to them by the U.S. Constitution. My forebear’s dream was deeply rooted in the American dream wherein the Founders of our Union saw every lawful citizen standing in dignity outfitted by unalienable rights from God to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness free from the tyrannies of personal whim and ideology handed down by kings, dictators, political groups, and yes, some institutions of democratic government….
Yet, there is a larger body of science represented even by the above scientists that agrees that mature behavior patterns rely much more on social shaping and choices than genetic predisposition, such that these behaviors may be successfully modified by a variety of means. The food addict may eat responsibly, the alcoholic may drink responsibly or not at all, and the homosexual may live according to a wide range of choices as well. Thus, binge drinking, overeating, cocaine abuse and other behaviors do not have to be granted public latitude as a matter of right in this great nation. Certainly, these and other mutable behaviors may be practiced; they may be under constitutional protection in fact (under our privacy clauses), but they may not be granted civil rights or public protection.
Again, if behavior or other aspects of personhood may be altered, then those aspects fail to meet civil rights status. Homosexual practice clearly falls into this category. As my mother, Alveda C. King has said, “I have met many ex-homosexuals just as I have met many ex-husbands, ex-wives, ex-drug addicts and ex-lawyers. Yet I have never met an ex-Negro, ex-Caucasian or ex-Native American.” The politics of preference does not jibe with civil rights legitimacy.”
In short, the distinction is between characteristics that may be altered, and that thus do not merit civil-rights protection, and immutable characteristics, which do merit civil-rights protection. This is why sexual orientation does not merit civil-rights protection, while characteristics such as race, sex, and religion do.
Quoted from, Conservapedia.com