Here's a hint: No, they shouldn't. And it's African-American ministers who should be the most offended of all at that insulting comparison:
Nearly thirty Methodist [i.e. liberal mainline apostate] ministers throughout the South have likened Mississippi's new religious freedom law to segregation — this time, against [homosexuals], bisexuals, and [gender impersonators].
"As Christian and United Methodist ministers, we proclaim that Christ came to liberate all of creation, not just those we want Christ to liberate and redeem," the ministers said in a letter published Tuesday in the Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Mississippi.
Yes, Christ came to liberate all of creation. He also came to attain the legal right to one day judge and condemn those who would reject that liberation. And the same believers who want "none to perish, but all to have eternal life" should nevertheless have the freedom not to be forced to participate in debauched, paganistic rituals that are a deliberate mockery of the first institution - marriage - that the LORD ordained.
"Christ compels us to love our neighbor as we love ourselves and he put no qualifications on that love.
Yes, but that does not require some "neighbors" to be empowered to hold you hostage to their sinful Agenda.
"Christ served all, even those whom society deemed as sinful and untouchable".
Yes, He did - at His choosing and discretion. He also chose the time and place where He allowed the Romans, on behalf of the Sanhedrin, to seize and drag Him away to His stacked-deck trial and crucifixion (the central, core purpose, of course, for which He came the first time). Nobody forced Him to submit to that. Remember the later retort of Peter and John to that same Sanhedrin when the latter commanded them to stop preaching in the name of Christ?:
“Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.”
If the two leading Apostles had had the equivalent of the Religious Liberty Accommodations Act protecting them, they never would have been dragged before the Sanhedrin and beaten in the first place, now would they?
Many in our State seek to deny hospitality and welcome to rightful citizens of our State in the name of Christianity, which is antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ that we proclaim."
No, it really isn't. Remember that God loves sinners - of which all are we - but He hates sin. Which is why He sent His only begotten Son in the first place.
All that having been said, remember our discussion of the RLAA four weeks ago wherein I suggested that the legislation might be a bit too broad in scope, going beyond protecting Christian religious liberties and freedom of association to dancing on the edge of morality imposition? Even if the RLAA had been tightened up, it still would have drawn tiresomely ignorant attacks like this, but that loosey-goosey-ness provides such collared leftists ammunition they otherwise would have to use against us. It's a useful reminder of why political discretion and PR awareness matters for conservataives: not out of fear of being called names, but the knowledge that low information voters will believe them. And ultimately, those are the votes that the Right needs to win elections.
I'll say it again, conservo-peeps: We don't get to make mistakes. We can't say and/or do stupid things if we ever want to have a chance to restore the Republic. And we cannot overreach.
I am more than a little surprised that the RLAA hasn't been injuncted yet, though. I wonder what the holdup is.