Brave and Surprising Voices for Justice

I’m always impressed by people who despite feeling strongly about certain moral issues, will stick up for their opponents if they see them suffering injustice. A couple of recent examples:

Specimen A: I’ve Changed My Mind on The Gay Cake Row by Peter Tatchell.

Peter Tatchell is the most extreme homosexual activist in the UK. Over the years he has worked 24/7 to promote homosexuality, gay marriage, gay adoption, and gay rights no matter how many Christians suffered in the process. He has furiously persecuted every Christian business that has refused to supply services to gay couples – wedding cakes, wedding bouquets, B&B, etc. But now he’s changed his tune:

Like most gay and equality campaigners, I initially condemned the Christian-run Ashers Bakery in Belfast over its refusal to produce a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan for a gay customer, Gareth Lee. I supported his legal claim against Ashers and the subsequent verdict – the bakery was found guilty of discrimination last year. Now, two days before the case goes to appeal, I have changed my mind. Much as I wish to defend the gay community, I also want to defend freedom of conscience, expression and religion.

His reasoning as follows:

The judge concluded that service providers are required to facilitate any “lawful” message, even if they have a conscientious objection. This raises the question: should Muslim printers be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed? Or Jewish ones publish the words of a Holocaust denier? Or gay bakers accept orders for cakes with homophobic slurs? If the Ashers verdict stands it could, for example, encourage far-right extremists to demand that bakeries and other service providers facilitate the promotion of anti-migrant and anti-Muslim opinions. It would leave businesses unable to refuse to decorate cakes or print posters with bigoted messages.

In my view, it is an infringement of freedom to require businesses to aid the promotion of ideas to which they conscientiously object. Discrimination against people should be unlawful, but not against ideas.

Read the rest here.

Specimen B: Should Planned Parenthood Outcome Chill Journalists?

This article concerns the prosecution of the two pro-life activists who created the videos that led to a grand jury investigation into Planned Parenthood’s selling of baby body parts. Most pro-choicers celebrated this turning of the tables, but two brave pro-choice professors have raised their voices in protest. They say:

We are pro-choice, and we support the important work of Planned Parenthood, but we find the prosecution of these citizen journalists, however self-styled, deeply disturbing.

They are deeply concerned that this prosecution will chill investigative reporting and deter whistleblowers. They conclude:

To reiterate, we decry the national campaign of defamation that Daleiden and his political allies have unleashed against Planned Parenthood. But we also oppose efforts to criminalize undercover investigations, regardless of the investigators’ ultimate motives.

I salute the courage of these voices, thank God for evidence of His common grace still at work in the world, and hope all Christians would similarly defend the rights of their enemies if the time ever came when they were victims of injustice.