How exactly is discrimination defined, and what constitutes discrimination? These are questions that are not merely hypothetical or conjecture anymore, these are serious questions that every person must definitively answer.

The culture is currently trying to define the word discrimination for us and mandate certain actions and words as inherently discriminatory. For example, simply expressing a view of marriage that does not include homosexuals has now been labeled discriminatory. For this reason we can conclude that every person adhering to a biblical definition of marriage is a bigot.

Now, exactly how far that label extends remains to be seen. Will those advocating for marriage redefinition demand acceptance of polygamy, polyamory, and pedophilia? If they don’t, aren’t they guilty of the same discrimination they now accuse traditional marriage supporters of?

What about religious rights in the battle to define discrimination?

Many in America are vehemently opposed to ObamaCare because it forces them to violate their religious convictions and pay for abortion drugs and services in their insurance plans. Many small business owners and employers are suing the government to be exempt from the ObamaCare HHS mandate in order to live by their deeply held religious convictions. In a majority of the cases the employers are winning and not being forced to comply with the HHS mandate. In a few cases however, judges have decided that the religious convictions of the owners don’t matter nearly as much as compliance. Indeed, one judge actually uttered these words:

“…sometimes religious freedom has to yield to the greater good.”

I’m unclear of what greater good could exist beyond living in accordance with one’s religious convictions. But the chill resulting from these words is clear as the judge indicated that religious convictions could one day be brought into alignment with politically correct government policy.

I can’t help but wonder if business owners have a legitimate claim of religious discrimination for being forced to comply with a mandate that violates their faith. If religious freedom doesn’t exist in America, is any other freedom safe?

This also begs the question of whether or not a pastor fired from his church for performing a same-sex ceremony will file a discrimination claim. A recent article states:

The Rev. Ken Kline Smeltzer…[a] Pennsylvania-based faith leader in an interview with the Centre Daily News said he was terminated by his church for marrying two men back in August. Smeltzer declined to give the church’s name and said that ‘a few things have to play out’ before he can do so, but his confirmation will certainly spark some debate about the right of churches to hire and fire on these grounds.”

This presents a problem for churches. If same-sex “marriage” is legalized, it will be no doubt considered illegal to “discriminate” against homosexuals by refusing to perform a wedding ceremony. If that is the case churches will become the very real target of lawsuits by homosexuals seeking to be married. Will churches then lose the right to refuse to marry a couple on religious grounds? What about pastors that refuse to marry a divorced person on religious grounds? Or those that refuse to marry co-habiting couples on religious grounds.

It’s not just a slippery slope into marriage redefinition; it’s a slippery slope into the loss of religious freedom. If an action is deemed acceptable and any opposition to it is now considered discrimination, can there be a defense stronger than the discrimination claim?

At this point we have to answer no to the question. The fact that a photographer in New Mexico, florist in Washington, baker in Colorado and others are being sued for discrimination after refusing their services to homosexuals based on religious convictions says that claims of discrimination trump religious freedom. Imagine how much stronger the discrimination argument will be if homosexual marriage is redefined for all 50 states?

Another example comes from Azusa Pacific University in California where a female professor has been fired from the evangelical college for announcing her transition to being a man. It’s unclear at this time if a lawsuit is planned on the part of the fired professor, but one has to wonder whether such an action by a college or church will even be legal in a few years.

If certain lifestyles and actions are deemed legal and appropriate, and opposition to them is labeled discrimination, the religious freedom of others will be in jeopardy. Right now, thanks in part most recently to the Hosanna Tabor case, the government cannot interfere with a churches ability to hire and fire pastors based on their religious doctrine and convictions. However, such freedoms are in danger when the government begins deciding what is and is not discrimination.

The question now is, are we going to sit back and let those advocating for marriage redefinition drive the conversation? If we don’t care about our religious freedoms they will certainly be taken. If we do care, now is the time to engage in the conversation and explain the essential nature of religious freedoms to all other freedoms. Don’t let the government define discrimination or they will most certainly seek to define religious freedom as well.