[The Urban Sombrero]

BTW, something else could stand a little sunlight here. Do you see how far those who, "have a form of Godliness but deny the power thereof," have taken Penn's term Freedom of Conscience? If went from glowing praises for Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior to, do whatever you think is right,† Where Penn would have all men to at least acknowledge an outward respect for the Creator, today's liberal keeps the title of his Act and dumps everything else in order to validate one of nature's most grievous sins, homosexuality.

† Proverbs 21:2 (KJV)
2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.

In this example it is easy to see the distortions and deceptions of the liberal historical revisionist at work.

God allowed choice. Consequence followed. The Constitution is not the Great White Throne judgment. To grant equal protection is not to validate. The adulterer who leaves one woman to marry another is granted equal protection. This does not validate adultery.

The four "dig points" do not offer the "open and shut case" scenario you present. Nuance matters.

Now, there may well be others who validate choices contrary to Scriptural teaching, suggesting one path is as good as another, and if a man act in his own belief that is enough, etc., but that is not the opinion I am offering.

To disagree with a person's beliefs, actions, choices but yet to defend the function of choice, of essential liberty, is not moral relativism.