true inclusivity must consider all perspectives Archives - Good Shepherd News - Fastest Growing Religious, Free Speech & Political Content https://goodshepherdmedia.net/tag/true-inclusivity-must-consider-all-perspectives/ Christian, Political, ‎‏‏‎Social & Legal Free Speech News | Ⓒ2024 Good News Media LLC | Shepherd for the Herd! God 1st Programming Wed, 18 Jun 2025 20:27:46 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.1 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Good-Shepherd-News-Logo-150x150.png true inclusivity must consider all perspectives Archives - Good Shepherd News - Fastest Growing Religious, Free Speech & Political Content https://goodshepherdmedia.net/tag/true-inclusivity-must-consider-all-perspectives/ 32 32 When “Inclusivity” Excludes: A Christian or Jewish Perspective at Hugo’s in West Hollywood https://goodshepherdmedia.net/when-inclusivity-excludes-a-christian-or-jewish-perspective-at-hugos-in-west-hollywood/ Wed, 18 Jun 2025 20:05:19 +0000 https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=20897 When “Inclusivity” Excludes: A Christian or Jewish Perspective at Hugo’s in West Hollywood

the unintended exclusivity that can arise when a symbol intended for inclusiveness instead alienates others.

true inclusivity must consider all perspectives, including those who may feel excluded by current cultural displays.

When “Inclusivity” Excludes: A Christian or Jewish Perspective at Hugo’s in West Hollywood

By Good Shepherd News Media Editorial

Walk into Hugo’s Restaurant in West Hollywood during Pride Month, and you’re immediately greeted with a sea of rainbow flags. The decor, the signage, even the uniforms in some cases—everywhere you look, there’s visual reinforcement of LGBTQ+ pride. The intended message is clear: You’re welcome here.

But what if you’re a Christian? Or a Jew? What if the very flags you’re surrounded by represent something deeply offensive—not just personally, but spiritually? What if what others call “inclusive” feels more like a moral provocation to you?

For observant Christians and Jews, both Scripture and tradition make clear that certain behaviors—particularly those celebrated during Pride Month—are not in alignment with God’s design. In fact, they are often considered sinful, even evil. This isn’t hate. It’s theology. It’s belief. It’s the moral compass that has guided millions for thousands of years. And yet, that belief is not just absent from this “inclusive” environment—it’s actively contradicted, mocked, and pushed aside.

A Christian man walks into Hugo’s for lunch. He simply wants to eat a meal. But now, everywhere he looks, he’s reminded—explicitly—that his convictions are not only unwelcome but are being visually trampled. This isn’t neutrality. This isn’t coexistence. This is a statement: Your religion is wrong. Your values are outdated. You’re in our space now.

Would Hugo’s ever consider filling its walls with crosses during Easter? Or putting the Ten Commandments on every table for Passover? Would a rainbow flag be joined by the Star of David or an image of the risen Christ? Of course not. Because the same culture that demands visibility and validation for one group insists on silence and subtlety from others.

HUGOS IN WESTHOLLYWOOD DECLARED FAMILY UNSAFE, DUE TO THE PRIDE FLAGS.

And that’s the paradox.

In the name of “welcoming everyone,” the restaurant has created an atmosphere where religious people—particularly Jews and Christians—are made to feel deeply uncomfortable. Their sacred beliefs are symbolically desecrated in the very place they’re expected to break bread.

This is not inclusion. This is coercion dressed up as compassion.

Inclusivity does not mean elevating one group’s identity at the expense of another’s beliefs. True inclusivity is neutral. It respects all by refraining from becoming a billboard for any ideology—especially in shared public or commercial spaces. It means creating an environment where no one feels pressured to endorse something they fundamentally disagree with, just to eat in peace.

And make no mistake—there’s a political element here too. The pride flag, while presented as harmless and loving, has become a loaded symbol. It carries not only messages of identity but of activism, politics, and often hostility toward traditional faiths. To many Christians and Jews, it’s not just a celebration—it’s an affront. Not because they hate, but because they have the right to hold convictions that differ without being shamed or shouted down.

When did public spaces become arenas for moral confrontation?

Isn’t the goal to coexist?

If Hugo’s truly wanted to be inclusive, it wouldn’t plaster its walls with any political or moral symbol—not rainbows, not crosses, not creeds. It would welcome everyone by refusing to force anyone’s beliefs onto its customers. That is how you respect diversity. That is how you practice true tolerance.

Until then, it’s fair to say: the loudest calls for inclusivity may be creating the most silent exclusions.

4. Romans 1:26–27

Paul describes what he calls the result of turning from God:

“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another…”
— Romans 1:26–27 (ESV)

5. 1 Corinthians 6:9–10

Paul lists sinful behaviors that exclude one from inheriting the kingdom of God:

“Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality… will inherit the kingdom of God.”
— 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 (ESV)

Some translations split the Greek words “malakoi” (effeminate) and “arsenokoitai” (men who lie with men).

6. 1 Timothy 1:9–10

Paul again includes homosexuality in a list of sins:

“…the law is not made for the righteous but for lawbreakers… for

HUGOS IN WESTHOLLYWOOD DECLARED FAMILY UNSAFE

8401 Santa Monica Blvd, West Hollywood, CA 90069
THIS IS PROGRAMMING FOR CHILDREN, ALL CHILDREN LOVE RAINBOWS, THE LGBTQ+ PEOPLE START EARLY ON THE PROGRAMMING

 

Bible Verses Addressing Homosexuality (Old and New Testaments)

Verse Text (ESV) Direct or Indirect? Original Terms Traditional Interpretation (Jewish & Christian)
Genesis 19:5 “And they called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.’”biblehub.com Indirect – describes attempted homosexual rape (Sodom). Hebrew yādaʿ (“to know”) as a euphemism for sexual relations. Jewish and Christian tradition long viewed Sodom’s sin as sexual perversion (among other sins). The men of Sodom desiring male visitors is seen as an example of homosexual behavior. Historically, Judaism emphasized Sodom’s cruelty and violation of hospitality, but later Jewish writers (Philo, Josephus) and mainstream Christianity interpreted the incident as a punishment for homosexual viceen.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org. The term “sodomy” for homosexual acts derives from this storyen.wikipedia.org.
Judges 19:22 “…they said to the old man, the master of the house, ‘Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him.’”biblehub.com Indirect – describes attempted homosexual rape (Gibeah). Hebrew yādaʿ (“know”) used as in Gen 19. This episode mirrors Sodom’s sin. An Israelite town’s men demand to sexually assault a male guest. Traditionally, it exemplifies gross immorality and violence. Christian commentators see it as condemning the same kind of “abomination” as Sodom, underscoring that such acts were considered wicked. Jewish tradition likewise decries the depravity on display (the story’s outrage leads to war in Israel). It’s an indirect reference, illustrating the perceived depravity of homosexual rape in ancient context.
Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”biblehub.com Direct – explicitly forbids male homosexual intercourse. Hebrew toʿēvah (תּוֹעֵבָה, “abomination”) – a detestable act; phrase “lie with a male as with a woman” (mishkevē ʾishshāh). In Judaism this is a direct commandment (No. 209 of 613) forbidding male homosexual acts. Traditional Jewish law (Halakha) treats it as a capital offense (under Torah law). It’s part of the Holiness Code distinguishing Israel from Canaanite practicesen.wikipedia.org. Christian tradition likewise has viewed this as a permanent moral law against homosexual actscatholic.com. The strong term toʿēvah (“abomination”) underscores the gravity of the sin, reserved for serious sexual offenses and idolatry. Thus, both Jews and Christians historically understand this verse as a clear condemnation of homosexual conduct.
Leviticus 20:13 “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”biblehub.com Direct – explicitly forbids male homosexual intercourse (with a death penalty in the Law). Hebrew toʿēvah (“abomination”); same phrasing as Lev 18:22 (male–with–male “lying”). In the traditional Jewish context, this reiterates the prohibition of male homosexual acts, adding the penalty of death (though rabbinic courts rarely enforced such executions). It reinforced that such acts were among the most serious sexual sins under the Law. Christian interpreters have similarly seen this as evidence of God’s moral law against homosexuality. Though Christians do not enforce the death penalty, they view the act as gravely sinful. The reference to “their blood is upon them” indicates moral responsibility. Historically, the Church taught that these Old Testament laws reflect God’s design for sexuality (fulfilled in Christ but still indicative of sin)catholic.comcatholic.com.
Deuteronomy 23:17 “None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, and none of the sons of Israel shall be a cult prostitute.”esv.org Indirect – forbids cult prostitution, which often involved homosexual acts. Hebrew qĕdēshāh (female) and qādēsh (male) – shrine prostitutes dedicated to pagan godsbiblehub.com. KJV uses “sodomite” for qādēsh. Jewish tradition: This law forbids ritual sexual services in idol worship. Male cult prostitutes (often engaged in homosexual acts as worship) were banned among Israel. The Hebrew term literally means “holy/consecrated one,” ironically referring to those prostituting themselves in pagan templesbiblehub.com. Christian commentators note that such practices were “abominations” linked to idolatrybiblehub.com. By calling them “sodomites” (KJV), tradition linked their behavior to Sodom’s sin. Both Jewish and Christian expositors see this as an indirect condemnation of homosexual acts, especially in a religious context – it “dishonored God” and thus God forbade itbiblehub.com.
1 Kings 14:24 “and there were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations that the LORD drove out before the people of Israel.”esv.literalword.com Indirect – notes sodomy/idolatry in Judah under Rehoboam. Hebrew qādēsh – male shrine prostitute (rendered “sodomite” in KJV)biblehub.com. Describes a period when Judah imitated Canaanite practices. Traditionally, these “male cult prostitutes” engaged in homosexual acts as part of idol worship. Their presence is portrayed as the height of moral corruption, “the abominations of the nations”biblehub.combiblehub.com. Jewish writers and Church commentators have viewed this as evidence of how far Israel fell into depravity. The term “sodomite” was used (KJV) linking their behavior to Sodom’s sin. Removal of these prostitutes was seen as necessary for religious reform (as later kings did). Thus, indirectly, the verse condemns the tolerated homosexual practices associated with pagan religion.
1 Kings 15:12 “He (King Asa) put away the male cult prostitutes out of the land and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.”biblehub.com Indirect – recounts ending of homosexual cult practices. Hebrew qādēsh – male cult prostitute. Asa, a righteous king, expelling qĕdēshim (male prostitutes) is interpreted as a purge of immoral pagan worship. Jewish and Christian interpretation: Asa’s reforms were pleasing to God, suggesting such practices were abhorrent. Early commentators note these prostitutes were involved in “unnatural lusts” as part of idol worshipbiblehub.com. Removing them fulfilled Deut 23:17’s lawbiblehub.com. Thus the verse indirectly highlights that homosexual acts (especially in pagan rites) were considered a grave sin to be cleansed from the land.
1 Kings 22:46 “And from the land he (Jehoshaphat) exterminated the remnant of the male cult prostitutes who remained in the days of his father Asa.”esv.org Indirect – ending of remaining homosexual cult practices. Hebrew qādēsh – male cult prostitute. This notes King Jehoshaphat finished what Asa began, eliminating remaining qādēshim. Traditionally, this is further evidence of faithful kings removing sinful practices. It underscores that any tolerated male-to-male sexual prostitution (a form of sodomy in idol worship) was unacceptable in a godly society. Both Jewish historians and Church commentators see this as zeal against sexual immorality and idolatry. It indirectly reaffirms the condemnation of homosexual acts tied to pagan cults.
2 Kings 23:7 “[Josiah] broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes who were in the house of the LORD…”bibleref.com Indirect – abolishes homosexual cult practice within the Temple precincts. Hebrew qādēsh – male shrine prostitute; their quarters (bāttīm, “houses”). King Josiah’s reform targeted even the Temple-adjacent cult brothels. In Jewish thought, this was purging a great sacrilege – idolatrous prostitution (including homosexual acts) right inside the holy citybiblehub.com. Christian commentators likewise laud Josiah for destroying these “houses of sodomites,” seeing it as eradicating a particularly offensive sin. The verse shows how such homosexual prostitution was firmly condemned when Israel returned to covenant faithfulness. It illustrates an indirect but strong biblical censure of homosexual acts, especially in worship contexts, by highlighting their removal as necessary for religious purity.
Matthew 19:4–5 “He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”?’”esv.org Indirect – affirms only heterosexual marriage as God’s design. Greek ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ (arsen kai thēly, “male and female”); quotes Gen 1:27, 2:24. Jesus reaffirms that marriage, from Creation, is between a male and a female becoming “one flesh.” Traditional Christian interpretation: By defining marriage in exclusively heterosexual terms, Jesus implicitly rejects homosexual unions as outside God’s intent. The Church Fathers and most denominations taught that here Christ upholds the Genesis model of male-female marriagegotquestions.org. While not explicitly mentioning homosexuality, it’s taken as an indirect reference that any other sexual union (homosexual included) is against the created order. In Judaism, Genesis was also read as prescriptive: “male and female” implies the natural pair for marriage, excluding same-sex relations.
Romans 1:26–27 “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”biblehub.combiblehub.com Direct – explicitly describes female and male same-sex relations as “unnatural” and shameful. Greek para phusin (“contrary to nature”)en.wikipedia.org; “shameless acts” (Greek aschēmosynē). Implies lesbian relations (v.26) and male homosexual acts (v.27). Christian tradition: This passage has long been understood as a blanket condemnation of homosexual acts by both women and men. Early Church fathers like Clement of Alexandria and John Chrysostom explicitly taught it refers to lesbian and homosexual male behavioren.wikipedia.org. Paul describes such acts as “against nature,” which Augustine and later theologians agreed meant against natural designen.wikipedia.org. Historically, churches of nearly all denominations taught that Romans 1 confirms the sinfulness of homosexualityen.wikipedia.org. It’s often cited as the clearest New Testament rejection of same-sex intercourse. (Jewish writers of Paul’s era likewise condemned Gentile homosexual behavior as immoral, aligning with this view.) Modern debates aside, traditionally these verses exemplify that homosexual lusts and acts result from turning away from God, and carry inherent consequences.
1 Corinthians 6:9–10 “Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”dailyverses.net Direct – explicitly includes homosexual offenders in list of sins. Greek μαλακοί (malakoi) and ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai) – translated in ESV together as “men who practice homosexuality.” Malakoi = “soft” (i.e. effeminate or passive partner); arsenokoitai = “male-bedder,” referring to male engaging in intercourse with malesen.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org. Christian interpretation: Traditionally, the Church taught that this passage clearly condemns all homosexual practice. The two Greek terms are understood as encompassing the passive and active partners in male homosexual actsen.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org. For example, the NKJV explicitly renders them “homosexuals” and “sodomites”dailyverses.net. Early Christians (e.g., St. John Chrysostom) commented on this verse as denouncing homosexual behavior. The term arsenokoitai is significant – likely coined by Paul from Leviticus’ prohibition (“arsen” = male, “koite” = bed)en.wikipedia.org. In Jewish context, such acts were already forbidden; Paul here warns that unrepentant practitioners cut themselves off from God’s Kingdom. Both Jewish law and historic Christianity thus align in viewing homosexual acts as serious sin, and this verse was a key “clobber passage” affirming that stance.
1 Timothy 1:10 “…the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.”bibleref.com Direct – explicitly includes homosexual offenders in list of sins. Greek ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai) – here in plural (often translated “sodomites” or “those who defile themselves with mankind”). Paul again uses arsenokoitai in listing lawless behaviors. Traditionally, Christian exegesis has taken this as further evidence of biblical condemnation of homosexual acts. It appears alongside other grave sins, implying it violates God’s moral law (“contrary to sound doctrine”). Early church canons and writers consistently understood arsenokoitai to denote male same-sex intercourseen.wikipedia.org. (Notably, some ancient usage extended it to any unnatural sexual acten.wikipedia.org, but mainstream interpretation remained specific to homosexualityen.wikipedia.org.) In Jewish teaching, homosexual relations were already illegal; Paul (a Pharisee) reflects that moral view to a Gentile context. Thus, in both traditions this verse bolsters the view that homosexual conduct is sin.
Jude 1:7 “…just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”biblehub.com Indirect – recalls Sodom’s sexual sin (implied to be homosexual acts and other perversion). Greek ekporneusasai (“indulged in sexual immorality”) and σαρκὸς ἑτέρας (sarkos heteras) – “other/strange flesh” (unnatural lust)en.wikipedia.org. Christian tradition: Jude links Sodom’s fate to sexual immorality and “strange flesh.” Many Church Fathers read this as homosexuality (men lusting after male angels or against nature)en.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org. Some interpreters say “other flesh” could mean desiring angelic beings, but the dominant view, reflected in classic teachings, is that it includes the unnatural same-sex lust of the Sodomites. Thus Jude reinforces that Sodom’s example (“suffering the vengeance of eternal fire”) warns against homosexual vice. Jewish interpretation of “strange flesh” varies – some ancient Jewish sources also saw Sodom’s sin as sexual (heterosexual or homosexual excess)en.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org. Overall, in traditional doctrine, this verse cements that Sodom’s destruction was at least in part due to homosexual immorality, set forth as a sobering example.
2 Peter 2:6–7 “…if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he… made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked…”esv.orgbiblehub.com Indirect – recalls Sodom’s destruction and its depraved lifestyle (implying sexual sin). “Sensual conduct” translates Greek aselgeia – unbridled lust, licentious behavior. Christian commentators note that Peter cites Sodom’s annihilation as a warning to the ungodly. “Sensual conduct of the wicked” is traditionally understood to include sexual perversion (the lustful, unnatural behavior of Sodom’s people that tormented Lot). While not explicitly naming homosexuality, it alludes to it by referencing Sodom’s story. The Church historically has taught that Sodom’s chief crimes were sexual immorality against nature and pride – hence God’s severe judgmentbiblehub.com. In Jewish lore, Sodom’s wickedness included arrogance and cruel sin, but their “abomination” (Ezek. 16:50) was often interpreted to include sexual depravity. Thus, Peter’s reminder has been read as indirectly condemning the homosexual vices of Sodom and affirming that such behavior incurs God’s wrath.

Sources: Biblical texts are from the English Standard Version (ESV) unless otherwise noted. Traditional interpretations are summarized from Jewish Talmudic commentary and mainstream Christian exegesis and catechesisen.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org, supported by historical writings and modern biblical scholarship.

 

When Inclusivity Becomes Exclusion: Rethinking the Ubiquity of the Pride Flag

When Inclusion Becomes Exclusion: A Christian and Jewish Reflection on the Pride Flag in Public Spaces

]]>