When Inclusivity Becomes Exclusion: Rethinking the Ubiquity of the Pride Flag
HUGOS IN WESTHOLLYWOOD DECLARED FAMILY UNSAFE, DUE TO THE PRIDE FLAGS. THEY DONT HAVE CROSSES AND BIBLES OUT FOR CHRISTIAN HOLIDAYS, BUT A TONS OF PRIDE FLAGS WHICH ALIENATES ALL OF US CHIRSTIANS FROM WANTING TO EAT AT A PLACE THAT OPENLY HAS EVEN SATAN SUPPORTING FLAGS EVERYWHERE AND THIS IS ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN BELIEF THAT HOMESEXUALITY IS A SIN AND YOU BOAST YOUR ACCEPTANCE FOR IT YET AT THE SAME TIME HAVE NEVER HONORED CHRISTIANS WITH CROSSES AND BIBLES. WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU TO, WHAT WE ARE ASKING IS TO STOP SPITTING IN OUR FACE AND EXPECTING US TO DINE WITH YOU. YOU ARE WEAK AND CAVE TO THE GAYS, AN IMMORAL GROUP OF ANTI GOD PEOPLE IN NEED OF JESUS
When Inclusivity Becomes Exclusion: Rethinking the Ubiquity of the Pride Flag
In today’s culture, inclusivity has become a celebrated value—and rightfully so. A diverse and respectful society depends on the recognition and dignity of every individual. Yet, there is a troubling paradox emerging in the name of “inclusion”: sometimes, what is intended to include one group unintentionally excludes another.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the widespread and increasingly mandatory display of the LGBTQ+ pride flag in public and commercial spaces during Pride Month. From retail chains and schools to restaurants and government buildings, this symbol is flown with the declaration that “everyone is welcome here.” But is that really true? Or is this public messaging creating an unspoken double standard—welcoming some while dismissing the convictions of others?
For many Christians, the pride flag represents more than just a celebration of identity—it is a symbol that openly contradicts core spiritual beliefs. The Bible is clear in its teachings regarding human sexuality and morality, and for Christians who adhere to biblical doctrine, public displays promoting lifestyles that run counter to Scripture are deeply troubling. The pride flag, when flown with no acknowledgment of this conflict, effectively tells these individuals: your beliefs are not welcome here.
This isn’t about intolerance or bigotry—it’s about consistency and fairness. Imagine walking into a restaurant during the month of December and seeing crosses or Bible verses posted on every wall. For non-Christians, such displays might feel alienating, perhaps even offensive. And yet, Christians do not demand such visual validation in secular spaces. Their faith is internal, quietly practiced without expecting every coffee shop or diner to reflect their values.
This raises a crucial question: Why is one belief system promoted so publicly, while others are expected to remain invisible?
The pride flag, in theory, stands for love, dignity, and acceptance. But when its presence becomes omnipresent and unquestioned, and when its absence is interpreted as hostility, it transforms from a symbol of inclusion to a tool of division. It stops being a banner of diversity and becomes a banner of conformity—demanding allegiance or silence, even from those with sincere and respectful moral disagreements.
Inclusivity should never mean silencing or offending one group to affirm another. If society truly wants to be inclusive, it must consider how public expressions—especially those tied to moral or ideological beliefs—are perceived by all members of the community, not just those in the cultural spotlight.
This doesn’t mean banning the pride flag or promoting religious symbols in retaliation. It means recognizing the principle that true inclusivity is about neutrality in shared spaces. Public institutions, businesses, and restaurants should aim to create environments where all feel comfortable—not by showcasing every cause or creed, but by respecting the quiet dignity of difference.
If our goal is to live in harmony with one another, then we must remember that tolerance is a two-way street. Celebrating one group while inadvertently offending another is not progress. It’s a new kind of marginalization.
Let’s strive for a deeper, more thoughtful inclusivity—one that listens to every voice, even the ones that current culture is quickest to dismiss.
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” Excludes: A Christian or Jewish Perspective at Hugo’s in West Hollywood
