If Jesus had a business, would be refuse service to a gay couple? If honestly giving an answer one would have extreme difficulty believing Christ would discriminate in that fashion. There is just a lack of compassion concerning discriminatory action of this type.
Another sign of a fractured America is the course taken by Arizona which allows business owners to discriminate against gays if there are religious objections. As a backlash against religious businesses in Oregon, Arizona, and elsewhere that refuse to service gays being sued, the remedy that Arizona decided is an example of the cure being far worse than the affliction.
It is quite simple to see the folly of opening up the can of proverbial worms and take an ill-advised knee jerk reaction to actually put a law on the books that approves discrimination against gays. Do not think for one second allowing business owners to withhold services from homosexuals for any reason would be approved by God? The Bible clearly rebukes showing favoritism to anyone.
This preoccupation with sexuality is creating an unhealthy focus, particularly when a law is created to deal with behavior instead of inalienable rights. The Defense of Marriage Act procedural discrimination against gay couples is a prime example of a bad idea being put in print.
Besides, the audacity of signaling out gays when heterosexual sin is running more rampant seems gratuitous and hypocritical. Removing the board from the accuser’s eye so they can assist the accused of removing a speck from their eye is quite appropriate.
There are more heterosexual sins in adultery than there are gays, so shall “religious” businesses stop serving those in adultery? What about the sin of fornication? Shall these pious religious Pharisees stop doing business with fornicators?
The absolutely ridiculous idea that the legislature in Arizona is putting a law on the books that Jim Crows gays is a travesty to the standards of those claiming Christianity. Why not put up a sign that says “no sinners served” and that would be that.
The backlash to gays bringing lawsuits to business with religious objections to serve gays extends far beyond having issues with putting same sex couples on a wedding cake. Extending legalized discrimination against gays from taking part in business transactions is gross injustice, a violation of right or duty which is the exact definition of iniquity.
Micro-managing is a tedious and aggravating enterprise, and we are now embarking into areas where people are trying to legislate their emotionalism. Changing the definition of marriage is one thing or being against same sex marriage. Although the dialogue to why the church is not for same sex marriage has really not been fairly presented, there is no question that allowing businesses to discriminate due to religious conscience is a poor way move forward. It is a move backward.
Gays should be extended all the Constitutional benefits anyone else has. Although many object to the term of “marriage” being given to same sex couples, it does not mean second class status should be given to the terms domestic partnerships or civil unions, but upgraded to reflect the marriage definition.
Forcing those to violate their religious conscience does not work with Obamacare nor should it include those that personally find it objectionable to have to substantiate somebody’s lifestyle. Merely putting a figurine of same sex couples on a cake is not validating anyone’s lifestyle. Forcing a business to offer abortion options when it is a real morally repugnant violation of conscience is quite another.
There are differences between civil and moral law, and attempting to restrict civil liberties because of an objection to someone’s lifestyle is a slippery slope that will be revisited again and again.
Targeting any group for discrimination is never a good idea.