As usual, the author wants to nuance the issue to death.
Her argument is that Christians seem to have little interest in this level of analysis and jump right to complaints about their legal and constitutional rights.
She argues that Christians wrestling with this issue must first resolve the primary issue of whether the Bible calls Christians to deny services to people who are engaging in behavior they believe violates the teachings of Christianity regarding marriage.
And her conclusion of course is .... IT DOES NOT.
WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED !!
As usual, the author wants to nuance the issue to death.
Her argument is that Christians seem to have little interest in this level of analysis and jump right to complaints about their legal and constitutional rights.
She argues that Christians wrestling with this issue must first resolve the primary issue of whether the Bible calls Christians to deny services to people who are engaging in behavior they believe violates the teachings of Christianity regarding marriage.
And her conclusion of course is .... IT DOES NOT.
WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED !!
What a bald faced lie.
I’m no biblical scholar and can’t quote scripture but I seem to remember that Jesus did not take kindly to some money changers and merchants who were trading in sacrificial animals.
Frankly, I don’t think how you can nuance “man shall not lie down with another man.”
Sold. Where do I sign?
(Especially hotels. Yuck.)
One basic tenet of freedom is that you can’t be forced to work for someone against your will.
However, there are specific verses that make it quite clear that just because a couple says they are divorced, or even if the state and their "church" say the are divorced, does not necessarily mean they are divorced in the eyes of God.
Any subsequent marriage on the part of either of the parties of a false divorce would constitute bigamy. One would think that Christian wedding service vendors would at least seek not to supply services to bigamists.
We worry that polygamy will be the next wall to be breached in the culture war, but maybe that wall got breached decades ago.
If none of Elizabeth Taylor's divorces was a proper one, isn't it the case that she was a polygamist? Ditto for everyone else married several times with only bogus divorces intervening between the marriages.
Were any of Taylor's photos, cakes, reception facilities, flowers, etc. provided by Christian businesses?
Let’s hope Jan Brewer doesn’t cave and signs the bill. I always thought she was pretty strong - this will tell.
“This is why the first line of analysis here has to be whether society really believes that baking a wedding cake or arranging flowers or taking pictures (or providing any other service) is an affirmation. This case simply has not been made, nor can it be, because it defies logic. If you lined up 100 married couples and asked them if their florist “affirmed” their wedding, they would be baffled by the question.”
There is a qualitative difference, and it resides NOT in any general difference between “one couple” and “another couple”, GENERALLY - the typical case between various “married couples” - but it the foundational meaning of “marriage”. With heterosexual couples for whom their is neither a historical, foundational or moral question about “marriage”, a baker’s, or photographer’s actions neither affirm, or do not affirm their marriage, but the baker’s or photographer’s actions DO affirm acceptance of the definition of marriage as represented by the couple. That is not the case, for many religious people, when it comes to a “same-sex” marriage. They do not, in their beliefs, affirm the very foundational redefinition of marriage presented by a “same-sex marriage”, nor should they have to take actions that pretend that they do.
Freedom of Association implies the freedom not to associate, we don’t even need to bring religion into it
I frankly feel a business owner should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason they choose.
But that’s just me.
If the baker doesn’t have the right to refuse, does he have the right to do a shoddy job? Would the court find the baker guilty above the price paid for the cake if the quality doesn’t meet the patrons standards. Or do we all lose our businesses because the activists insist on patronizing us to their expectations?
Funny, posting the Ten Commandments on a wall constitutes an Endorsement even if it was put there 50 years ago... Yet they seem to want a different standard here.
“also been introduced in Ohio, Mississippi, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Oklahoma.”
Where’s Utah and Alabama? Let’s get these on the books in every red state.
Sorry, Kirsten, but if I run a photography business, there’s no way on God’s green earth that I am going to be a hypocrite and snap pictures of two men or two women as if it’s acceptable.
Frankly, when I see two people of the same sex acting like they’re a couple, it makes me a little sick to my stomach. I should not be forced to partake.
The Christians who have been threatened, sued, prosecuted, had business licenses suspended and other harassments HAVE SAID they would be willing to perform the service for an individual but not for homosexual marriage or for sleeping together.
The innkeeper in Hawaii would not rent a room to homosexuals because it violated their faith. I agree, faith in God would not allow in good conscience to rent a bed to a couple that is same-sex nor would it allow to rent a bed to a couple that are unmarried.
Homosexuals can steer clear of Christian businesses or Jewish businesses. They have plenty of secular businesses to contract with. They are only interested in equating themselves with the Black civil rights movement.
Businesses need only post a Christian or Jewish symbol to let homosexuals know not to ask for services that promote homosexuality or to let heterosexual unmarried couples know not to ask for services that promote fornication.
Whether one thinks this is backwards or discriminatory is not the issue, it is a line drawn in the sand that certain behaviors are not tolerated on the premises by reason of religious belief.
Homosexuals and prostitutes can find secular businesses to carry on their activities. There is no need to allow them to infringe on the rights of the faithful.
(This is why the first line of analysis here has to be whether society really believes that baking a wedding cake or arranging flowers or taking pictures (or providing any other service) is an affirmation. er)
What else is it? The person (baker photog etc.) would not be there of their own accord. They would only be there because they are forced by the Government.
Jesus never helped a sinner sin and neither should Christians.
This is either the home the brave and the land of the free, or it is not. If I have a business and do not wish to serve someone for whatever reason, that, in my opinion, ends the matter, period.